Support NeoGAF

[Jenov]

And keeping that in mind, what's the point about raging how Muslims should just take it? What's the end game in that, permanent hostilities? Nobody wins like that.

Being past pitchforks means leaving them in the shed even if there's a terror attack. The correct answer is to deal with the attackers and continue bridging differences.

Uh what? I'm not out gathering radical GAF posters to put out a hit on Megalosaro for his opinion, as disagreeable as I find it. The pitchfork is firmly in the shed here. It's just a pity other people can't seem to do the same and prefer to actually kill others over their written or drawn opinions.

 

[jakonovski]

............wat?

What exactly do you mean here? Are you saying that everyone should just be OK with Extremist muslims acting out with violence against free speech?

or are you saying that we should be OK with muslim organizations supporting the acts of people who act out in violence?

Why did you choose to ignore the second paragraph where I spelled out what we should do? You even quoted it, so you must have read it.

I also asked "what's the point?" I can understand venting, but I think it's reasonable to hope that most would get past the immediate anger phase by now.

 

[pgtl_10]

RELIGION OF PEACE

This is so fucking shameful and ignorant I can't believe it

There was no violence committed here.

 

[Arials]

He may not have been murdered this year, but giving Maajid Nawaz (a fairly prominent liberal/moderate Muslim in the UK media who runs a counter-extremist think tank) their "UK islamophobe of the year award" also ranks very highly on the WTF scale.

I wonder how long this organization would stand up to scrutiny if the mainstream media took notice of them (ala CAGE).

 

[xbhaskarx]

Deport these idiots to ISIS territory.

 

[Griss]

Disgusting behavior. The comments from the IHRC chairman are equally disgusting. These people just don't 'get it'. The idea that this award is 'satire' in any way is ludicrous.

Fair imho. What Charlie Hebdo was pushing transcends criticism and was pure hate speech. It is disgusting they are being martyrized. There is a saying that says talk shit get hit that applies here.

Not saying the terrorists that did this were justified. Far from it. They deserve their punishment 150% for what they did. But with what Charlie was publishing, you can't really be surprised

Should be banworthy imo.

Also, Marrec's distractionary tactics of blaming one of the news sources and funneling all discussion through that from the first post on are equally disgusting. Made the thread very confusing at first, and obviously intentionally so. I mean, it was clear as day that this award happened if you did some research - details of the ceremony was on their bloody website and they made a statement. But no, it's all the right wing media stirring up trouble.

As always, rest in peace to the victims of this horrific mass murder.

 

[pgtl_10]

In my opinion, this is a really stupid award, especially when it's given to people who are dead. If you're going to spread Islam in a positive light, then labelling and mocking Islamaphobes is probably not the best start. That said, they have every right to give this award to whoever they want. Don't know why people are getting angry over it.

No one calling for them to be censored.

 

[jakonovski]

Uh what? I'm not out gathering radical GAF posters to put out a hit on Megalosaro for his opinion, as disagreeable as I find it. The pitchfork is firmly in the shed here. It's just a pity other people can't seem to do the same and prefer to actually kill others over their written or drawn opinions.

It's fine to lament the state of things, but there's a whole lot of people like xbhaskarx in our societies still.

 

[marrec]

Also, Marrec's distractionary tactics of blaming one of the news sources and funneling all discussion through that from the first post on are equally disgusting. Made the thread very confusing at first, and obviously intentionally so. I mean, it was clear as day that this award happened if you did some research - details of the ceremony was on their bloody website and they made a statement. But no, it's all the right wing media stirring up trouble.

As always, rest in peace to the victims of this horrific mass murder.

Simply wanted to point out exactly what Breitbart hoped to achieve by reporting on the story as they did, without actually talking to anyone from the IHRC or giving any context for the award.

Breitbart is a tabloid at best and a hate-filled piece of shit at worst whose motives should, at all times, be questioned. The Newsweek article in regards to this "award" is much less loaded with anti-islamic agenda. The IHRC's motives are equally suspect, of course, but this report by Breitbart is intentionally obfuscating facts in order to push a specific agenda.

 

[Addi]

There are many, many liberals who are simply incapable of condemning or criticizing any vile and disgusting acts perpetuated by an organization so long as the organization belongs to an "oppressed" minority group. It's sad and I've never understood it myself, but it's not surprising at this point.

It's especially ironic considering Charlie Hebdo themselves were extremely liberal. A lot of people I have talked to seemed to think they were far-right... That's the problem with media and internet today, shit is taken out of context so easily. Also, I don't even know where to start with Megalosaro's posts, smh. Again, as I have pointed out in an other Hebdo thread, of 52 magazines last year, only one had Mohammed on the cover. They messed with EVERYONE.

 

[Dali]

You "otherize" yourself by not accepting the fact that not everyone thinks Muhammad pooped potpourri and is above being mocked.

 

[Terra Firma]

What is it with the "RELIGION OF PEACE" outrage? There was no violence involved here.

They are decrying the fact that Charlie Hebdo was undeniably hostile against Islamic beliefs, regardless of the fact that many of its cartoonists were murdered. It may be in poor taste BECAUSE they were murdered, but it is not condoning violence.

So any time Muslims don't share the same opinion with you, regardless of whether violence was involved or not, you are going to make the same condescending "RELIGION OF PEACE" remark? Ignored.

 

[Jb]

in much the same way that Jews were in Nazi Germany.”

And the award to worst comparison of the year goes too....

Are muslim shops being boycotted by the states? Are they forbidden by law to be part of governments? Of the Army? Of having sex with non-muslims? That they were by law second rate citizens?

Dumbasses.

They are decrying the fact that Charlie Hebdo was undeniably hostile against Islamic beliefs, regardless of the fact that many of its cartoonists were murdered. It may be in poor taste BECAUSE they were murdered, but it is not condoning violence..

They were hostile to ALL religions, maybe much more aggressive towards the Vatican than radical islamists. You literally don't know what you're talking about.

 

[Griss]

Simply wanted to point out exactly what Breitbart hoped to achieve by reporting on the story as they did, without actually talking to anyone from the IHRC or giving any context for the award.

Breitbart is a tabloid at best and a hate-filled piece of shit at worst whose motives should, at all times, be questioned. The Newsweek article in regards to this "award" is much less loaded with anti-islamic agenda. The IHRC's motives are equally suspect, of course, but this report by Breitbart is intentionally obfuscating facts in order to push a specific agenda.

All of that might be true (I don't know), but as the original post to this topic it showed a shocking lack of empathy with the murdered people and failed to address the issue at hand - that IHRC thought that this was a good idea, and that the UK Islamic public overwhelmingly voted this way.

 

[Terra Firma]

And the award to worst comparison of the year goes too....

Are muslim shops being boycotted by the states? Are they forbidden by law to be part of governments? Of the Army? Of having sex with non-muslims? That they were by law second rate citizens?

Dumbasses.



They were hostile to ALL religions, maybe much more aggressive towards the Vatican than radical islamists. You litterally don't know what you're talking about.

You apparently lack reading comprehension.

 

[Sho_Nuff82]

Staff at Charlie Hebdo were unable to accept the award as many of them had been murdered for mocking Mohammed.

Can you really consider the Hebdo writer's fear of radical Muslims a "phobia" since their fears were quite rational and (sadly) justified? Words have meaning, and I think they're using this one wrong. Maybe it's my Western sensibilities talking, but I don't think poking fun at anyone who would happily commit violence over their religion makes you "irrationally fearful." These people do exist and they will factually fucking kill you if they get the opportunity.

 

[Jenov]

It's fine to lament the state of things, but there's a whole lot of people like xbhaskarx in our societies still.

Deporting is preferable to killing... so it's an improvement.

 

[-COOLIO-]

And there goes their credibility.

 

[marrec]

All of that might be true (I don't know), but as the original post to this topic it showed a shocking lack of empathy with the murdered people and failed to address the issue at hand - that IHRC thought that this was a good idea, and that the UK Islamic public overwhelmingly voted this way.

It's shockingly distasteful, but not completely outside of the idea of satire that Hebdo is so popular for.

Trying to link this award to the idea that the IHRC or the islamic public in general condones the vicious attacks and killings? That's misguided or, in Breitbarts case, insidious.

 

[lord quas]

Fair imho. What Charlie Hebdo was pushing transcends criticism and was pure hate speech. It is disgusting they are being martyrized. There is a saying that says talk shit get hit that applies here.

Not saying the terrorists that did this were justified. Far from it. They deserve their punishment 150% for what they did. But with what Charlie was publishing, you can't really be surprised

I just wanted to let you know that you're a fundamentally terrible human being.

 

[Jb]

You apparently lack reading comprehension.

If you say so. You seem very intelligent, informed and knowledgeable about what CH is and was.

 

[Squirrel Killer]

These "awards" are clearly not meant to be anything more than a way to skewer those their readership doesn't agree with. Last year Barack Obama won, for example.

Guys, guys, guys... come on, it's just a joke. Have you heard the one about...nah, I can't do it, I've got to break character.

However, as a free speech advocate, I hope the UK will support the right of this bunch of idiots to mock those that died at the hands of terrorists. Just as I hope it would support my right to mock those idiots if I happened to be in the UK.

 

[CrimzonSamurai]

You apparently lack reading comprehension.

In what nation are muslims second class citizens by law?

 

[shamanick]

It's shockingly distasteful, but not completely outside of the idea of satire that Hebdo is so popular for.

Trying to link this award to the idea that the IHRC or the islamic public in general condones the vicious attacks and killings? That's misguided or, in Breitbarts case, insidious.

I honestly can't see how you can disassociate this award from the murders at CH. By condemning victims for blasphemy and "Islamophobia" the IHRC, and the voters for this award, absolutely aligned themselves with the terrorists.

 

[Terra Firma]

If you say so. You seem very intelligent, informed and knowledgeable about what CH is and was.

You seem to think I was saying that CH was exclusively anti-Islamic. Godwin's Law and all that, but would it be unfair to say that Hitler was antisemitic, when he was also homophobic, anti-Jews, anti-Slavs, anti-Romani, etc.?

So, yes, you do lack reading comprehension.

In what nation are muslims second class citizens by law?

What are you talking about? I'm responding to his response to me.

 

[RedRooster]

So them acting like monsters because of something trivial like religion at this point is something that shouldn't surprise?

"Them" being a small but dangerous sect of the religion? Pretty much.
Why risk it? No matter what beliefs you stand for. Going home to your family is more important than any social commentary, I would think?

 

[kittoo]

If you are an islamapbobe who got murdered by Muslims for publishing cartoons then perhaps your phobia was justified.

Absolutely succinct and true.
I absolutely fail to see how the irony escapes non-Muslims. I mean, look at this-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0X7Cwl8QlUU

Jihadi John was a beautiful, gentle boy, and British system made him the man he became, says Cage director Asim Qureshi. What is Cage? Its a Muslim rights group. Oh and not to mention, he refuses to condemn female stoning.
Always blaming their ills on others. No introspection. Blatant lies. I cant comprehend how others dont see it.

 

[CrimzonSamurai]

What are you talking about? I'm responding to his response to me.

Ah, I thought you bolded the "by law" part.

Never mind.

 

[Miles Quaritch]

This is no different to those who were protesting against Hebdo some weeks ago.

It comes under free speech and freedom of expression. It might not be tasteful and might actually be rather infuriating, but if you agree that free speech is an absolute and should never be policed or limited in any way, guess there's no option but to put up with crap like this...

 

[M0nochromatic]

The biggest enemy of Islam is those who kill others for depicting Mohammed. As always with this discussion, Charlie Hebdo is accused of irrational hate speech that is founded on emotion, can anyone actually show Charlie Hebdo publicatated works that match the above discription? Most of what I've seen from Charlie Hebdo touches on valid issues with all religions, not just Islam.

 

[shamanick]

This is no different to those who were protesting against Hebdo some weeks ago.

It comes under free speech and freedom of expression. It might not be tasteful and might actually be rather infuriating, but if you agree that free speech is an absolute and should never be policed or limited in any way, guess there's no option but to put up with crap like this...

Absolutely true, and it's also others' freedom to absolutely condemn that speech. No one at IHRC will be murdered for this.

 

[bathsalts]

Why risk it? No matter what beliefs you stand for. Going home to your family is more important than any social commentary, I would think?

Luckily for civilization there are people brave enough to not have this stance.

 

[CrimzonSamurai]

"Them" being a small but dangerous sect of the religion? Pretty much.
Why risk it? No matter what beliefs you stand for. Going home to your family is more important than any social commentary, I would think?

Small by percentage, not raw number. 10% of 1.6 billion is still 160 million. Not to mention there would have never been any advances in things like civil rights or democratization if people weren't brave enough to speak truth to power at their own risk.

This is no different to those who were protesting against Hebdo some weeks ago.

It comes under free speech and freedom of expression. It might not be tasteful and might actually be rather infuriating, but if you agree that free speech is an absolute and should never be policed or limited in any way, guess there's no option but to put up with crap like this...

I agree, I don't think that IHRC should be held liable or subject to violence or threats thereof over this. But if your goal is to reduce anti-Islamic sentiment, then this is a really counter productive way to go about it. By all means, though, they're allowed to say it freely.

 

[marrec]

I honestly can't see how you can disassociate this award from the murders at CH. By condemning victims for blasphemy and "Islamophobia" the IHRC, and the voters for this award, absolutely aligned themselves with the terrorists.

I think it can be much more nuanced than that and shows that the general islamic public (or at least those who voted on these "awards") are capable of expressing their distaste for the cartoons without resorting to violence or barbaric means, marking them firmly outside the realm of your everyday radical or terrorist.

I agree, I don't think that IHRC should be held liable or subject to violence or threats thereof over this. But if your goal is to reduce anti-Islamic sentiment, then this is a really counter productive way to go about it. By all means, though, they're allowed to say it freely.

Absolutely true. Rather counter-intuitive on their part to even allow this vote to go forward despite any slight irony that would occur from stopping it.

 

[RedRooster]

Luckily for civilization there are people brave enough to not have this stance.

Fair enough, but terrorism isn't a human rights type issue that people SHOULD care about and fight against for the future benefit of humanity(I speak of terrorism only, not the abhorrent things that go on in their own countries). It's like a jail full of Batman criminals escaped and have access to anything they want. They'll never be caught or apprehended, who do you even target to try and solve this problem without dragging the religion in general into the fracas?

 

[shamanick]

I think it can be much more nuanced than that and shows that the general islamic public (or at least those who voted on these "awards") are capable of expressing their distaste for the cartoons without resorting to violence or barbaric means, marking them firmly outside the realm of your everyday radical or terrorist.

I agree, it is nuanced. They are supporting the actions of terrorists without outright stating they do. They could have chosen any number of "blasphemous" media but they picked CH.

 

[Stinkles]

Sadly, poll after poll, in country after country shows that frightening majorities of Muslims believe that Blasphemy should in fact be punishable by death. I'm not sure how we can as a world society, accelerate the modernization of that thinking.

 

[Miles Quaritch]

Absolutely true, and it's also others' freedom to absolutely condemn that speech. No one at IHRC will be murdered for this.

Yup. I support their right to hold these awards, just as I support those who protested in London, but I'll voice my utter disgust of the awards and how short sighted and stupid it is considering such an award will only anger and inflame tensions and increase the exact same thing they claim they are trying to fight against.

Take about cutting off your nose to spite your face.

I agree, I don't think that IHRC should be held liable or subject to violence or threats thereof over this. But if your goal is to reduce anti-Islamic sentiment, then this is a really counter productive way to go about it. By all means, though, they're allowed to say it freely.

Pretty much, it's a very stupid to even consider giving the award to Hebdo. I really don't understand what the hell the point is.

 

[AkuMifune]

Sadly, poll after poll, in country after country shows that frightening majorities of Muslims believe that Blasphemy should in fact be punishable by death. I'm not sure how we can as a world society, accelerate the modernization of that thinking.

We have to somehow convince radical muslims that they are blaspheming against themselves and hope it all sorts itself out.

 

[King_Moc]

Sadly, poll after poll, in country after country shows that frightening majorities of Muslims believe that Blasphemy should in fact be punishable by death. I'm not sure how we can as a world society, accelerate the modernization of that thinking.

Difficult to modernize it when they believe that the Qu'ran is the literal word of god, and therefore can't be edited.

 

[demon]

Sadly, poll after poll, in country after country shows that frightening majorities of Muslims believe that Blasphemy should in fact be punishable by death. I'm not sure how we can as a world society, accelerate the modernization of that thinking.

This is a fact that a lot of people seem to be in denial of. I am aware that there are very large numbers of Muslims who do not believe in this kind of shit, and that Islam, when you get down to it, really isn't inherently more violent than Christianity. But there's more than enough evidence that shows when it comes to Islam in its current state, throughout the world, the radical Muslims who believe in violence and severe punishment for "insulting" Islam is much more than just a fringe like some people choose to believe. It's simply disingenuous. As you said there are numerous polls that demonstrate this. It should be treated more as a cultural problem than a religious one. After all it is the culture of Islam that has changed, not Islam itself (obviously).

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Sadly, poll after poll, in country after country shows that frightening majorities of Muslims believe that Blasphemy should in fact be punishable by death. I'm not sure how we can as a world society, accelerate the modernization of that thinking.

Useful starters would be not giving huge amounts of money as military to aid to some of the key dictators in the region like al-Sisi, being willing to engage in diplomatic relationships with slowly liberalizing regimes like Iran rather than being dickwads for historical reasons that don't even hold true any more, attempt to source our oil from different markets and focus on redirecting rentier states towards taxation as a means of sustenance, not paying governments to try and keep political Islamist groups oppressed and outside the political sphere because that almost always leads towards them becoming more extreme, not pulling out of post-invasion nations too early, being willing to commit ground troops to end civil war situations immediately - Syria's civil war should have been over by 2011, and trying to engineer a solution to the Israel-Palestine problem via means of dialogue with the Arab League might all be useful places to start.

 

[CrimzonSamurai]

Pretty much, it's a very stupid to even consider giving the award to Hebdo. I really don't understand what the hell the point is.

Probably something about generating the kinds of reactions you see in this thread, and then getting to go on some "calling-out" spree about "western hypocrisy."

 

[m_shortpants]

Useful starters would be not giving huge amounts of money as military to aid to some of the key dictators in the region like al-Sisi, being willing to engage in diplomatic relationships with slowly liberalizing regimes like Iran rather than being dickwads for historical reasons that don't even hold true any more, attempt to source our oil from different markets and focus on redirecting rentier states towards taxation as a means of sustenance, not paying governments to try and keep political Islamist groups oppressed and outside the political sphere because that almost always leads towards them becoming more extreme, not pulling out of post-invasion nations too early, being willing to commit ground troops to end civil war situations immediately - Syria's civil war should have been over by 2011, and trying to engineer a solution to the Israel-Palestine problem via means of dialogue with the Arab League might all be useful places to start.

Great post.

 

[BrokenIcarus]

‘otherised’ in much the same way that Jews were in Nazi Germany.

Do they actually realize what the Nazis did with Jews? Do they have ANY idea?

 

[Jenov]

We have to somehow convince radical muslims that they are blaspheming against themselves and hope it all sorts itself out.

Doesn't help when even Western educated people agree that "they deserved it" or that we "shouldn't be surprised". People need to stop accepting that killing people over blasphemy is a reasonable or expected outcome. It's never okay, and should never be expected.

 

[Makonero]

Do they actually realize what the Nazis did with Jews? Do they have ANY idea?

They probably don't believe that it happened the way the Jews/Everyone in their right mind says it happened.

 

[Kinyou]

Do they actually realize what the Nazis did with Jews? Do they have ANY idea?

Yeah, such an incredible ignorant statement.

 

[Langdon Alger]

In an addendum to the announcement, they also announced that they were changing the title of the award to:

"Breitbart Presents: The Islamophobe Of the Year Award"

Since that vile and pillorying website is obviously the most islamophobic thing in the world every year and is only reporting on this specific and small incident in order to make Islam look bad... an irony that probably deserves its own award now that we think about it.

Wow.

 

[Van Owen]

Good to see Islamic groups doing everything they can to make people feel more empathetic towards their plight.