Terrorist attacks and beheadings in France

[killer b]

semetic is a language group, Arabic included, no?

what are you talking about.

 

[xenon]

Pitty the poor marginalised muslim. Upset them not, lest they kill. No. Killer was filth regardless. It does a diservice to muslims to say otherwise. In short.

 

[Jay Park]

Yup. Discussing whether it was OK to show the cartoon seems to come at this from entirely the wrong angle.

So you think 5 years after the Massacre at the Hebdo office, with the French military being one of the most prominent in bombing raids on the ME, is long enough to show kids incendiary pictures.

 

[planetgeli]

Don't be daft people. Of course the killer's act is unjustifiable. There's not really much to discuss about that really is there?

...but it's equally obvious that we don't live in a world where a teacher can show those cartoons (and many other things) in a classroom without consequences. However abhorrent this may be, it is the situation we are in.

We don't have freedom of speech of expression. Pretending we do us just wishful thinking at this point.

We will never have freedom of speech of expression if we allow fanatical arseholes to dictate the terms of debate by threatening to and actually carrying out wholly out of proportion actions such as beheading. We fight for ideals by carrying out debate around why those consequences are completely inappropriate.

The teacher did nothing wrong.

 

[Jay Park]

Pitty the poor marginalised muslim. Upset them not, lest they kill. No. Killer was filth regardless. It does a diservice to muslims to say otherwise. In short.

one ‘t’ in pity, but 3 syllables in pitiful.

who the fuck is condoning this act of appalling violence?

 

[Jay Park]

We will never have freedom of speech of expression if we allow fanatical arseholes to dictate the terms of debate by threatening to and actually carrying out wholly out of proportion actions such as beheading. We fight for ideals by carrying out debate around why those consequences are completely inappropriate.

The teacher did nothing wrong.

Ideals. Surely a first world, liberal worry

 

[littlebabyjesus]

There's no i in team, but there is a u in cunt.

 

[Jay Park]

I'm confused.

perpetually

 

[Jay Park]

There's no i in team, but there is a u in cunt.

stop, you’ll hurt my feelings

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Ideals. Surely a first world, liberal worry

No. The way you build a better world. You don't think it was people with ideals who fought for and won the welfare state, Worker rights, universal suffrage, etc, etc.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

stop, you’ll hurt my feelings

So which twat did you used to be?

 

[chilango]

perpetually

Maybe. But specifically in regards to this.

 

[LDC]

you can have a discussion about the representation of Mohammed without the images.

Some people think it's not acceptable to discuss that topic as it's offensive and racist, should that discussion not happen?

 

[planetgeli]

Ideals. Surely a first world, liberal worry

No. They are better ways of living not attained yet.

And while we are at it, your use of 'incendiary' in a previous post, about images that aren't incendiary (have you actually seen the image used?) comes pretty close to victim blaming.

 

[killer b]

perpetually

Why did you call chilango a racist?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

lletsa?

I'm crap at guessing returners.

 

[chilango]

We will never have freedom of speech of expression if we allow fanatical arseholes to dictate the terms of debate by threatening to and actually carrying out wholly out of proportion actions such as beheading. We fight for ideals by carrying out debate around why those consequences are completely inappropriate.

The teacher did nothing wrong.

We've never had freedom of speech/expression. If we actually want it (and that's a question I don't think people are sufficiently asking of themselves) it will need a lot more fighting for than showing these cartoons.

Of course the teacher did nothing wrong in our eyes. But the problem is that this perspective is not universal.

 

[xenon]

one ‘t’ in pity, but 3 syllables in pitiful.

who the fuck is condoning this act of appalling violence?

what is your actual fucking point?

 

[likesfish]

Killing people because of a cartoon is insane end of.
Trying to justify doing that makes you Hostis humani generis

 

[littlebabyjesus]

We've never had freedom of speech/expression. If we actually want it (and that's a question I don't think people are sufficiently asking of themselves) it will need a lot more fighting for than showing these cartoons.

Of course the teacher did nothing wrong in our eyes. But the problem is that this perspective is not universal.

There's a danger of getting lost in a swamp of relativist indecision there, though. Sometimes you need to stand up and say that those who oppose something you are doing are wrong.

Of course that problem exists - this murder is proof. But a response that implies even partial blame for this teacher or the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists, or Salman Rushdie, or whoever, is a response that gives at least partial recognition and legitimacy to the opposing view - in this case, the opposing view is not only that this is blasphemy, or heresy, or whatever term religious people choose to use to protect their beliefs from criticism, but that it is right that it should incur punishment.

 

[xenon]

lletsa?

I'm crap at guessing returners.

No, been here for years. Think he’s a bit pissed or sommat.

 

[bimble]

Saturday night on the thread about a teacher getting beheaded. Hopefully jay park is just a bit pissed but the old look at me semitic is a language group is usually only done by people who are twats even when sober.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

No, been here for years. Think he’s a bit pissed or sommat.

Ah ok. Tagline is appropriate in that case. Never noticed them before.

 

[Johnny Vodka]

So you think 5 years after the Massacre at the Hebdo office, with the French military being one of the most prominent in bombing raids on the ME, is long enough to show kids incendiary pictures.

We need to get to the sort of world where ideas can be discussed and be discussed without bloodshed. Fuck giving into people who want to shut down discussion. And, yes, I'm generally against the way the west conducts itself in the ME too.

 

[tim]

Thing is, it's not about my view on the cartoons. I suspect our views are similar on them. But when you become a teacher, rightly or wrongly, you are expected to leave your views outside the classroom. Not always possible, and certainly not always desirable, but widely and commonly held as an expectation. Any teacher choosing to present material that they know will definitely be considered obscene by members of the class and the community also knows that they "shouldn't" be doing that.

...and, yes, beyond these cartoons this does place teachers in the position of including and excluding material against their own wishes/views. There's all kinds of examples from the mundane to the murderous.

Whose expectation is it that we leave our views outside the classroom, and why should we seek to appease those expectations? Education isn't about filling supposedly empty vessels with ideologically untainted facts. This is recognised by those in authority who have always seen education as a way of creating model citizens. That's stated overtly in France with their "Republican Values"; and here where we are exhorted to promote "British Values", and more recently not to dis capitalism.

I take my views into the classroom and do my subtle best to subvert, pervert and convert. I doubt that I'm going to lose my head for this as the odds of this happening seem to be rather low. There really aren't that many people out there, even over there in France, who are homicidally obsessed about lesson plans and outcomes, if there were such murders would happen much more often and we would become as inured to them as we are to femicide.

 

[Kevbad the Bad]

No one knows what Mohammed looked like. There are only vague descriptions, of uncertain provenance. You can't therefore know how to depict him. So if you draw a picture and give it a title 'Mohammed' that will offend some Muslims. If you give the same picture the title 'Fred' you won't upset them. It's not even the picture, but the supposed intent behind the picture which can prove fatal. Is that an idea that anyone should take seriously for one second?

 

[Raheem]

There's a danger of getting lost in a swamp of relativist indecision there, though. Sometimes you need to stand up and say that those who oppose something you are doing are wrong.

Of course that problem exists - this murder is proof. But a response that implies even partial blame for this teacher or the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists, or Salman Rushdie, or whoever, is a response that gives at least partial recognition and legitimacy to the opposing view - in this case, the opposing view is not only that this is blasphemy, or heresy, or whatever term religious people choose to use to protect their beliefs from criticism, but that it is right that it should incur punishment.

Killing people because of a cartoon is insane end of.
Trying to justify doing that makes you Hostis humani generis

You both know very well that no-one here, or probably anywhere but the darkest corners of the internet, thinks the teacher is to blame for his own murder, or that there's a shred of justification for what happened to him. Take down the straw man, it should not need constantly repeating.

At the same time, it was probably (I say probably because none of us knows the full context) not big or clever of him to bring these cartoons into a culturally mixed classroom outside Paris. Because it was almost guaranteed to create division along racial lines in the classroom, and will have been severely alienating to some students. Perhaps because of their religious sensitivity, but more commonly because they will understand the cartoons as racial taunts (regardless of the original intent, there is no doubt they have gained this currency). In return for zero educational value, because no French teenager will be unfamiliar with the cartoons unless they have actively avoided them.

Also, it's a bit much to be one minute demanding respect for the sanctity of freedom of expression and then the next seeking to make verboten criticism of the teacher.

 

[Athos]

Is that an idea that anyone should take seriously for one second?

It's literally life-and-death serious.

 

[Jay Park]

what is your actual fucking point?

my point is, twatty nutz, these very same values you and a few others are paying lip service to; freedom of speech, a well rounded education for children that encourages critical thinking, and open discourse, are the very same things you have denied myself.

You do the math.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

You both know very well that no-one here, or probably anywhere but the darkest corners of the internet, thinks the teacher is to blame for his own murder, or that there's a shred of justification for what happened to him. Take down the straw man, it should not need constantly repeating.

At the same time, it was probably (I say probably because none of us knows the full context) not big or clever of him to bring these cartoons into a culturally mixed classroom outside Paris. Because it was almost guaranteed to create division along racial lines in the classroom, and will have been severely alienating to some students. Perhaps because of their religious sensitivity, but more commonly because they will understand the cartoons as racial taunts (regardless of the original intent, there is no doubt they have gained this currency).

Also, it's a bit much to be one minute demanding respect for the sanctity of freedom of expression and then the next seeking to make verboten criticism of the teacher.

I extended my point to the cartoonists who were murdered and Salman Rushdie. Plenty of people came pretty damn close to saying that the CH cartoonists had it coming.

Your 'probably' is followed by a lot of very speculative stuff, tbh, including how the kids will understand the cartoons. You don't give them much credit there. Nor do you give the teacher much credit, assuming he was doing this insensitively to ram down a point rather than using the cartoon as a means to open up a discussion.