Vienna synagogue attack

[Aimless]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-54786952

Mass shooting believed to be a terrorist attack. According to reports, several—seven?—victims have died, and one suspect may have been killed.

[RandBlade]

After the run of terror attacks in France this looks really, really bad.

[wiggin]

After the run of terror attacks in France this looks really, really bad.

Honestly this doesn't seem like all that much more than background noise. We're going to have to expect to see low level political violence for the foreseeable future.

That doesn't make it okay, of course, but I hardly think this constitutes a new worrying trend. It's an old worrying trend.

[Hazir]

Even with the thin information so far it looks like a failed attempt more than an actual attack. The synagogue was closed.

[Lewkowski]

As a sign of solidarity with the Jewish world they should move their embassy to Jerusalem.

[wiggin]

As a sign of solidarity with the Jewish world they should move their embassy to Jerusalem.

It might be more of a sign of solidarity if they stopped electing far right populists. Austria has a less than great history in that regard.

[Loki]

Frankly, I'm surprised this isn't the top story on Fox.

[RandBlade]

As a sign of solidarity with the Jewish world they should move their embassy to Jerusalem.

Rather anti-Semitic. Jews != Israel.

As a sign of solidarity with France every newspaper should print the cartoons on their front pages.

[wiggin]

Rather anti-Semitic. Jews != Israel.

As a sign of solidarity with France every newspaper should print the cartoons on their front pages.

I've never agreed with this tactic. I hated all the je suis Charlie stuff. Cartoons like this ARE offensive, and people shouldn't publish them. Sure people have every RIGHT to publish them under the auspices of free speech. And it hardly is a justification for violence. But it doesn't mean that someone SHOULD publish such offensive content.

[Hazir]

I've never agreed with this tactic. I hated all the je suis Charlie stuff. Cartoons like this ARE offensive, and people shouldn't publish them. Sure people have every RIGHT to publish them under the auspices of free speech. And it hardly is a justification for violence. But it doesn't mean that someone SHOULD publish such offensive content.

I have started to disagree with this way of looking at the issue; there should be not a shred of doubt be left that violence is not the acceptable reaction to these caricatures. Appealing to 'common decency' is not how to deal with this any longer. It should be totally clear that there is no duty to respect religion by surpressing what you really think about it. Even if what you think can be summed up that it's a load of schizo tosh. It's far to easy for religious people to play the 'offense' card.

[wiggin]

Hazir, I get what you're saying but two responses:

1. If you're trying to make a point to make people who agree with you feel better, sure that might be a good approach. But I would assume that any action is actually targeted at the coreligionists of those who are committing violence in Muhammad's name. Perhaps the theory is that a confrontational approach will convince them they cannot solve this issue with violence, but I think that's silly - it's likely to just make said coreligionists more sympathetic to those advocating violence. So it seems counterproductive.

2. On a less practical level, I think that there is frankly no reason to intentionally antagonize someone else and insult their beliefs if said beliefs are fundamentally harmless. And while we both probably agree that there are a lot of religious beliefs that are far from harmless, a choice not to create visual representations of one's prophet doesn't seem all that problematic. That doesn't mean that all depictions of Muhammad should be off limits to others - that is indeed restrictive. But it does mean that someone choosing to not only actively antagonize but do so in the most insulting way possible... well, such behavior is legal but regrettable. It should not be lauded or copied just to make a point.


I frankly don't think this is such a religious issue. There are other symbols - national, ethnic, or otherwise - that also engender very intense feelings in certain communities. (Think a Confederate battle flag in much of the US, or the Union Jack in a Republican stronghold in NI during the Troubles.) Is it unreasonable to suggest that one should attempt to be sensitive to these feelings assuming there is no substantial harm in doing so?

[Hazir]

Hazir, I get what you're saying but two responses:

1. If you're trying to make a point to make people who agree with you feel better, sure that might be a good approach. But I would assume that any action is actually targeted at the coreligionists of those who are committing violence in Muhammad's name. Perhaps the theory is that a confrontational approach will convince them they cannot solve this issue with violence, but I think that's silly - it's likely to just make said coreligionists more sympathetic to those advocating violence. So it seems counterproductive.

2. On a less practical level, I think that there is frankly no reason to intentionally antagonize someone else and insult their beliefs if said beliefs are fundamentally harmless. And while we both probably agree that there are a lot of religious beliefs that are far from harmless, a choice not to create visual representations of one's prophet doesn't seem all that problematic. That doesn't mean that all depictions of Muhammad should be off limits to others - that is indeed restrictive. But it does mean that someone choosing to not only actively antagonize but do so in the most insulting way possible... well, such behavior is legal but regrettable. It should not be lauded or copied just to make a point.


I frankly don't think this is such a religious issue. There are other symbols - national, ethnic, or otherwise - that also engender very intense feelings in certain communities. (Think a Confederate battle flag in much of the US, or the Union Jack in a Republican stronghold in NI during the Troubles.) Is it unreasonable to suggest that one should attempt to be sensitive to these feelings assuming there is no substantial harm in doing so?

1. Yes, indeed, for now these people will tend to sympathise more with the perpetrators of violence, but that's really not relevant. What needs to be destroyed is the idea that there is something intrinsically wrong with making fun of religion or its symbols. In America you have less experience with the need of society to liberate itself from religious oppression, but here on this side of the Atlantic we didn't get your freedom of religion handed on a silver plate. We couldn't consider freedom of religion before we had conquered the right of freedom from religion. In this fight we achieved a desensitized religious sphere. We can't accept a new religion to use and abuse the power of the state, limiting the freedom of others with a claim of necessary respect for their sensitivities.

2. I don't think it's 'essentially harmless' to use your religious believes to limit the freedoms of others. History gives me no reason to believe that a mandatory respect for religion doesn't lead to misery for those who choose to express their lack of believe.

3. I think it's very much a religious issue, a misled type of religious sensitivity maybe but very much religious nonetheless. I always wonder how weak these type of muslims actually their God is that he needs a hands-on defense by human beings. I also don't understand how they make 'caricatures' of Mohammed, such an especially grievous sort of depiction. It seems that they are incapable of accepting that also the Messenger was a mere human being.

4. I don't really see how referencing alternative battleflags makes a difference here.

[Aimless]

I have started to disagree with this way of looking at the issue; there should be not a shred of doubt be left that violence is not the acceptable reaction to these caricatures. Appealing to 'common decency' is not how to deal with this any longer. It should be totally clear that there is no duty to respect religion by surpressing what you really think about it. Even if what you think can be summed up that it's a load of schizo tosh. It's far to easy for religious people to play the 'offense' card.

The issue is not offense. The issue is that seeing mainstream newspapers and even the govt. promulgate denigrating caricatures would be hurtful and divisive—not only to violent extremists and fundamentalists.

Newspapers and govts will have to decide to what extent they're willing to cause hurt to—and drive away—regular everyday Muslims in order to punish extremists and fundamentalists and make an important political point. We make similar decisions in our personal lives all the time, in every major fight, when we feel we've been wronged. It's the same question: to what extent am I willing to hurt someone close to me in order to punish someone else who I feel—very strongly—has wronged me, or offended me, or done something fucked up? How far am I willing to go to for politics? Am I willing to describe my wife's mother as a bitch? Am I going to call her best friend the c-word? Am I prepared to call my black friend's fucked-up brother the n-word? Am I ready to mock a loved one in front of mutual friends? We're faced with such considerations from time to time—some of us more often than others—and I think most of us, most of the time, are not willing—let alone eager—to cause hurt to people close to us in order to punish or shit on someone else. We typically behave as if the ends don't justify such hurtful means—even in the unlikely event that it might actually work.

I can understand how those who are willing to go to such lengths might want eg. their newspapers and govts to do the same—indeed, I'm seeing calls for precisely that approach, from some Muslim friends and family who still have very painful memories of atrocities at the hand of extremists. However, I find it somewhat comical to see calls for such heavy-handed responses from someone who probably doesn't behave that way in their own personal life, and who gets his panties in a bunch whenever he feels conservatives—who are, after all, collectively responsible for the rise of Trumpism, racism and xenophobia in the anglosphere—are being painted with an overbroad brush.

Anyway, the choice is clear and does not benefit from obfuscation: choose to cause hurt and sow division to make this political point, or don't. Whatever publications choose to do, it will cause much butthurt among people who're looking to be butthurt.

[Hazir]

Well tough shit for these 'regular' muslims with their sensitive souls. They may be used to an unopposed view of their religion because that's simply what the places where they hail from enforced. But there is no right for their religion to be respected to the effect that people who think religion is a load of schizo tosh full stop. The message should be unequivocal that respect for religion can not be enforced, by no means whatsoever. And if there are people who try to enforce 'silence' by killing innocents, then the state, society and all of its subdivisions have a duty to make clear that respect for religion is nobody's duty.

Interpersonal relations are no model for the way we deal with ideas we don't agree with. Personally attacking someone is not the same as calling them out on their ideas. Calling your mother names is not the same as asking you what mental disorder actually causes you to believe in the teaching of an illiterate with verbal hallucinations and a questionable choice in partners who died 1200 years ago of whom there actually is no reliable written account of what he said?

[Aimless]

Well tough shit for these 'regular' muslims with their sensitive souls. They may be used to an unopposed view of their religion because that's simply what the places where they hail from enforced. But there is no right for their religion to be respected to the effect that people who think religion is a load of schizo tosh full stop. The message should be unequivocal that respect for religion can not be enforced, by no means whatsoever. And if there are people who try to enforce 'silence' by killing innocents, then the state, society and all of its subdivisions have a duty to make clear that respect for religion is nobody's duty.

Interpersonal relations are no model for the way we deal with ideas we don't agree with. Personally attacking someone is not the same as calling them out on their ideas. Calling your mother names is not the same as asking you what mental disorder actually causes you to believe in the teaching of an illiterate with verbal hallucinations and a questionable choice in partners who died 1200 years ago of whom there actually is no reliable written account of what he said?

There, there, no need to get all worked up. Have a chill pill, drink a nice glass of wine, eat an oreo or something.

[Hazir]

There, there, no need to get all worked up. Have a chill pill, drink a nice glass of wine, eat an oreo or something.

Not so easy if 'asking for respect' boils down to a death treath.

And fuck you for that oreo suggestion, I bet you never even tried one of those disks of taste mass distruction.

[Aimless]

Not so easy if 'asking for respect' boils down to a death treath.

And fuck you for that oreo suggestion, I bet you never even tried one of those disks of taste mass distruction.

Of course I have; it was my way of saying "eat shit" without causing offense

Political debates of the kind we have wasted our time with on this forum for the better part of two decades predisposes us to place ideas above people, essentially training us to not give much of a shit about the latter in order to be able to focus on the former. It is an approach that inherently diminishes the human—in relation to ideas. Among real people who haven't been shaped by two decades of bickering in a singularly messed-up virtual community, that approach usually entails causing personal hurt.

It's not better to call someone mentally ill for holding absurd religious views than it is to call your mother names—it's arguably worse, because it expresses a desire to thoroughly denigrate not only the person you're attacking, and all those who share their beliefs, but also people who actually suffer from real mental illness. You don't need to be mentally ill to believe absurd things; I'd be willing to wager most of our mothers and grandmothers believe or believed a number of absurd things—including absurdities of a religious variety. Should we, personally, call them mentally ill? Of course not. You can strongly disagree with—and passionately debate—someone you love without calling them mentally ill, or calling them names, or poking them where it hurts the most, or subjecting them to public mockery and humiliation. By adhering to that standard of love, you reduce your risk of treating ideas as if they're more important than people. As an added bonus, you also reduce your risk of alienating people and assisting extremists in their work to sow division—but that really is a secondary consideration. Of course, you may have performed a completely different calculation wrt your personal life and your relationships, fair enough—but I don't think many major newspapers will make the same calculation.

[Hazir]

Of course I have; it was my way of saying "eat shit" without causing offense

Political debates of the kind we have wasted our time with on this forum for the better part of two decades predisposes us to place ideas above people, essentially training us to not give much of a shit about the latter in order to be able to focus on the former. It is an approach that inherently diminishes the human—in relation to ideas. Among real people who haven't been shaped by two decades of bickering in a singularly messed-up virtual community, that approach usually entails causing personal hurt.

It's not better to call someone mentally ill for holding absurd religious views than it is to call your mother names—it's arguably worse, because it expresses a desire to thoroughly denigrate not only the person you're attacking, and all those who share their beliefs, but also people who actually suffer from real mental illness. You don't need to be mentally ill to believe absurd things; I'd be willing to wager most of our mothers and grandmothers believe or believed a number of absurd things—including absurdities of a religious variety. Should we, personally, call them mentally ill? Of course not. You can strongly disagree with—and passionately debate—someone you love without calling them mentally ill, or calling them names, or poking them where it hurts the most, or subjecting them to public mockery and humiliation. By adhering to that standard of love, you reduce your risk of treating ideas as if they're more important than people. As an added bonus, you also reduce your risk of alienating people and assisting extremists in their work to sow division—but that really is a secondary consideration. Of course, you may have performed a completely different calculation wrt your personal life and your relationships, fair enough—but I don't think many major newspapers will make the same calculation.

Lovely said. Yet people are killed for not seeing your request for respect as something that should bind them in their rights. And in my not so humble opinion they are right to think so.

[Lewkowski]

Rather anti-Semitic. Jews != Israel.

As a sign of solidarity with France every newspaper should print the cartoons on their front pages.

Only it isn't - the purpose here isn't to identify all Jews as part of Israel but to make the rabid anti-Jewish folks mad. Keep in mind that you can like the Jews and hate or like Israel. You can treat Jewish people just like any other people and hate or like Israel. But I've never met someone who hates Jews and likes Israel.

[Lewkowski]

I've never agreed with this tactic. I hated all the je suis Charlie stuff. Cartoons like this ARE offensive, and people shouldn't publish them. Sure people have every RIGHT to publish them under the auspices of free speech. And it hardly is a justification for violence. But it doesn't mean that someone SHOULD publish such offensive content.

Fuck that. Be Offensive. It sounds like in your imagined world South Park wouldn't exist because it might upset people.