http://htpcl.livejournal.com/ (![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png)
htpcl.livejournal.com) wrote in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
talkpolitics2016-04-20 09:29 am
htpcl.livejournal.com) wrote in talkpolitics2016-04-20 09:29 am
Entry tags:
The Luegenpresse is at it again
Hi, ma'fellow procrastinators reasonable honesty-loving folks! We may've heard of Erdogan's attempts to actively influence the political discourse and the level of free speech in Germany by demanding that a satirical depiction of His Greatness be removed from the press, lest he unleash the hordes of refugees onto Europe again (and indirectly succeeding to have the relevant journalist fired, by the way). But what about censorship for the sake of not-offending-anyone at a top state level? Case in point:
White House censors French president for saying ‘Islamist terrorism’
"President Obama is so paranoid about linking terrorists to the Muslim faith that when French President Francois Hollande used the phrase "Islamist terrorism" at a meeting in Washington, White House officials posted their official press video with audio of the words cut out completely. ... The White House's transcript of the event shows the French leader declared at the 4:49 minute mark that "the roots of terrorism, Islamist terrorism, is in Syria and in Iraq." But rather than include Hollande's remark in its entirety, the Obama administration posted footage in which his interpreter’s English translation of the words "Islamist terrorism" was missing."
You'd wonder if this was a genuine glitch (ha! right...), or intentional. I think the reason for the "glitch" is rather obvious: it's the same reason that no one uses the words "American state terrorism" when the US military slaughters people around the world for no reason but the protection of its own geopolitical interests, claiming to be bringing them freedom and democracy that way. Or why no one says "Israeli state terrorism" when Israel levels down entire residential blocks full of people and uses force to encroach on lands that it has no right to. Or why no one called the actions of the British Empire of killing and enslaving millions of people "British terrorism" or "British yoke".
While I don't necessarily buy all those wacky conspiracy theories about Obama the Closet Muslim Kenyan, I can now at least understand where those rumors are coming from. I mean, why is his administration so sensitive about the use of the terms "Islam" and "Muslim" in a negative context? Conspiracy!
To be serious though, I think this case is yet another example of political correctness gone to ridiculous extremes. And I'm saying that, while being fully aware that the term "PC" has been used so excessively lately that it might've started losing much of its value and gravitas. That said, I believe it's right to call terror committed by Islamist fanatics the way Hollande called it. Note: Hollande is much more "leftist" than Obama ever was; and besides, he knows first-hand what Islamist terrorism looks like, what with all the attacks on France in the recent months.
Denying the fact that many of the people doing these atrocities belong to Islam, means simply ignoring the truth, and limits the possible ways of combating a problem that poses a serious threat. However, it's also very important not to omit the disclaimer that in fact terror is definitely not unique to Islam and the vast majority of Muslims are peaceful. The problem of terrorism has a lot to do with the problem of radical Islam, and political Islam - but not Islam in general. The thing is though, we can't even begin to discuss these matters openly and honestly without naming the problem with its right name. There's always at least some sort of censorship blocking the way to a genuine discourse. And in cases like the above, it could get legitimized through actions at a top official level - even if the perpetrators might not have the guts to openly admit the motives behind their decision, and would likely try to find lame excuses like, "sorry, t'was just a technical glitch". And that's unfortunate.
In conclusion, I suppose we must immediately forget this incident, and then also forget that we've forgotten it. Then all will be fine. See? Problem solved.
White House censors French president for saying ‘Islamist terrorism’
"President Obama is so paranoid about linking terrorists to the Muslim faith that when French President Francois Hollande used the phrase "Islamist terrorism" at a meeting in Washington, White House officials posted their official press video with audio of the words cut out completely. ... The White House's transcript of the event shows the French leader declared at the 4:49 minute mark that "the roots of terrorism, Islamist terrorism, is in Syria and in Iraq." But rather than include Hollande's remark in its entirety, the Obama administration posted footage in which his interpreter’s English translation of the words "Islamist terrorism" was missing."
You'd wonder if this was a genuine glitch (ha! right...), or intentional. I think the reason for the "glitch" is rather obvious: it's the same reason that no one uses the words "American state terrorism" when the US military slaughters people around the world for no reason but the protection of its own geopolitical interests, claiming to be bringing them freedom and democracy that way. Or why no one says "Israeli state terrorism" when Israel levels down entire residential blocks full of people and uses force to encroach on lands that it has no right to. Or why no one called the actions of the British Empire of killing and enslaving millions of people "British terrorism" or "British yoke".
While I don't necessarily buy all those wacky conspiracy theories about Obama the Closet Muslim Kenyan, I can now at least understand where those rumors are coming from. I mean, why is his administration so sensitive about the use of the terms "Islam" and "Muslim" in a negative context? Conspiracy!
To be serious though, I think this case is yet another example of political correctness gone to ridiculous extremes. And I'm saying that, while being fully aware that the term "PC" has been used so excessively lately that it might've started losing much of its value and gravitas. That said, I believe it's right to call terror committed by Islamist fanatics the way Hollande called it. Note: Hollande is much more "leftist" than Obama ever was; and besides, he knows first-hand what Islamist terrorism looks like, what with all the attacks on France in the recent months.
Denying the fact that many of the people doing these atrocities belong to Islam, means simply ignoring the truth, and limits the possible ways of combating a problem that poses a serious threat. However, it's also very important not to omit the disclaimer that in fact terror is definitely not unique to Islam and the vast majority of Muslims are peaceful. The problem of terrorism has a lot to do with the problem of radical Islam, and political Islam - but not Islam in general. The thing is though, we can't even begin to discuss these matters openly and honestly without naming the problem with its right name. There's always at least some sort of censorship blocking the way to a genuine discourse. And in cases like the above, it could get legitimized through actions at a top official level - even if the perpetrators might not have the guts to openly admit the motives behind their decision, and would likely try to find lame excuses like, "sorry, t'was just a technical glitch". And that's unfortunate.
In conclusion, I suppose we must immediately forget this incident, and then also forget that we've forgotten it. Then all will be fine. See? Problem solved.
no subject
no subject
More curiously, it's a word that used to be, well, used, by Hitler in regards to the leftist press. Now it's being used by Pegida, a leftist party, in regards to the "mainstream" press. Interesting how things change.
no subject
They're extremely peaceful - no violent tendencies whatsoever - but hypothetically - in a hypothetical universe where they're an unmatured religion that has a thousand plus year history of flipping their shit and killing over criticism, threats, comics, or simply not being them - using polite language and ignoring all of their shortcomings is an understandable (but probably not effective) means of de-escalating the situation.
no subject
no subject
Are they, though? Deep down, do they condemn or do they support acts of violence against non-Muslims in the name of Allah? Do they call out and oppose, or do they prefer to turn a blind eye to injustices and violent oppression advocated (and often legitimized) by their religion? If the answer to any or both questions is the latter one rather than the former, then no, they're not peaceful people.
no subject
Yes, often, and publicly. The news media rarely chooses to cover it, and when they do, they tend to put false headlines on it (like the recent mass protest here in the states where Muslims protested against terrorism and violence, and the local Fox news affiliate captioned the picture as a "pro-ISIS rally."
no subject