Hacker News Reader

Comment by hmcq6 | Hacker News Reader

> Asked if acts of violence against those who publish images of the Prophet Muhammad can "never be justified", 68% agreed that such violence was never justifiable.

> But 24% disagreed with the statement, while the rest replied "don't know" or refused to answer.

> Of those polled, 95% felt a loyalty to Britain, while 93% believed that Muslims in Britain should always obey British laws.

24%. 24% = 1/3. You seem like the kind of person who caused the McDonalds 1/3 pounder flop.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWdD206eSv0

But the better argument is that 24% of people saying "it could be justified" is that it actually could be justified.

Should I punch everyone who includes Nazi symbology in their art? No.

Should I punch a Nazi who repeatedly promotes his ideology through his art? Yes.

View on HN

I missed that figure, I stand corrected.

So it’s “only” one fourth that told that it may be justified - the rest up to one third didn’t confirm nor deny that it may be justified.

It’s also very reassuring that maybe they don’t find that violence is justified when you publish only one image of muhammad. Maybe you’re right and it’s repeated publication of muhammad images that deserves violence.

Here is a long-time offender: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2008/feb/17/wikipedia...

Or maybe you meant that violence against anyone who does anything may be justified (?) because of some other thing that they may be doing.

> Is violence an appropriate response to hate speech? The Cato 2017 Free Speech and Tolernace Survey finds most Americans say no. More than two-thirds (68%) of Americans say it is not morally acceptable to punch a Nazi in the face. About a third (32%), however, say it is morally acceptable.

https://www.cato.org/blog/51-strong-liberals-say-its-morally...

Your implication that Muslims are more accepting of political violence doesn't seem to bear out in the facts.

> Maybe you’re right and it’s repeated publication of muhammad images that deserves violence.

Thats not what I said.

> Or maybe you meant that violence against anyone who does anything may be justified (?) because of some other thing that they may be doing.

This is clearly the least charitable take one could take in response to my comment. "It's ok to punch Nazis" is not a take that usually gets this much pushback.

Edit: Actually, technically, I guess it does usually get this much push back (68%) but still the slippery slope argument is trash

> Thats not what I said.

That’s true. What you said is

> But the better argument is that 24% of people saying "it could be justified" is that it actually could be justified.

and I don’t even know how to parse the sentence so I cannot really comment on it.

You implied that 1/3 of muslims would be willing to kill someone over a drawing of Muhammad.

The study doesn't say 1/3 of muslims say "it's ok to kill someone who draws images of Muhammad". It says "acts of violence". A vague and immeasurable term. Does that mean a punch? does it mean a stab? Jihad? The poll doesn't care.

> you implied that 1/3 of muslims would be willing to kill…

I implied no such thing. I was referring only to Palestinians (the 'other bunch'). The vast majority of who will indeed slaughter you if they decide they are offended.

I'm bemused why anyone thought I was talking about Muslims in say Sarajevo or Indonesia. Identity-obsessed much?

> Your implication that Muslims are more accepting of political violence doesn't seem to bear out in the facts.

I didn’t say anything about Muslims being more accepting of political (or religious?) violence than anyone else. I was just pointing out that there are many such Muslims which are not Al-Qaeda (which is just a few thousand people).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com