PARIS, Nov 27 (Reuters) - Six teenagers go on trial behind closed doors on Monday, accused of involvement in the beheading of French history teacher Samuel Paty by a suspected Islamist in 2020 in an attack that struck at the heart of the country’s secular values.
The teacher had shown his pupils cartoons of the Prophet Mohammad in a class on freedom of expression, angering a number of Muslim parents. Muslims believe that any depiction of the Prophet is blasphemous.
Islam is so touchy. Even pointing out Mohammed was a bandit and a pedophile gets them going and that is just straight facts anyone can get from reading about his life.
I believe every extremist is touchy. Fuck religion!
You know you don’t need to virtue signal “all religions!” in a thread specifically about islamist terrorism, right? Do the “all religion” thing when it’s a christian, sikh, buddhist, etc. sawing the head off a school teacher in the street.
They’re cowards is what they are. Plain and simple.
Religious extremists are the touchy ones. Plenty of Muslim folks who go on with their lives in peace.
I do agree that islamist extremists are the worst.
To be honest, the Nationalist Christians (Nat-C’s) that we have here at home are pretty fucking unsettling. They know that it’s their god-given right to be in charge of everything and they will “save” everyone by trying to force their twisted interpretation of religious texts onto the populace with zero compromise, because “that’s god’s plan”.
They’re just as bad as Islamic extremists; they’re just committing their violence in more official channels and in a slower fashion, up until the day that they manage to get an unshakable hold on power (read: establish a “theocratic” dictatorship, like the Republic of Gilead from Handmaid’s Tale, which they took as an aspirational goal instead of a cautionary story).
Yep. They’re killing people through legislation and propaganda, instead of more directly observable ways. But it’s still clear
deleted by creator
In Europe there are more Muslim refugees though, than, for example, in North America which gets more regular Muslim immigrants.
It’s a specific problem in Europe with an influx of refugees from war torn and poor countries who are often troubled, more extreme in their religion and potentially less educated (because they fled from shitty countries).
I guess it’s more connected to those circumstances than with Islam in itself. Statistically, more educated and better off people are less religious. I suspect that’s the same with Muslims?!
You don’t get to say “some Muslims are in peace”. Muslims are part of a religion that is causing a lot of troubles.
When someone is part of a big organization, like the police, one does not get to say “not all of us are pigs”. If they are not raising their hand and telling on the shitty people causing problems, then everyone is the problem.
Quick glance tells me you’re mexican… Which Cartel do you work for then?
Cartels aren’t a religion that are trying to expand over the world.
It is honestly, with all due respect, a very stupid comparison.
It’s just as stupid as your moronic comparison, cartel enabler. If you really cared about the damage the cartels do to the world you’d leave Mexico. We don’t want to hear your excuses.
I left Mexico many years ago, lol. Now you leave your religion of peace.
You left to where, the US to commit more crime? Stay tf away from civilization please. We don’t need more Mexican criminals here.
Just saying; your take wasn’t exactly enlightened either.
Oh, so it’s okay to belong to a group of people whose open tenet is murdering and enslaving people, but a religion that teaches against those things, but has a few nutjobs is somehow not?
Strong logic there. Completely free of bias. 🙄
Who is saying that cartels are ok?
Also… “a religion that teaches against those things”. You are really brainwashed.
You’re excusing cartels: organizations that are absolutely and unashamedly expanding and taking over the world, simply because they aren’t a religion.
That may not be your intended meaning, but it’s definitely connotated.
Dogma doesn’t have to have a God to be dangerous.
Everyone says this bullshit until it’s their group causing the problems and then all of a sudden they deserve mercy and understanding for how complex their situation is.
Most Muslims are decent people. If they weren’t, the west would be in a continuous state of violence. People like you are just racist assholes looking for any excuse to justify your prejudice.
You don’t get to judge an entire group by the worst members without it coming back to bite you in the ass some day.
If I were part of a religion that is so extrem that is killing people and attacking members of the LGBT community, etc, I would 100% leave said religion/group. Its not really that hard to do it. A decent person wouldn’t be a part of those kind of groups.
Oh so you have the whole world figured out now? Collective punishment is for fascists.
Fucking piece of shit. You’re no different from the intolerant people you hate so much.
I mean… you’re a citizen of a country, right?
your addiction to analogies hasn’t helped you a bit into at least making proper analogies
And your education has sadly failed you in teaching you what an analogy is.
An analogy is a comparison. I wasn’t comparing, just trying to teach you a basic logical thought process. Don’t worry, I’ve given up on that. I can see why your teachers failed. Prejudice is a hell of an intelligence blocker.
Once again a stupid analogy. I can’t be not a citizen of any country. You can be not a member of any religion.
You wouldn’t give a shit if you did. Most of my Muslim friends aren’t religious at all, pro-LGBT and everything. They still get shat on by racist fucks like you. You don’t care about people.
You can choose to leave a country and join a different one. But you haven’t, so you belong to it.
But your thought processes are clearly blocked. I’m certainly not going to try to open them. Closed minds are boring.
Yeah, at the most, the Muslims in my life would’ve said “hey I find that disrespectful can you please not” and go about their day.
I’d argue those muslims are not properly following the text of their religion.
Same for the more “tolerant” Christians, but that’s not the point of this conversation.
And I’d argue you’re wrong.
You could make that argument. It would just be a baseless emotional argument disputed by facts.
Read the books man. It’s all right there in the text.
I have studied them for years.
Give them power and let’s see how they behave.
all religions are cancer. ALL. period. I can criticise any fanatic of any religion the same way I criticise the fanatics of the religion I grew up and was brainwashed to follow. I was able to leave. For some people it may be more difficult because of the situation in their country. However, the people who migrate in mostly atheistic west countries, they continue being fanatics by choice.
However, the people who migrate in mostly atheistic west countries, they continue being fanatics by choice.
There are Arabs who migrate to Europe because they’re not allowed not express their disbelief in their home countries.
yes, you’re very correct on that. I failed to write it in a way that gives space for exclusions. I wanted to write something like “from the people who migrate in mostly atheistic (or at least less religious) countries, when they continue being fanatics in their religion, then this decision is by choice”. Because they are now in a place that if they want to get rid of that culture, it is easier to do it.
Sure, there are people who migrate because they want to leave from the oppression they experience in their home countries and they decide to follow a completely different lifestyle but these are not the majority. But they surely exist.
upvoted solely because the timestamp, we should have that on all the news posts
Really don’t know what to make of this comments section. I feel like if this were the World News subreddit, this thread would have already been locked and about 90% of the commenters banned, either by the mods or the Reddit admins.
It’s surreal to see comments so hostile towards Islam, on Lemmy of all places… And some of these are arguments I often see racists throw around.
deleted by creator
How many beheadings have there been, versus the number of Muslim people who have ever lived?
deleted by creator
Last time I was at world news there were people calling refugees “hordes wanting to destroy our culture” and they had hundreds of upvotes
I was banned from the subreddit three years ago for criticizing Saudi Arabia’s treatment of women. Because apparently the line “and other states with strict interpretation of Sharia law” was considered bigotry.
When some stupid religion that some asshole pedo made up makes some nutjobs to kill people, you can’t possibly expect people not to be hostile against it. Islam is a outdated, misogynistic, homophobic, xenophobic, violent and just downright harmful.
Jut like Christianity and Judaism.
yes! all of these religions are outdated and not suitable for the world we live in now. Islam is no better or worse than any of the other abrahamic religions, (can’t really speak on the others as I’m not as familiar). A lot of terrible people just use religion as an excuse to exert their will on others.
Iskam has never undergone a reformation process à la christianity, which is why present-day christianity is, on the whole, less bloodthirsty than it used to be and islam still is.
Religion ruins everything. Also here is a painting of Mohammed
That breaks the 2nd Commandment!
Don’t worry, his gun is just out of frame.
Nothing to add, just thought a cock n balls would improve it, seeing as he was a pedo
seeing as he was a pedo
I’m no scholar. An example of this please?
Search for Aisha, a child wife he took. If I remember correctly he married her at 6 years old, but waited until she was 9 to ‘consumate’ the marriage.
but waited until she was 9 to ‘consumate’ the marriage.
So he was a gentleman.
M’ohammed tips headscarf
“She’s actually a 1000 years old spirit trapped in a child’s body, it’s okay.”
Yeah he only put his stuff between her thighs and rub to cum before 9. Waited full 2 years. Fine gentleman.
Ah yes, well. That’ll do it I suppose.
Did we just become best friends?
Off to the Guillotines!
Dunno but I’ll protect you against zombies if you’re ever in that situation, I promise
This is annoying.
deleted by creator
Lotta fucing dumbasses in here, don’t bother…
*fucking
🙏
It was a class lesson on freedom of speech… oh gee.
In a way he was an amazing teacher
Please, teach me how free speech is okay and murder wrong! Cpt. Obvious we need you now!
Maybe these people would be happier moving to a country where their religion is forced down from the government? Maybe go there?
You’re incompatible with western society so change or get the fuck out.
And before anyone jumps down my throat I’m speaking specifically of those who don’t accept that things like freedom of speech includes things they don’t like.
They are here to expand their religion, not for escaping their country or freedom of speech. They are using freedom of speech to make themselves a victim while expanding their religion in the back.
freedom of speech includes blatant disrespect of a religion you’re not a part of, got it
You can’t have freedom of speech without the freedom to offend. They go hand in hand.
Yep.
Yes, 100%.
I really can’t tell if you’re being serious. Just in case…
The prophet Muhammad was a real piece of shit etc etc etc.
See? I’m allowed to do that. Thankfully I live somewhere I don’t have to be in fear of saying things like that.
religion is a choice and that choice is killing people its ok to be disrespectful to public practicers of religion.
we should be laughing in their faces and mocking them because its embarassing
The part of that that breaks down is that one group’s interpretation of it being okay to kill people isn’t necessarily another person’s religious practice. Mocking the latter is like treating everyone who eats bacon like a psychopath who enjoys slaughtering animals.
And religion isn’t always a choice for everyone. It should be, but isn’t always.
religion is a choice for everyone no exceptions. treating someone eating bacon as a psychopath slaughtering animals isnt the same as bacon and animals are real, and the connection between the two can be studied. religious folk choose to believe something fake that cannot be studied or proved and people die for it. wars are fought over this fake garbage. meat doesnt cause wars (because the vegans are lacking the essential nutrients to fight back lol)
also i eat meat and you can call me a psychopath if you want. youre not entirely wrong officially the meat industry is terrible i just dont see me boycotting it causing a tangible change, and i like meat.
edit its important to add, anyone practicing religion gives the people that use religion to kill a platform and sets a precedent that its ok by not ostracizing them. christians like when people they don’t like are murdered. put any religion in place of christian it still works.
To be fair, i think they meant no choice, as in being born into it, especially in some countries.
Whatever your religion is buddy it can choke on all of my cock
Seems like a fair and reasonable response to a cartoon.
The religion of peace strikes again.
Religion of love!
Sad little cowards can’t live in a free world where people can have their own thoughts on belief.
When I was in high school I screamed in the middle of biology class “those are not gonads, those are balls!”. I still feel bad about it because the teacher was so nice and I was a nightmare.
I feel a bit better.
This is terrible news. Obviously no one needs to be killed for such a thing.
Still, I can’t help but thing it’s also ridiculous to draw pictures of Muhammad. No one knows what he looks like. These people just use Islamophobia to post racist caricatures.
Also, Muslims love their prophet more than most people I know love their mothers. THIS IS NOT TO EXCUSE THEIR BEHAVIOR but seriously Muslims view their prophet like a big brother. Like literally love the guy like family. There’s 2 billion Muslims. You only have to really anger one or two to get attacked. Once again, not an excuse for them. This is murder.
No one knows what he looks like.
My understanding is that the point is that he’s supposed to be an “every man” kinda guy. Mohammad could be any of us. If you depict him, it makes us not him.
So apparently he’s also a gang of murderous psycho teens. Or I guess the kids stopped being him once they saw the picture and reverted into psycho murderers
Personally, I don’t think this makes any sense. There is so much recordings of his actions and his sayings that a specific personality can be inferred. I think I played enough RPGs to understand what an “every man” is supposed to be.
His specific personality was being a pedophile.
This is a thing in France, we have caricatures for everything. Muhammed isn’t an exception, and shouldn’t be. It’s not islamophobia. This was a freedom of expression class too, it should be talking about controversial topics.
A forum moderator used to post the Charlie Hebdo caricatures when I used to use a very specific Linux distributions. I never said anything about it but my first thought is that is an extremely RACIST way to draw an Arab. Though I am interested in what you are saying. Could you give me examples of controversial caricatures involving other religious minorities or even some of French people to try to grasp the idea?
Charlie Hebdo is a really good exemple. It has caricature of literally everything. From celebrity to religion to politic and whatever politically incorrect joke you can think of. It may looks islamophobic, but it’s against everyone. I wouldn’t be surprised if they did caticature of people making caricature, some certainly did. The difference is that some take it well and adapt to this French humor, and some don’t. (I don’t mean this as an issue with Islam, it’s an issue with extremistd that would behead a teacher).
I personnaly dislike this humor and art style, but it should exist.Btw, hebdo in Charlie hebdo means every week, since 1970, so they had to time to offend everyone.
I guess South Park is the American version? Thank you for the explanation.
I am also curious if anything news worthy came from this specific comic (with the three toilet paper rolls).
Yes exactly. And South Park is popular in France too.
I searched Charlie hebdo religion and took the first one so I don’t know, but they have hundreds of similar comic, I don’t think it had anything special.
But no one can critic Charlie Hebdo since the 2012 attack
Thank you for trying to explain. I don’t like it but I appreciate you typing it out. Despite this, I still can’t wrap my head around how a, as you say, racist caricature can rationally warrant a brutal murder in response. Someone making fun of my mother or brother would not elicit such a reaction from me. When the reaction is so extremely out of proportion with the crime and we hear these explanations why this makes sense, the religion and it’s followers who feel such a way become their own caricature. Even without the cartoons.
Do they hope to elicit fear and respect? Because this sort of psychopathy from any social group does the opposite. Respectfully, there is a difference between condemning such an act full stop, and disagreeing with what they did but still thinking it makes sense and people shouldn’t do things that force such an action. The later is what leads Western countries to conclude Islam is incompatible in societies that have, perhaps, once held such a worldview, but in the last thousand years have collectively agreed that is no longer allowed.
You claim only one or two may attack… but holding the same mindset as the killers is still not compatible with Western ideals. I can think someone is an idiot who is going to hell, but that should be the extent of my involvement in their life and the rest is between them and God.
Once again, I want to reiterate that this is a crime and I’m not trying to excuse their behavior.
This isn’t one guy making fun of your mother. The sheer of scale is much greater. This is why I don’t think this is some grand plan to elicit fear from the French. This was six angry teenagers committing murder on a target picked out ahead of time.
It’s not about logic and ideals. It’s more of a matter of heart. Perhaps the solution isn’t one of laws but just teaching people to cope with anger better AND to deescalate a lot of the recent problems in France.
Reuters – Bias and Credibility
Bias Rating: Least Biased
Factual Reporting: Very High
Country: United Kingdom
MBFC’s Country Freedom Rank: Mostly Free
Media Type: News Agency
Traffic/Popularity: High Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: High Credibility
Good bot! I like this shit
Media Bias Fact Check is only considered “reliable” because people use it. The actual authors of the site lack any real credentials for evaluating factuality, nevermind bias.
Well at least that means I’m not insane. I’ve had problems with it for a while.
I would’ve thought that we’d all learned that finding people who agree with each other on the internet says nothing about their individual or collective sanity.
Lmao fair enough.
I’d love to discuss this more if you’d be interested. I teach mass communications and visual literacy courses at a university and have over a decade of experience. I’m always interested in discussing these things further, as media literacy is extremely important and we can only educate others and make improvements with our literacy skills through discussion, learning, and practice.
Could you tell me more about the authors you mention and where you got the information from?
One thing I like about Media Bias Fact Check is that their methodology is transparent and clear. Yes, there is a certain level of subjectivity, as there is with any analysis like this. They utilize fact checking best practices and have ethical funding. Even their competitors rate them to be accurate and credible.
They are considered reliable not because people use them, but because of their methodologies, transparency, and factuality. Nothing is 100%, but it’s a good resource in my opinion.
The only thing we know about the authors of Media Bias Fact Check is what they’ve posted on their website. There’s no corroborating source, no evidence of background, and no indication that these people actually exist other than a business registration for a sole prop and a sparsely-populated mortgage for the lead editor. You can feel free to dig deeper (I’ve focused on the primary author and editor), but this wouldn’t pass the sniff test.
Moreover, their methodology, frankly, doesn’t hold up to any type of scientific method. It’s a perversion of the scientific process. Their methodology is essentially surveying one of the authors and asking them to draw a point on a line. That’s not science.
Based on their methodology, Electronic Intifada has never failed a fact check and should be “very factual”… But it’s recorded as “mostly factual” because they have biased reporting. Reuters is recorded as “very factual,” but they’ve gotten a number of things wrong without correction… Sort of comes with the territory of being a news wire service. CBC, which has also not failed a fact check, only gets a “highly factual” rating because of their supposed left-leaning bias. Essentially, their subjective analysis conflates factuality with bias.
This also raises a bigger problem: the lead author and editor is clearly American and guides ratings towards an American Overton window. Thus, bias is viewed on the left-to-right scale commonly used in the US, with the center defined as the American center. Normally, this wouldn’t be a huge problem for American audiences, but as established MBFC conflates factuality with bias: essentially, any source that deviates from the “center of the American political spectrum” is seen as less factual. Their source for fact checks is a newspaper run out of a school that has received funding from the US state-funded Voice of America.
This is, of course, operating under the assumption that their methodology is actually valid… And that, in itself, is a dangerous assumption to make. There’s a lack of transparency in who’s doing what evaluation, and the end result of that is that the assessment itself is basically “what does one guy think about this site.” Despite them defining what they mean by left and right, they give scant evidence to justify their “quantitative” evaluation of sources - this, itself, makes their evaluation qualitative.
Some of their details also show a lack of understanding of the media landscape. Calling CBC News a “TV station” is a joke. Their website is also, frankly, a mess, which bothers me because it’s clear that they aren’t following basic modern web development principles and that’s really fucking annoying.
Their methodology is bunk, there’s very little transparency within their organization to establish credibility, and they conflate factuality with their perception of bias.
Oh, who are the actual authors? You seem to know a lot about them.
Nobody knows anything except their names and what they themselves claim. The primary author and editor shares a name with a prominent American lawyer, and that’s about all we know. I’ve tried digging into the guy (he claims to have a physiology degree and works in healthcare), but I can’t find a single source that indicates he even exist.
Edit: anyone who tries to tell me that a name on a mortgage is an indication that someone exists should look a little bit more closely at those documents. I’ll wait.
removed by mod
I always find it funny how there’s some people who are extremely keen on advocating for a person with no established credentials and little to indicate that they actually exist. Almost like they feel personally attacked, or something.
removed by mod
I prefer to use Ad Fontes site. I find it through most accurate source.
Seems like another valuable resource! Glad to have another source to help evaluate what I read.
Some of the “Overall Scores” from Ad Fontes seem odd to me, but still pretty good. I think most of the articles they evaluate are user-submitted, and that might skew their scores as it’s not a random sampling. I would choose to weigh articles in a differently, but that’s just my personal opinion and it doesn’t negate the benefit.
Specifically, I would point out the “Individual Content Sample Scores” vs the “Overall Score” for Al Jazeera as an oddity. https://adfontesmedia.com/al-jazeera-bias-and-reliability/ In my opinion, Al Jazeera has a lot of good reporting, but also has a strong bias that effects their overall credibility. I still like reading them, but I wish they would remain more focused on objective facts rather than opinion.
deleted by creator
