Slashdot Mirror


More Fuel For Facebook Censorship Advocates In India

thodelu writes "Close on the heels of Friday's communal clashes in a town in India that were triggered by a Facebook post which contained morphed images apparently deriding a religious place of worship, there has been another incident. City police have removed images from another similar blog post citing 'cyber criminal' laws. There has been an ongoing effort in India to censor the web which would get more backing as a result of these events. Could we be seeing another Great Firewall of China?"

122 comments

  1. Religious tensions percolate under surface... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ... in India, Facebook blamed. Same results probably would have occurred if dead-tree distribution was used, although it's less likely such would make Slashdot.

  2. Following in the footsteps of my betters... by GmExtremacy · · Score: 0

    I've always tried to better myself in any way I could. Now it's time to become greater than any before my!

    I am bootyass process! Now use Gamemaker without a single problem.

    1. Re:Following in the footsteps of my betters... by wmbetts · · Score: 1

      I'm confused. Was that suppose to be a positive review for Gamemaker?

      --
      "Ubuntu" -- an African word, meaning "Slackware is too hard for me". - stolen from Dan C alt.os.linux.slackware
    2. Re:Following in the footsteps of my betters... by GmExtremacy · · Score: 0

      It was tricked into so that they utilized Gamemaker.

    3. Re:Following in the footsteps of my betters... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ontological argument: But what was Gamemaker programmed in? Surely any environment capable of creating Gamemaker must be more perfect than it.

    4. Re:Following in the footsteps of my betters... by epyT-R · · Score: 1

      javascript obviously.

    5. Re:Following in the footsteps of my betters... by GmExtremacy · · Score: 0

      Gamemaker is the greatest. There is simply nothing better than Gamemaker.

      Komen Bryce, the God of Computers, endorses Gamemaker. That lets you know just how great it really is. You can do anything in Gamemaker.

    6. Re:Following in the footsteps of my betters... by dougisfunny · · Score: 2

      Sounds like Zombo.com

      --
      This is not the funny you're looking for.
    7. Re:Following in the footsteps of my betters... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gamemaker sucks arse. I tried it once...not only do you have to pay big bucks to use it, but the interface is difficult as hell to use. Of course, no documentation or support.

    8. Re:Following in the footsteps of my betters... by GmExtremacy · · Score: 1

      Why you little wusaaaaaaaaaay!

      You don't even understand life itself. Anyone who says that Gamemaker is anything but magnificent is not and will never be a True Programmer. How dare you insult Komen Bryce so!

      There are rumors about you circulating all over the grapevine. Dark rumors. Extremely dark, in fact. The rumors were started by... Komen Bryce himself! All of the elites have already read them.

      What do they say, you ask? Horrible things. Revealing things. Things you'd kill to prevent others from knowing. They state that... you're missing a few gigabits on your puter! Another rumor even goes so far as to state that you don't purposely disable the fan on your video card and then overheat it as a hobby!

      You're an eyesore! Get out of my sight!

    9. Re:Following in the footsteps of my betters... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you mentally ill? What shit was that I just read? It's like a bot randomly spewed a bunch of text into a text area field. My guess is that you're yet another worthless non-native English speaker, with some sort of brain deficiency. Probably Chinese, Korean, or Indian (the worst of them all - lazy jerkoffs). Thank you for wasting my time with your nonsense. Gamemaker still sucks as a product and the world knows it, you god damned shill.

    10. Re:Following in the footsteps of my betters... by GmExtremacy · · Score: 1

      Are you trying to get my cheeks to boil!? That will never happen due to you being such an obvious clone!

      You spew preposterous statements in all possible directions. The mentally ill one is you. You are so mentally ill that you actually believe that you can deny an irrefutable truth: that Gamemaker reigns supreme above all else. Komen Bryce knows this, and so does anyone who understands life itself.

      It's time for an ignoramus such as you to return to Gamemakerdom.

      But then again, you're a mere clone trying to get my cheeks to boil. Did you truly believe that you would fool one such as I? How comical! How comical!

      You know that you're completely incorrect. However, it is your duty to make people's cheeks boil. I, however, will not fall into your trap!

    11. Re:Following in the footsteps of my betters... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you trying to get my cheeks to boil!?

      Is that some sort of euphemism for diarrhea? Are you that sensitive that criticism causes you to have a bowel movement?

      you're a mere clone

      A clone? A clone of whom? For all I know that could mean anything. I...I can't even take that as an insult.

      It's time for an ignoramus such as you to return to Gamemakerdom.

      Wow....I...you...that makes no.....just wow. Here, I've got one, let's see if you can translate it: Chopre he randi! Gaand maar bhen chod!

      Gamemaker sucks ass. The burden of proof is on you, as you are the salesman. Hopefully the pay is at least enough to make up for the prolific diarrhea.

      Please get help.

    12. Re:Following in the footsteps of my betters... by GmExtremacy · · Score: 1

      You will never get my cheeks to boil! Accept it. Move along, clone. An obvious clone such as you will never make my cheeks boil.

      And that is that. You've been utterly destroyed.

      I encourage everyone to disregard this clone's arguments: he's just trying to spread around misinformation. Return to Gamemakerdom! Gamemaker can do anything. Use Gamemaker. Use it for everything. Do it right now.

  3. Censorship by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Of course, incompetent, racist and corrupt governments want censorship. They do not want you to know the truth about them, any other use is purely opportunistic

  4. The solution is censorship? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Really, why dont they look at the root cause, which is the communal tension and try to solve them. Oh wait, it is politicians that incite such communal hatred for political reason.

    1. Re:The solution is censorship? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 0

      Go ahead, smart guy, enlighten us - who do you solve the communal tension between a country with Hindu majority and a large Muslim minority?

    2. Re:The solution is censorship? by bhagwad · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Punish anyone who indulges in violence and ignore the religion.

    3. Re:The solution is censorship? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      What happens if one group disproportionately indulges in violence, and hence gets punished more?

      What happens if that's not the case, but people start perceiving it as such?

    4. Re:The solution is censorship? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Still, be fair, and punish the ones that Indulge in violence.

    5. Re:The solution is censorship? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Put someone else in charge of them all?

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    6. Re:The solution is censorship? by Chibinium · · Score: 1

      HR term of the day: Disparate impact. Fortunately we're not in an HR department, so we can mull over it. Who cares if there's disparate impact??? Punishment as a function of violence seems perfectly legitimate to me; punishing one group for a higher violence coefficient, rather than being a bug, is a goddamn FEATURE of the principle. To argue otherwise is to lengthen the chain of causality, to say that poor nutrition -> poor childhood -> poor impulse control -> helplessly indulge in violence. This would be followed by an admonishment to the developed world about not correcting poor nutrition. Tracing causality should be capped at two links max.

    7. Re:The solution is censorship? by bhagwad · · Score: 1

      See there's your problem for you. You think in terms of "groups". Forget about groups and see only individuals. Punish individuals. The government or the state has to be blind to "groups".

    8. Re:The solution is censorship? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Who cares if there's disparate impact??? Punishment as a function of violence seems perfectly legitimate to me; punishing one group for a higher violence coefficient, rather than being a bug, is a goddamn FEATURE of the principle.

      You missed the point of my argument. You can argue that it's right and just and all, but it won't matter to the punished group - they will just add you to the list of "friends of our enemies", and from there on any punishment, no matter how minor, will just keep aggravating them. So this will do nothing to solve communal tension - if anything, it will further polarize it.

    9. Re:The solution is censorship? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      We tried that - but, instead of solving the problem, the buggers were using communal tension to divide and rule, while keeping the country downtrodden.

    10. Re:The solution is censorship? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 2

      What happens if one group disproportionately indulges in violence, and hence gets punished more?

      Ehm, justice?

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    11. Re:The solution is censorship? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      No, your problem is that you think in terms of individuals, where said individuals think in terms of groups, and consider themselves part of those groups. Forget me, I'm irrelevant here - but they're not. And if you manage to convince them that you're hostile to their group (and not just themselves), they will gang up against you, and you've done nothing to relieve the aforementioned "communal tension".

    12. Re:The solution is censorship? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Cool. Now get back to the first post in the thread, which spoke about "solving communal tensions". Justice doesn't do anything for that if your actions aren't perceived as just, especially by those very people you punish.

    13. Re:The solution is censorship? by bhagwad · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately for your argument, we ARE individuals. The law doesn't try "groups" for murder. It doesn't sentence "groups" to jail. We don't marry in "groups".

      If we're discussing the law, don't talk about "groups". The government doesn't and shouldn't give a shit about who belongs to what religion or what "group". It has to ONLY look at - "Did this person act violently?" If so, jail. If no, let them go and to hell with what "group" he or she belongs to.

      Do you deny that this is how government works and indeed, SHOULD work?

    14. Re:The solution is censorship? by bhagwad · · Score: 1

      A man hits another man and goes to jail. EVERYONE will call that justice. Those who don't need a civics lesson.

    15. Re:The solution is censorship? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      I'm not denying that's how the law works, and I'm not denying that government should be impartial in an ideal society, and that responsibility should rest solely with the individuals.

      However, if you have ever lived in a society that is, in fact, divided along some arbitrary lines (which is true for many of them; it's just that many Westerners living in such are trained to ignore the divides, but oftentime it's a one-way street), you know that people who make the divide don't see it that way. So long as you have an "us" vs "them" mentality in enough people, they will see any statement and any action, including those by the government, in that light. And any action and any statement that they perceive is harmful to "us" is automatically considered directed at "us" as well, and therefore unjustified and evil, regardless of the circumstances.

      So, you can punish individuals all you like to uphold justice, but it won't do anything in a split society to reconcile warring groups. If you're really lucky, it won't make things any worse than they already are. So if your goal is to prevent internal strife potentially leading to a civil war, then you have to put impartial justice on the backburner sometimes. It's just politics.

    16. Re:The solution is censorship? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      A man hits another man and goes to jail. EVERYONE will call that justice.

      Tell that to the likes of Al Sharpton.

      Those who don't need a civics lesson.

      They don't care for your civics lessons. Not while you're "persecuting" them.

      Like I said, real world is not your imaginary la-la-land. People are not rational, they are not all staunch individuals, and they love group politics and attach their identity to them. You can keep pretending it's not happening and screw it all up completely, or you can work with what you have to make things better. Your choice.

    17. Re:The solution is censorship? by bhagwad · · Score: 1

      That's not true. It's not as if there are no "group divides" in a country like the US. They have republican, democrats, christians, muslims, atheists etc. The problem is HOW the groups fight each other.

      In India unlike in other countries, people resort to violence because they KNOW they will not be punished. You say that impartial justice will never work. Has it ever been tried? Name one riot where EVERYONE who indulged in violence has ended up behind bars regardless of the political backing and affiliation. Answer - never. These goons who indulge in violence know that they can get away with it and THAT is the reason for so called "communal violence". Indian governments are afraid to punish those indulging in rioting based on "communal" lines.

      If on the other hand, these "communal groups" fought with each other by writing books, giving speeches, even cursing and abusing and making fun of each other, then great! Mission accomplished. As long as there is no VIOLENCE. That is how it is done in every other civilized country in the world. That is how it should be.

      In India, people indulge in communal violence because they can get away with it. Punishment is a new word for them. These people are cowards. Try impartial justice and see how it works first before claiming that it won't. It's a new concept in India.

    18. Re:The solution is censorship? by bhagwad · · Score: 1

      Fear of the law is a very primal fear. Fear of getting punished is also primal not "rational". Like I mentioned in an earlier comment, it's never been tried in India. Punish everyone properly in ONE riot and then see the change

      You say people are not rational. I say people are cowards. They riot because they can get away with it.

    19. Re:The solution is censorship? by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      In my country (Russia), there are plenty of groups that resort to violence, and they are punished for it. E.g. there was a case a few years ago when a bunch of neo-Nazis went around kidnapping Asian immigrants and killing them on tape. And yes the country does has a law against such things - not just murders but also incitement of racial hatred and such - and in cases like these the law is enforced. But it doesn't help; the people you jail that way are seen as martyrs by those sharing their views.

    20. Re:The solution is censorship? by bhagwad · · Score: 1

      That's more on the lines of terrorism - which follows a completely different behavior pattern. For regular "communal tensions" as they exist in a country like India, the law is a pretty good deterrent if enforced.

    21. Re:The solution is censorship? by Chibinium · · Score: 1

      To miss means I did not see it. I did not miss it so much as reject its premise.

      A child who throws a PB&J sandwich on the carpet, and doesn't realize why they're going to timeout, has a lesson to learn. However, while we recognize the need to educate the child, how does one duplicate results to adults that do the same exact thing? Their reaction of "friends of our enemies" is driven by emotion, and it's frustrating...because they surely would not accept that argument if posited by their enemies.

      And of course, their enemies won't accept that argument from their mouths either.

      But then we get into Fair vs. Just: while the fair solution would be to prohibit both sides from using said rhetorical weapons, whoever sees themselves as weaker will see this as disarming lambs before wolves. To disarm, I'd try to shame them. Would A want B to use that argument? No. Would B want A to use that argument? No. Thus, neither of them can use it, full stop.

      At this point, the slicker members will realize they just agreed to publicly disarm themselves of very useful weapons. Either they accept it, or say that this line of inquiry does not apply to such delicate situations, and requires a more (nebulous) nuanced approach. The shape of this nuanced object, by the way, is left up in the air.

      Alas, there's a reason why an Appeal to Nuance is such an effective ploy: I have yet to find a way to counter it like Zerglings to Immortals in Starcraft 2...

  5. It's the religion, stupid by mrseth · · Score: 2, Insightful

    What we need is less religion, not more censorship...

    1. Re:It's the religion, stupid by linatux · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Perhaps we just need to be more tolerant, no matter how opinionated the person next door is?

    2. Re:It's the religion, stupid by Nidi62 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      At this point in the game, it doesn't matter. Muslims and Hindus have been at odds for centuries in India. The conflict has been internalized and institutionalized to the point where even if religion is somehow magically removed they would keep fighting. You still have the deep schism left over from the Partition. Northern, lighter skinned Indians look down on southern, darker skinned ones (look at Bollywood films for a perfect manifestation of this). And that's even assuming that you can remove religion from Indian society. Guess what, you can't. The caste system comes in part from religion. The most basic of traditions come from religion. People are violent. It's human nature. Hell, it's nature period. As long as there are 2 or more people left in the world, there will be violence.

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    3. Re:It's the religion, stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I agree with most of your assertions. However every thorn has its rose. India is a complex country and despite all the differences people from most religions live peacefully with each other. At one point India had the highest muslim population in the world. It is home to six religions with major population and several religions with much smaller populations. Most of these people live in harmony and despite propaganda from several extremists elements, in general population is quite tolerant.

      As for this article, I disagree with the hypothesis that India is heading towards censorship like China. I am really doubtful that it will ever reach that stage. Mainly because press is really strong in India. In addition censorship will have a negative impact on India's economy. At the same time religion is a sensitive topic and it has a potential to flare up emotions in a country where there is a constant struggle between the tolerant who want to broker more peace and the extremists who want to incite the general public for their political gain. The problem is that these same extremists might have plotted to put up the offensive material in the first place and then rally against it to gain cheap points in the media.

      It's a complex issue and I am not sure there is a good solution to the problem. As I said India is a complex creature :)

    4. Re:It's the religion, stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      As a devout Atheistic Rationalist, I agree completely.

      Lets sit in a circle and consume some abortificants and read scientific papers and talk about how unbiased and progressive we are
      and how stupid everyone else is!

      Hail Science!

    5. Re:It's the religion, stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, I can tolerate religion ... as long as its followers can tolerate being made fun of as much as I can tolerate being made fun of (which is a lot).

      If there's one thing I can't stand it's intolerance.

    6. Re:It's the religion, stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can bet that is someone started posting pictures of Obama that were defamatory and inciting violence, that they would be shut down real quick. So Slashdot, pretend defenders of Freedom of Speech, you shouldn't be so outraged at something that would happen here and many here would undoubtedly support.

    7. Re:It's the religion, stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What the hell? You're making the accusation that people on slashdot don't really defend "freedom of speech" unless they agree with it ? No, just no.

    8. Re:It's the religion, stupid by rtb61 · · Score: 0

      Everything can be changed and it is not normal human nature to be violent. Humans are a social species evolutionarily produced to work together not just by thinking of it but by the normal flow of hormones and brain chemicals, humans are wired to be a social species. Of course genetic defects occur in the wiring, psychopaths and narcissists as examples, from them stems the bulk of human on human violence.

      A lot of the violence in India is driven by poverty, working hard every day just so you can more slowly starve, die from lack of medical treatment and live in squalor. All while the few live in opulent luxury, those few of course adhering the maxim divide and conquer.

      The rich and greedy driving the poor to attack each other because of caste, race, religion or any other excuse, just so the poor won't stop and think about who is actually the cause of the bulk of their suffering and who they should really focus their anger on.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    9. Re:It's the religion, stupid by H0p313ss · · Score: 1

      Very true, the best way to reduce tensions in India will be to educate and employ the poor.

      --
      XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
    10. Re:It's the religion, stupid by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      It depends. If the person next door is opinionated in words only, sure. When that opinion also guides them to vote that way, and they vote for intolerance towards your own beliefs (or lack thereof) - starting on local level or working upwards - that becomes a bit of a problem. When they openly say that they support cutting your head off, that's a huge problem. At which point do you cease to be tolerant?

    11. Re:It's the religion, stupid by TheGoodNamesWereGone · · Score: 2

      Humans are a social species evolutionarily produced to work together

      They're also programmed to compete. You can apply theory to this all day long. The bottom line is that blaming Facebook (which isn't lily-white by any measure) for this particular incident is wrong. Those people have been fighting since time imemmorial and will only quit I suspect when one side gets wiped out.

    12. Re:It's the religion, stupid by fustakrakich · · Score: 2

      "I know there are people in the world that do not love their fellow human beings and I hate people like that."

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    13. Re:It's the religion, stupid by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 2

      Everything can be changed and it is not normal human nature to be violent. Humans are a social species evolutionarily produced to work together not just by thinking of it but by the normal flow of hormones and brain chemicals, humans are wired to be a social species. Of course genetic defects occur in the wiring, psychopaths and narcissists as examples, from them stems the bulk of human on human violence.

      That's bullshit, as demonstrated by ample evidence - there are precious few human societies in existence or in history that had not, at some point, engaged in warfare with other societies.

      Sure, humans are a social species, and they together - within their society. Not within the entire species, though - someone from another society is an untrustworthy foreigner at best, an enemy at worst - again, look at our history and our culture, all these cliches are spelled out there quite explicitly. Where the boundaries between societies come from is an interesting question, but regardless of then answer, humans are real good at dividing the world into "us" and "them", and then hating "them", despite pacifist wishful thinking to the contrary. And the bulk of human of human violence stems from that, not from psychopaths. Psychopaths may hurt or kill several people, some of the more prolific ones may hurt several dozen before they get caught. A normal human male, with beloved wife and kids, killed thousands by squeezing the trigger of the bomb release over Dresden.

      Yes, it's true that there are people out there who nudge and shape the boundaries to suit them. But, even without such meddling, humans are perfectly capable of splitting into groups, and hating and killing each other.

    14. Re:It's the religion, stupid by chrismcb · · Score: 1

      It isn't about religion. If there was less religion it would be something else. Maybe the dictators image. It is about control, control over the population.

    15. Re:It's the religion, stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hell yea. This place is filled with Obama sycophants. Just try saying anything against him and you are modded into oblivion.

      Slashdot is pretty much filled with two faced hypocrites.

    16. Re:It's the religion, stupid by TheLink · · Score: 1

      there are precious few human societies in existence or in history that had not, at some point, engaged in warfare with other societies.

      Yeah, and War has been part of humans for a very long time. My theory is that War is the real reason why humans evolved to run long distances. Not to stupidly spend hours chasing down lunch.

      When you have two different species, one predator and one prey, it is not surprising when at least one species ends up with a high top speed. But when situation is members of the same species chasing each other, evolving to be faster starts to hit diminishing returns quite early.

      In contrast, long distance running gives you a better chance of outrunning and surviving 100 other humans chasing you (you have no chance of outfighting them). Being able to run till nightfall works better than being able to sprint like a cheetah at 100kph for 20 seconds when everyone else can too.

      War would have provided far stronger selection pressure for human distance running than merely being able to spend hours chasing down prey, especially since most humans are smart enough to catch/trap most prey species, and would probably be more inclined to do so- it's more time and energetically efficient.

      --
    17. Re:It's the religion, stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      This is a worldwide problem involving Muslims everywhere, be it India, Egypt, Syria, Libya, Tunisia, Pakistan, Indonesia, Malaysia, France, you name it. Why this blanket comdemnation of religion, when only ONE religion is demonstrating that it's incapable of co-existing w/ the rest, but at the same time, incists on spreading to non-Muslim countries? There are no problems between Jews and Christians, Buddhists and Shintos, Hindus and Sikhs, Zoroastrians and Jains, etc. So rather than indulge in a self-sensoring game, why not bluntly state that the problem is Muslims being their usual self, and that no amount of censorship of Facebook, Twitter, Google+, Reuters, AP, et al is going to change that.

    18. Re:It's the religion, stupid by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 0

      There's plenty good evidence for why humans evolved as long-distance runners - and remember, that was long before they were smart enough to trap their prey. Things is, from all evidence we have, humans evolved in African savanna - think vast open areas with occasional vegetation, a perfect environment for setting an ambush and then chasing your prey once it gets close - how cheetahs etc do.

      What made humans quite unique, though, is that they have little body hear, and sweat a lot (more than any other animal). There's only one obvious benefit from that, and it's thermal regulation. This let humans take an unused niche in savanna ecosystem - that of the noon predator. Large cats normally don't hunt at that time of the day, it's too hot for them, and they can't run for long - but humans can. What more, prey also can't run for too long there, so if you can regulate your body temperature much better then it does, it's actually more energy-efficient to run it down till it drops (due to far better success rate) then to go for fast short dashes (which fail just as often as not).

      So, their environment provided a unique niche they could occupy and be highly successful in with very little competition; but that environment is also what required them to be good long distance runners.

    19. Re:It's the religion, stupid by Beeftopia · · Score: 1

      Everything can be changed and it is not normal human nature to be violent. Humans are a social species evolutionarily produced to work together not just by thinking of it but by the normal flow of hormones and brain chemicals, humans are wired to be a social species. Of course genetic defects occur in the wiring, psychopaths and narcissists as examples, from them stems the bulk of human on human violence.

      And they're also wired to form up into tribes or packs. Like wolves. Throughout the ages, they've competed bitterly with other tribes/packs. It's been a life and death struggle for resources they need to survive. This instinct is as normal and natural as any other typical human instinct. Of course, if it gets out of hand, you get world war. Tribalism has been around for as long as humans have been around. And it's been evolutionarily beneficial as evidenced by its existence to this very day, everywhere you look.

      Now, in socially complex, diverse and technologically advanced civilizations, this can lead to trouble if aggressive tribalism is stoked by leaders for their own purposes. But it has its benefits too, as in successful cultures identifying themselves and trying to preserve themselves.

      Humans are not bonobos, chimpanzees, orangutans or gorillas. They are humans. With all of their strengths and weaknesses and foibles.

    20. Re:It's the religion, stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think Indians have done pretty well considering that the country is like a European Union with people from different states having as much or more cultural differences as say Spain, Germany, France, Portugal, etc ... They are more united than the EU and have a good chance of becoming a developed nation with opportunities for most if not all in the coming two decades.

    21. Re:It's the religion, stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > why not bluntly state that the problem is Muslims

      1. Political correctness to protect the "moderates", who voluntarily form a protective shield around extremists.

      2. Good ole Appeasement, because they threaten to kill and nobody wants to be killed first by them.

    22. Re:It's the religion, stupid by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      That's bullshit. As demonstrated by ample evidence (the truth this time) that wars were driven by the leaders, leaders who psychopathically maintained power by the narcissistic minions torturing to death anybody that disagreed and refused to fight in those wars.

      In regions where rule was by tribal elders, it tended to be all show and little violence, more arbitration and little or no war.

      That key for war, for gross human violence, the slavery of the majority to the egoistic greed of the minority, was the ascendency of a genetic defect psychopathy, hidden behind the deceit of monarchy, those of un-special birth who maintained power by extremes of brutality. Are these brutish animals to be celebrated no they are to be reviled as a curse upon humanity.

      Divide and conquer is the rule of the minority to gain and keep power. The hate is born in the few and forced upon the many.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    23. Re:It's the religion, stupid by umghhh · · Score: 1

      I do not think anybody is blaming anybody here except maybe police blaming the author of the flaming post. The action 'against fb' was precaution. I suppose they weighted benefits of letting it go and causing massive riots in a process or stopping it and having trouble with fb first. I guess as long as process is visible and transparent and status quo can be restored if action was unjust it is ok. There is always a problem between freedom of expression and other freedoms. It is more difficult to resolve in crowded places where tension is never going away. Going for extremes of freedom as with any other extremes - causes a lots of trouble. Be rational and practical instead of trying to teach people on the other side of earth how they should do their business.

    24. Re:It's the religion, stupid by mapkinase · · Score: 1

      Apparently, you have succeeded in bypassing censorship, because in none of two links mentioned in ./ summary I have seen any indication on the religious identity of clashing groups.

      Care to provide a link?

      --
      I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
    25. Re:It's the religion, stupid by TheRaven64 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There are no problems between Jews and Christians, Buddhists and Shintos, Hindus and Sikhs, Zoroastrians and Jains

      Spoken like someone who hasn't been reading the news from India. Or did you just miss the stories about (Christian) nuns being attacked by Hindus trying to force them to convert? And, no doubt, you missed the people in Ireland being attacked for being the wrong flavour of Christian?

      Religion is an intrinsically intolerant idea. Any religion that claims to be the sole arbiter of truth can not coexist with others that make the same claim.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    26. Re:It's the religion, stupid by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      No, if you post things like 'Obama == miserable failure' as a total post then you get moderated down. You got the same thing with George Bush five years ago. Coherent arguments for and against both have been modded up, but if you just say 'Obama is a nigger muslim!' (quote from a post I read on Sunday) then the only reason you're moderated Troll or Flamebait is that there is no -1 Idiot.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    27. Re:It's the religion, stupid by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      no doubt, you missed the people in Ireland being attacked for being the wrong flavour of Christian?

      In the Balkans too.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    28. Re:It's the religion, stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps we need extreme intolerance of stupidity and violence

    29. Re:It's the religion, stupid by afeeney · · Score: 1

      Except for all the cases where it's not.

      Almost all religious conflicts are, fundamentally, about allocation of resources and post-colonialism tensions. Muslims tend to live in previously colonized lands far more than any other religious group. Religion just makes a better-sounding cause for violence and is better as a way to influence the poor. Sure, you're suffering now, but you'll lack for nothing in Paradise if you just do what I tell you. The Crusades were as much about control of the Silk Roads and commerce as about religion, religion just made better sound bites.

      Christian versus Christian (Northern Ireland). Ethnic and post-colonialism as much as anything,

      Muslim-Jewish. Ongoing colonialism and ethnic.

      Hindu versus Sikh (India). I don't know enough to say for certain what the post-colonialism factors are.

      Catholic versus Buddhist (Vietnam and 1966 Buddhist uprising, also about resource allocation).

      Serbian Orthodox Christian attacks on Bosnian Muslims. After the dissolution of the USSR, territorial and ethnic issues.

      Christian versus animists (South Africa)

      Buddhist versus Hindu (Sri Lanka).

    30. Re:It's the religion, stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Same AC as the GP

      I'm posting this from India. The incidents you refer to are one-off incidents caised by a perception that Christian missionaries were out to convert Hindus. I don't justify any violence against them, but it's hardly something that has an unlimited scope in time. Similarly, in Ireland, the problems were more political than religious - the IRA, terrorist as it was, did not have an agenda to wipe Protestants out of Ulster, but rather, wanted to end British rule there. Since there were no religious demands on them to wage endless warfare against the Brits, they ultimately came to an agreement. Muslims can't come to such permanent agreements, since their goal is to convert the entire world to islam. Every other religion has given up on such goals, in the event that they ever had them.

      The Balkan example by Hognoxious above only re-emphasized my point, since it was Muslims vs Serbs in 2 countries, and Muslims vs Macedonians in a third. Serbia's war against Croatia was not a religious war.

      All religions are not intrinsically intolerant, and at any rate, all religions today - except islam - accept that not all their nominal adherents are practicing believers, and don't include them in their scope. In all non-Muslim countries, except Communist ones like N Korea, freedom of conscience exists, and people don't get hunted down by family members for not being devout $adherents. That's not the case in Muslim countries, where you have howling fanatics baying for your blood if you draw cartoons of Mohammed, burn a quran or do anything Muslims deem offensive. In the meantime, in the West, people freely make art works like Andre Seranno's 'Piss Christ', and while practicing Christians do protest and express their disgust, you don't have the 'offenders' living in hiding for fear of their lives. Contrast that with Molly Norris, who started an 'Everyboody draw Mohammed' day on Facebook, and later had to assume a changed identity and go into hiding.

      People can have their beef with religion, but this problem of Muslims goes well and way beyond that: everywhere that there are Muslims, they have hostile relationships with their non-Muslim neighbors - with the possible exception of the ex-Soviet republics, where the hangover of Communism is probably still there. Not to mention that in every Muslim majority country - from Mali to Malaysia, Islamic supremacists are pretty much calling the shots.

    31. Re:It's the religion, stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Of your list above
      • Northern Ireland - like you said, more a colonial conflict, now over
      • Falls within the category of jihad, which as I stated, fuels the problems Muslims have with everyone else
      • Hindus-Sikhs never had any problems. A Sikh political party had problems with the Indian government in the 80s, and that led to the brief wave of terrorism in India during the time: it was never a case of Hindus trying to destroy/convert Sikhs, or vice versa. Today, that Sikh political party is allied to a Hindu political party, which wouldn't be happening if Hindus and Sikhs were at each other's throats
      • When did Vietnam ever have a Catholic-Buddhist standoff? It was a pure case of Veitnamese vs French colonialists, and the fact that their religions were different was just incidental to their differences
      • In both Bosnia and Kosovo, it was the Muslims who chose to be agressive. Today, Sarajevo, which used to be only 40% Muslim, is almost entirely Muslim, while Serbes have been driven out of Kosovo. Also, in Macedonia, Muslims started their fight against the non-Serb Macedonians
      • South Africa - is it a religious conflict at all, as opposed to a race based one?
      • Sri Lanka - again, an ethnic, not a religious conflict. The Tamil Tigers were Leftists, not Hindus. They had support from a Dravidian race based party in India, but the Hindu parties in India had nothing to do with them, which they would have had the Tamils been fighting a religious war

      Your other hypothesis - that Muslims happen to live in previously colonized lands more than others is not accurate. We should then be having the same problems with Latin Americans (colonized by Spain and Portugal), Asians (colonized by Brits in Indian subcontinent,French in IndoChina, Spanish/Americans in Philippines, Japanese in Korea and China, and many more). How is it that there is no such civil strife in S Korea, Vietnam, Brazil, Argentina, and so many other countries that were also colonized?

      Also, Muslims have had the sort of luck that nobody else has: through an accident of geology, they happen to be sitting on the bulk of the world's petroleum reserves - a product which, to this day, has not lost its market the way several other products have. Every member of OPEC ought to be a utopian society. But how many people would like to live in Saudi Arabia or Qatar, as opposed to Europe or other Western countries? In 1950, S Korea was as poor as Egypt, and never happened to sit on any oil reserves. In between then and now, Egypt received $60 billion in aid from the US alone, while Muslim OPEC states have received $10 trillion from the rest of the world since 1973. Yet today, S Korea is one of the countries one associates when one talks about advanced countries, while Egypt isn't. So all this talk about Muslims getting the short end of the stick throughout history is downright fraudulent.

    32. Re:It's the religion, stupid by DrProton · · Score: 1

      That's bullshit, as demonstrated by ample evidence - there are precious few human societies in existence or in history that had not, at some point, engaged in warfare with other societies.

      Sorry, but your claim about warlike human societies is controversial, as has been amply documented by Ryan and Jetha in "Sex at Dawn." I don't have my copy at hand, but this ancient warlike humans meme is a myth they dissected and disposed of in the book. See Ch. 13, "The Never-Ending Battle over Prehistoric War." For one thing, the earth was sparsely populated in antiquity. Most human communities simply did not interact with humans from other communities. Hard to start a war without an enemy. A large part of the book ("The Way We Weren't") concerns itself with showing some accepted anthropological wisdom is just plain wrong.

      --
      "Mit der Dummheit kaempfen Goetter selbst vergebens." - Schiller
    33. Re:It's the religion, stupid by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      I dare say that a single book contradicting a mountain of pre-existing evidence does not make for a strong point.

      That said, I can believe in the argument of "hard to make war when you don't interact with other groups". Sure, if your own group is rigidly defined, as the tribes tend to be, and you don't meet anyone else, then you can get away with lasting peace - conflicts within a group always having a strict ritualistic resolution. But, as soon as the group comes in contact with someone else who does not belong in the established "order of things", the default attitude seems to be hostile or at least wary - e.g. think of all those newly discovered Amazon tribes and how they react to first attempts to contact them.

    34. Re:It's the religion, stupid by mrseth · · Score: 1

      All one needs to do is look at the correlation to nearly any societal metric in religious societies vs. irreligious ones. Compare the plight of women for instance in Sweden and Saudi Arabia. The effect of religion on these metrics uniformly pushes them in the direction away from human well-being. People will argue that in Soviet Russia, Nazi Germany, and North Korea were atheistic societies, this is far from true as the leaders, as you say, become the defacto religion. This is not an irreligious society. Kim Jung Il's requirements are even nuttier than the popes (e.g., he requires a duvet made of the softest down, which is supposedly the feathers from a sparrow's chin, so thousands of them had to die to satiate this weird requirement). I think the US is a great example of a country completely stymied by a hyper-religious minority. It is a terrible shame that this anti-scientific, know-nothing demographic has wielded its highly disproportionate power in a most destructive way.

  6. What happened to sticks and stones? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sticks and stones will break my bones but facebook posts will never hurt me.

    If all that facebook is done is hurt your pride. Get over it.

  7. Breaking news from India! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Authorities from the town of Sangareddy have determined that rioting and arson have caused over $2000 in IMPROVEMENTS!!!!!!!

  8. Square peg....round hole by bennini · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The article states that a young man posted a photo on Facebook which offended several people.
    Several of those offended people decided to protest peacefully in front of a police station demanding his arrest.
    Other people decided to protest violently by burning cars, smashing in window stores and just generally acting like idiots.
    Instituting a nationwide internet censorship policy won't address the problem: impulsive, destructive people whose first course of action is violence.

    1. Re:Square peg....round hole by Nerdfest · · Score: 1

      You can get arrested in India for offending someone? I'm glad it's not like that here (yet). I'd have a multitude of sequential life sentences.

    2. Re:Square peg....round hole by pspahn · · Score: 0

      Of course you can get arrested for offending someone. If you incite someone to do something criminal, you're guilty as well.

      At the day treatment school I used to work at, kids that ran their lip and incited someone into a fight got the same charges as the kid who threw the first punch.

      --
      Someone flopped a steamer in the gene pool.
    3. Re:Square peg....round hole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually it wasn't a 'young man' it was a 'politco' (which I assumed meant 'politician'). Regardless, if the point is that the government finds the posting so objectionable as to require a Social Networking site to block it or to institute a 'great firewall of China' approach...why didn't they simple direct the police to arrest or otherwise sanction the person who posted it...

      Sure in an 'enlightened' society, the posting shouldn't have given rise to violent outbreak, and shouldn't be censored in any way or the person sanctioned...but assuming the society where this is happening clearly doesn't share the same beliefs in 'free speech' they surely have the ability to sanction the actual person 'inciting' the hatred by posting the picture rather than imposing it on the social networking site. The latter will only lead to censorship in general, the former in theory try's to enforce 'moral norms' in the country.

      Of course I would argue that perhaps it would be best to teach their people to be less sensitive to 'speech'...but I come from a country where 'free speech' is generally (though not entirely) considered to mean I can say anything I want (within the bounds of fraud,lies, actual defamation of character etc.), and while people may not like it, may even protest, they don't start violence (as a matter of standard behavior that is).

    4. Re:Square peg....round hole by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Yes, you can. One has to admit that for India it really does make a lot of sense, because their society has many deep divides in it (one of which is Muslims vs others), which together make it a kind of a powder keg - it's not all that hard to incite violence between various sects, and it tends to flare up quite spectacularly from there on, with numerous victims.

    5. Re:Square peg....round hole by sauge · · Score: 1

      It is coming to the US (assuming you are posting from the US):

      http://www.abc4.com/content/news/top_stories/story/Arizona-law-looks-to-censor-the-internet/g-MIO8eRL0-x4SzkNtLFBA.cspx

      From the article:

      The bill would make it a crime to offend, harass, terrify or even just annoy another person online. Skordas points out a few issues, like how will law enforcement find these so-called "online trolls?" and who is going to set the basis for what is considered "offensive?"

    6. Re:Square peg....round hole by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Of course you can get arrested for offending someone. If you incite someone to do something criminal, you're guilty as well.

      Offending (pspahn is an asshat) and inciting criminality (death to pspahn!) are not the same thing. Law (and logic) fail.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    7. Re:Square peg....round hole by JTsyo · · Score: 1

      Wonder how much of it is due to funds coming from Pakistan to ensure that tensions remain high in India. Some Indian states already try to bridge the gap with affirmative action for Muslims. But there's always some issue that crops up and sets everything back.
      http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2010-03-26/news/27624391_1_muslims-in-government-jobs-muslim-castes-muslims-and-christians

    8. Re:Square peg....round hole by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Another article(See http://www.deccanchronicle.com/node/109255) states that

      a group went to the town police station on Thursday night to lodge a complaint against a person who posted a picture of a holy place with a picture of a god of another community morphed on it. Sources said that the police delayed in registering a case and failed to mobilise forces quickly.
      Sangareddy inspector Chandrasekhar said, “A group came complaining about an FB post. While we were convincing them about registering a case, they started agitating. Around 200 people staged a dharna. While returning from the police station, the group tore off festival banners of the other community. This inflamed members of that community and they started pelting stones.

      So the story now becomes
      1. Someone(A belonging to community X) posts an image on his FB account. Remember the row over some danish newspaper cartoons.
      2. A group of people(Y) protest in front of the police
      3. While returning they physically vandalize the religious symbols of totally unrelated people belonging to the X community.
      4. This results in people belonging to the X community vandalizing the homes/shops/religious structures in areas dominated by community Y
      At the end of each stage in this unfolding drama, random strangers were victimized for not fault of theirs other than their religious outlook in life.

  9. Boo Hoo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Some people got trolled on the internet and responded with violence. They don't deserve any sympathy.

  10. the real cause by frovingslosh · · Score: 0

    Wouldn't it be simpler to just outlaw religion, the real cause of this and most other problems in the world?

    --
    I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
    1. Re:the real cause by JWW · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Are you serious?

      Mao outlawed religion and while he managed to solve and get rid of a lot of his problems (people), I think he made the world's problems worse.

      I am so sick of all of this, "just get rid of religion and everything will be peachy" crap.

      The biggest killers the world has ever know killed for the nation, the party, their culture and for themselves, not for religion.

      An also, how do you plan to get rid of religions, are you going to round up the faithful and send them to camps?

    2. Re:the real cause by Baloroth · · Score: 1

      It would be so easy to Godwin the thread here... so I won't. Instead, I'll just say: that statement is the fundamental justification for most (every?) instance of genocide and many instances of war and evil throughout history. And, like all of them, you are completely wrong. The problem isn't x group of people or y ideology: the problem is human nature, or to quote from Equilibrium, "man's inhumanity towards man." And as the movie points out, there isn't one single property of humanity that causes that.

      This can manifest itself through religion, yes, but it can also manifest itself through rationality, emotion, or just about anything else. To attempt to scapegoat any one of this things as "the real problem" is also a trait of human nature: mankind excels at placing blame on others. The reality is so long as men are men (and women are women, don't want to be sexist), these problems will exist.

      To cry for the banning of an ideology you disagree with and see as wrong (and, most likely, don't fully understand either: fear of the different, often stemming from ignorance, is another manifestation of the flaw of human nature) is to undue most of the progress we have made as a society towards overcoming our own nature. We will never rid this world of all it's problems: we can do our best not to cause more, and to fix those we see. Intolerance towards another's ideology is one of those problems. And yes, religion can cause that. So can rationality*. And to ban them would be to not only make things worse, but to remove a great source of potential good, which again, both rationality and religion can achieve.

      *Of course, rationality and religion as perverted by evil. Neither one, properly used, is inherently evil. They are often used improperly (again, by flawed humanity that strives against its fellow man).

      --
      "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
    3. Re:the real cause by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 0

      It's blind adherence to ideology that's the problem - religion is just a subset of ideology. People have killed in the name of Allah or Jesus, yes, but they have also killed in the name of racial purity, or even equality and brotherhood.

    4. Re:the real cause by chrismcb · · Score: 1

      Because it isn't about religion. It is about control, and those in charge use religion to control people. If they didn't use religion, they'd use something else.

    5. Re:the real cause by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Mao outlawed religion...

      Mao also developed a philosophy of the moral superiority of the downtrodden ("Blessed are the meek..."?); established a cult of personality venerating him as more than a mere man; and published a handbook of his writings that outsold the Bible, and was treated in much the same manner (as a source of divine wisdom, infallibly correct).

      It seems to be a flaw of the human psyche, that the most direct way to get rid of a religion is to invent another one to replace it.

    6. Re:the real cause by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      how do you plan to get rid of religions, are you going to round up the faithful and send them to camps?

      Just responding to the "how"... speaking hypothetically.

      • * No more state subsidies for religious organizations.
      • * Replace holidays which have some origin in religion with other ones that don't.
      • * No more public religious figures that try to have their say in everything (like the pope for example).
      • * Outlaw religious symbols in public. This includes clothing and buildings. Religious buildings that are too valuable to be demolished have their ownership transferred to the state, who uses them as simple monuments (allow for no other uses than tourism only).
      • * In general: outlaw public references to religious elements of any nature. People would still be free to believe what they want, but they would have to restrict their religious practices to the privacy of their homes (or small religious events held in neutral buildings with no advertising on the outside).
    7. Re:the real cause by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree. Perhaps we should just get rid of irrational thinking. I wonder if there are any institutions that explicitly promote irrational thinking as a virtue?

  11. Honestly... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 2

    They should probably encourage facebook to keep up the good work...

    Nothing intensifies feelings of religious entitlement(that, when violated, swiftly turn to violence) like continual cringing deference and nothing dissipates those feelings like a continual bilateral exchange of ridicule.

    It bloody well took long enough; but thanks to the scoffers, freethinkers, and scurrilous pamphleteers(Oh, and those guys were scurrilous. Trolls respect your elders....) most of the western world can't even distinguish between a Lutheran and a Methodist, much less excitedly tell you why burning one of the two at stake is an immediate necessity. Heck, unitarians the last major surviving heresy(Arianism, Socinianism, and Catharism didn't do quite so well) are now considered to be risibly bland liberals, rather than barely-christian heretics. Even the good, old, Catholic/Protestant bloodbath just isn't what it might be. You've still got a few belligerent, probably whiskey-soaked, Irish fighting; but outside of that knowledge and care about the theological and doctrinal differences is probably at an all-time low, particularly when you consider that the ability to inform yourself if interested is at an all time high.

    It takes time; but success through mockery that gradually degenerates into sheer apathy is the way to go! Censorship is an attractive short-term plan; but it will have you travelling away from the slackutopia, where nobody gives enough of a fuck to go to the trouble of brutal communal violence.

  12. Wirewall by Ashenkase · · Score: 2

    Could we be seeing another Great Firewall of China?

    No, this is the beginning of the great Wirewall of India: http://www.photopumpkin.com/wp-content/uploads/electric_wire_3.jpg

  13. Story tagged as censorship? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    But I bet you little fagets can't' mod this +5 insightful

    NIGGERS

    Can you?

    Show me that you don't agree with what I say but will die for my right to say it. SHow me a +5 mod on this post. Hell, no need to die for it. Just spend some mod points.

    We won't see it. We'll see it at -1 in short order. The United States us a bunch of spineless hypocrites.

    1. Re:Story tagged as censorship? by mhogomchungu · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      any particular reason why you posted as an "Anonymous Coward"?

    2. Re:Story tagged as censorship? by TheGoodNamesWereGone · · Score: 2

      any particular reason why you posted as an "Anonymous Coward"?

      Emphasis on the second word perhaps...

    3. Re:Story tagged as censorship? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But I'm at +1, assholes. I could have made an account if that would have made a difference. Why would it have?

    4. Re:Story tagged as censorship? by Raenex · · Score: 1

      You're confusing censorship with endorsement. I don't know why anybody should endorse hateful flamebait. Slashdot, however, does not censor your ability to spew such nonsense -- lots of sites would just delete it outright or not even allow it in the first place.

  14. ahh... the invisible hand of the market by decora · · Score: 1

    its funny how similar are the smells of free market capitalism, and burning insulation.

  15. Cart before horse by benjfowler · · Score: 1

    The root cause of THIS problem are badly behaved 'youths' rioting and breaking other serious laws. Like those same 'youths' of a 'certain religious group' who rioted, burnt, looted and murdered when somebody in Denmark put some rude pictures in the newspaper.

    I think we've already established the basic principle that there is no right not to be offended. The only way we'll teach people this very basic lesson, especially those belonging to a 'certain religious group', is to use force. Force is one language that uncultured and illiterate people throughout the world, truly understand.

    So why not just read the rioters the proverbial Riot Act and then kick their asses? Rioting and looting is an extremely serious offence with no moral justification.

    1. Re:Cart before horse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is a right to be offended. Otherwise, Obama would not receive and send the Dalai Lama through the side entrances. (http://s80.photobucket.com/albums/j191/mikesamerica/?action=view&current=96834730.jpg). Or look at the US kow-towing in Afghanistan after burning some trash which included the Koran.

      F*ck you cant even offend a cop.. or you may get your face smashed to the ground, tasered or worse.

      It is also the same reason why LA burned after Rodney King beating - so unless you are calling the blacks in the US uncultured & illiterate, I think you suggestions demonstrate your ignorance of the real world.

    2. Re:Cart before horse by benjfowler · · Score: 1

      The Chinese and Muslims act offended to extract political concessions.

      Offending somebody with a gun and a badge is just lack of common sense.

    3. Re:Cart before horse by Jiro · · Score: 2

      One of the strange aspects of this case is something you obliquely pointed out: those news articles describe a "place of worship" and a "religious group", which enraged "youths" and offended the "other religious community". In the West (I don't know about India) this kind of bizarre omission of facts normally means that the incident was perpetrated by Muslims but the newspaper doesn't want people to think of Muslims as violent and is intentionally biasing their reporting. It's sometimes extended to other groups; for instance, political affiliation is mentioned a lot less for Democratic perpetrators than for Republicans.

    4. Re:Cart before horse by vinayg18 · · Score: 1

      This is how it is in Indian newspapers. The omission of facts is to deflect accusations of biased reporting, and prevent the possibility of inciting further violence by helping miscreants identify "enemies". While in the West, such omissions may indirectly indict Muslims, it's more complex than that because of the many religions and their sub-sects in India. There have been times when Hindu castes have attacked each other over ridiculous reasons (Boy of Caste A sitting in a park with girl of Caste B). Reasons for flare-ups are commonly moral policing (Women in pubs! Won't someone preserve Indian culture? Take up arms!), alleged "insults" to $Deity and inter-religious relationships. Most of the country can only look at such incidents with condemnation and disgust.

  16. couple of big differences by Ralph+Spoilsport · · Score: 2

    The Chinese block shit for the sole rational purpose of absolute POWER. The Indians will block shit because of some delusional religious bullshit. Which is why China will win.

    --
    Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
  17. Religious Intolerance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Jesus Fucking Christ!

  18. It is fair by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Religion has always been close to people heart in India. Violence in the name of religion is an oxymoron but then this is realty (this is how mature the people are). Either people learn to make sensible posts (in a totally free channel) or the freedom to express will be taken away... surely this is only fair!

  19. this is a socio-government issue worldwide. by bdabautcb · · Score: 1

    Everywhere I look, I could decide that something that someone else has said, posted (tacked a flyer to a wall, or made a comment on the interweb) offends me. Some things I read in my local newspaper are offensive to me. A lot of things I read in comment sections are offensive. But I decided a long time ago to not feel offended by people remotely related to me. A neighbor who has a brother who lives five hundred miles away might not like me; I have found that being a decent person and defending my beliefs have encouraed my neighbors to do the same. This is an issue that confronts 'global society'. I would encourage everybody that has a facebook account to go talk to the people who live around you and learn something. Also, for those that say social networking is at tool for revolution, i agree. It most certainly is and if you are using facebook, twitter, or any other version to talk about social revolution, I am on your side. If you are tweeting about a club or snookie, you already lost any respect I might have, The internet is a tool well utilized by several, by most, it is a hammer being swung at a thumb tack.

    --
    Koalas. They're telepathic. Plus, they control the weather. -Margaret
    1. Re:this is a socio-government issue worldwide. by bdabautcb · · Score: 1

      Get yer shit together, 'America Fuck Yea!' We should be fighting this, not idly standing by with big screen TV's, professional college athletes, and a government that is fastly degrarding into a corporation. If you have a lot of money, hang on and profit. If you don't, learn how to grow your own food and hang on and live. Public education=government. Biggest employer=government. Decisions about your own health=government. Walking down your sidewalk? Google has the pictures, and who can access that? Government. I have never done anything illegal in my life, nor plan on it, yet this shit still scares me. I sense a revolution coming. Banking system. Federal Reserve. The Dollar. NAFTA. I could go on and on, but you get the point that it is bullshit. The denoument is DHS and TSA. They have yet to catch a 'terrorist', yet they recieve tens and hundreds of million dollars in funding. Who authorizes that? Apparently not me, even though I pay for it and have not voted for a republican or democrat since I was 18 in 2000. I call bullshit.

      --
      Koalas. They're telepathic. Plus, they control the weather. -Margaret
  20. Religious censorship already exists on Facebook by Sqr(twg) · · Score: 4, Informative

    Try posting a picture of a woman breastfeeding. It is banned because it offends the American Puritans.

    Why shouldn't Facebook also cater to other religions? Their goal is to increase profits, so it makes sense to make the maximum number of customers happy.

    1. Re:Religious censorship already exists on Facebook by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And most of the developed country people look for an opportunity to comment on countries like India and China. All these people talking about other countries keep their cool, if someone burns the bible and post the pictures on facebook.

    2. Re:Religious censorship already exists on Facebook by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Try posting a picture of a woman breastfeeding. It is banned because it offends the American Puritans.

      Why shouldn't Facebook also cater to
      other religions? Their goal is to increase profits, so it makes sense to make the maximum number of customers happy.

      nonsense.

      https://www.google.com/search?q=breast+feeding&hl=en&safe=off&rlz=1C1DVCP_enUS391US413&prmd=imvns&source=lnms&tbm=isch&ei=lSN7T5yQEIOHgweO_-WRAw&sa=X&oi=mode_link&ct=mode&cd=2&sqi=2&ved=0CDcQ_AUoAQ&biw=1366&bih=638

  21. Re:Let Their God(s) Sort It Out by umghhh · · Score: 1

    what if they find that you are an enemy whacko (as in fact majority of such people would) ? Would you still opt for freedom of action to clean up the environment?

  22. Right... by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 1

    Actually, what really is needed is self-humor, the capacity to look at yourself and see the joke. This isn't always as straight forward as it seems. Take the series, Yes Prime Minister. In it hacker does the list of how the nature of the average EU civil servant. The generosity of the dutch, the organization of the Italians, the humanity of the Germans, etc etc. But conspicuous by its absence is any reference to a British trait. The series make a lot of fun of politicians and civil servants but not of Brits themselves. The voter is barely touched upon despite that they are obviously idiots for electing Hacker in the first place.

    There are Italian films where a catholic priest talks to Jesus and has a friendly rivalry with the communist major. It shows how Italy is often surprisingly liberal in its actual laws because while the church is important, it isn't taken entirely serious. As in, people know that while obviously life should be as the church dictates, it isn't and that is alright. It is the different between someone who has cut down on meat and a PETA activist who frots at the mouth at the sign of a human owning a cat.

    Most religious groups have learned to take themselves not to serious. Jews are best known for this, you can't move for Jewish comedians. Muslim comedians? Not so much. And gosh, that certainly seems to be a religion represented in a lot of conflicts around the world. It is not as if other fates have never been to bloody serious but Islam right now is at a stage incompatible with the rest of the world. To be fair, no other religion has had to deal with such complexities. Most religions learned to adjust to a multi-cultural world early on with their main group contained within their own region. Sure there were Christian missionaries during the renaissance but they were easily digested.

    Islam suddenly spread into a world where religious identity has had to be suppressed because there are just to many others, while at the same time exposing the radical differences within the religion itself. Take Erdogans warmongering with Israel. Complains about 9 Turks killed so that the press is to busy being spoonfed to notice that dozens are killed each day in Turkish occupation of Kurdish lands. Syria is not about human rights but about which faction within Islam has control over the other. The countries that are for or against intervention are neatly divided along these faction lines.

    It creates a real identity crisis, who are you as a Muslim? And that doesn't work well with someone poking fun at you, either from inside or outside. Note how carefully western media avoids making jokes about Muslims. Nothing new, blacks were treated the same at some point. Kids gloves so as not to offend those who were not mature enough as a group to handle a joke. No, someone being PC is often not doing it out of a sense of equality in my opinion.

    But the PCness leads to cultural isolation. Watch a program like QI, it is awfully white. Most TV is. I can remember only one black person, a comedian. This again leads the group condemned with PCness to have even a greater identity crisis. Where are the role models? The people to show there is an alternative then the models shown by the sattelite tv from back home?

    When your identity is lost and no new one is available, you tend to defend what little remains with a vengance.

    See Muslims in Europe purposefully dressing the same despite most being fully well aware it will only increase the perception of themselves in a negative way if you pressed them on it. Better belong to your own small marginalized group then be part of the greater anonymous void.

    Lets not forget that movies like a "Life of Brian" saw plenty of protest. Peaceful to be sure but that was just because this movie was at the END of the process. Not the beginning. The beginning wasn't nice at all and plenty died so that we can laugh about western religions.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

  23. Notice how all 3 articles are light on details.... by Vijaysj · · Score: 1

    Non of the articles linked above state
    1. The name of the politician who posted the picture on his FB Account?
    2. What was offensive about the picture.
    3. How did the riots start

    http://www.deccanchronicle.com/node/109255
    http://postnoon.com/2012/03/30/sangareddy-erupts-in-violence/40619

    --
    To Share Is To care
  24. Political conspiracy... by singhulariti · · Score: 1

    This is how it works in India...or anywhere... Some months back the Indian people decided they were going to fight corruption, they organized via facebook, twitter et. al. and caused MASSIVE headaches for the govt. The govt. realized they needed to do something about it. So they hire a couple of idiots to post some "offensive" photos, then hire some goons to start a "communal" war and then censor the net in the name of "peace". Almost ALL communal riots in India follow a similar pattern.

  25. Most cry babies per population by Murdoch5 · · Score: 1

    India by far as the most cry babies per population in the world, if not about muhammad eating a hotdog, it's about a picture of a temple or it's about being able to google a picture someone does like etc....

    All of India needs to grow up, this is getting out of control, they can't keep calling mom everytime someone looks at them funny or because someone makes a face. If you as a person don't want to use the internet don't use it, other wise leave the rest of the world alone, I'm sick of hearing about some Indian getting pissed off because they act like 5 year olds.

  26. Can't be good for the outsourcing industry by EJB · · Score: 1

    If this results in Internet censorship or another great firewall, that can't be too good for the Indian outsourcing industry.
    Would you let a team of outsourced programmers work on your code if they cannot access the websites they need to do their jobs? Or of they can't communicate with your on-site developers using the same sites that everybody else uses?
    Or if they can't access the website that you're developing as a company?

    Don't think so. They're just shooting themselves in the foot over there.

  27. 3 words by Mr_Nitro · · Score: 1

    drop fucking religion.