SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
From Reuters:
A Pakistani counter-terrorism court has sentenced to death a man who allegedly committed blasphemy on Facebook, a government prosecutor said on Sunday, the first time someone has been handed the death penalty for blaspheming on social media.
[...] Shafiq Qureshi, public prosecutor in Bahawalpur, about 500km (300 miles) south of provincial capital Lahore, said Raza was convicted for allegedly making derogatory remarks against Prophet Mohammad, his wives and companions.
"An anti terrorism court of Bahawalpur has awarded him the death sentence," Qureshi told Reuters." It is the first ever death sentence in a case that involves social media."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Pakistan Sentences Man to Death for Blasphemy on Facebook
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 139 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Grelb's Reminder:
Eighty percent of all people consider themselves to be above
average drivers.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday June 12 2017, @08:41PM (15 children)
I didn't see it this way. The USA "left" establishment is as right-wing authoritarian as the political right (your take that USA doesn't have an established political left is correct - I'm not fully aware of the position of US greens).
What he calls "right-wing authoritarians" applies to both political left/right. He clarifies his use of the term on page 15:
On the next page. by contrast:
The explanation for the non-existence of left-wing authoritarians resides in the last part (the Weatherman / Weather Underground [wikipedia.org] for those who don't know/can't remember the reference).
And Bob Altemeyer is correct in this regard - the USians authoritarians are right-wing authoritarians, no matter if they are political left or right (I find it pinky cute the pretence of some gun owners that they are actually buying/owning guns to follow the spirit of the second amendment).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday June 14 2017, @12:02AM (14 children)
In other words, he's saying authoritarian-authoritarians, which is rather redundant. And this sort of "right" has no countering "left". It would be very easy to be both right and left wing by the above meaning since the concepts are compatible (unlike the language implication).
That's a very traditional authority role as well. And notice the whole point of this edifice is merely so he can claim that he doesn't know many left wing authoritarians. I don't see why he just merely ignores the facts that don't fit his worldview and come up with a simpler system that doesn't tax his brain so much. Maybe it's a live by the sword, die by the sword kind of thing.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday June 14 2017, @11:38AM (13 children)
I beg to disagree.
I think the distinction would be between law-abiding (with law makers as leaders) authoritarians and unlawful authoritarians. Lets say between proper/improper authoritarians or right/wrong authoritarians. On the ground that all laws are rules, but not all rules are legal, I argue one can imagine the existence of authoritarians compulsively sticking to a set of illegal rules.
Does the distinction matter? Of course it does:
1. the behaviour of lawful authoritarians will be light-years distance from the behaviour of unlawful ones.
2. it would be hard to write a non-fiction social-science book about the unlawful authoritarians; I mean, look, Mafia's mostly absent nowadays and it's not like the Mexican.... ummm... medicine men?... are so approachable and willing to answer to questionnaires and what not. (and no, Montana Freemen [wikipedia.org], Rainbow Farm [wikipedia.org], Ruby Ridge [wikipedia.org], Bundy Standoff [wikipedia.org] etc., while significant as events, aren't frequent enough to qualify as a social phenomenon worth studying).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday June 14 2017, @01:09PM (12 children)
Or the conformist communists/Marxists of the 20th century. The thing that is missed here is that unlawful authoritarians have in-group rules. They are lawful authoritarians by those rules. Hence, in situations where they achieve society-wide authority, their movement into the "lawful" side is seamless.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday June 14 2017, @01:46PM (11 children)
I can't accept the unlawful authoritarians and the underground political movements as equivalent.
E.g. Mafia is not going ever** to become a lawful presence, but they still have their in-group rules (and members who have... umm, the loyalty and discipline feelings driven to extreme, indistinguishable from those of authoritarians). As such, their behaviour is going to be always specifically distinct from political movements, no matter how "revolutionary" the latter are.
---
** that is, unless the dream of our "violent imposed monopoly"-anarcho-capitalistic-AC becomes reality. If this does happen, Mafia will be one of the enforcers acting on the market.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday June 15 2017, @12:03AM (10 children)
I didn't say they were. Communists and Marxists though have substantial conforming behavior, ideology, and rules that sets them apart from normal underground movements.
Not seeing the argument here. Authoritarian groups can vary. Here, the Mafia has different goals and priorities than a revolutionary group. And that leads to different behavior as a result. And I'd never say never. Today's criminal group may well become tomorrow's lawful authority. The Mafia in particular had their own laws and authority often in conflict with the countries in which they resided. They made their presence lawful at times particularly in Sicily and southern Italy, Cuba, and parts of the US.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday June 15 2017, @11:39AM (9 children)
Yes, butt you remember where we started the discussion. With you saying that there's a single type of authoritarians (the redundant "authoritarian authoritarian").
And I continue to argue that there are more than a single type of them and one can expect different behaviours from different types.
Do you have something to object to this argument or are we in agreement?
Because if the latter, then we can agree he studied only one type of authoritarians and the only thing we may discuss about is the appropriateness of the "right-wing authoritarians" term he used to label the subjects of his study.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday June 15 2017, @11:53AM (8 children)
I didn't say that. That was Maher's convenient interpretation of "right wing".
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday June 15 2017, @12:31PM (7 children)
This is the pet definition of which I spoke earlier. Law and authority is relative and the authoritarian will always consider their source of authority to be primal, hence, why I don't see any such thing as "unlawful" authoritarianism. Note, for example, that Marx spent a lot of rhetorical effort justifying the legitimacy of his cause while simultaneously delegitimatizing that of the established power structure. The labour theory of value was first and foremost an exercise in claiming authority by the nebulous group of the proletariat. Thus, communist-style communism is not about unlawful actions, but rather establishing a new authority aligned with the ideology and its principles. But what they consider "lawful, proper, correct, doing what their authorities said", is going to be very different from what a follower of the established political system would consider so.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday June 15 2017, @12:49PM (6 children)
If all you do is look at the coarsest scale, it is true indeed. But Bob Altemeyer asserted that he's looking on a finer scale, which can discern sub-types, and within this finer scale, looking only at one such subtype. His assertion is "there are other type I haven't studied and I'll not write about".
I still consider law and authority as distinct.
Here's an example for authoritarians for whom becoming legit/legal is contrary to their interest: the drug cartels will be in peril if drugs become legal - they won't be able to compete with big pharma (where are the Chicago gangsters from the time of prohibition?)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday June 15 2017, @01:10PM (5 children)
And his assertion turned out inaccurate as I discussed earlier. So not seeing the point to caring that he asserted something.
How is it distinct here? Let us note also that the drug cartels go to great lengths to make their wealth and persons legit and legal (such as staying out of jail for their crimes).
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday June 15 2017, @01:27PM (4 children)
Oh, come on. Don't equate now "try to stay out of jail" with "striving to be legit", it's too much of a stretch.
Besides, even if the leader of a cartel would maybe try to "paint" himself as legit, this is not something you can say about the rest of the smaller fish around them - they can't afford the cost of "apparently law abiding citizens" for them "you cannot prove it was me who did it" is enough.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday June 16 2017, @12:06AM (3 children)
I didn't. "Try to stay out of jail" is a significant subcategory though of "striving to be legit" as I indicated with my choice of the term, "such as".
And? You're not actually disagreeing with me. A variety of authoritarian systems operate that way. The leader has the aura of legitimacy and authority and the followers do the dirty work behind the scenes. Classic failure mode of any sort of authoritarian system.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday June 16 2017, @06:32AM (2 children)
Ok, So we agree? There are more than one variety of authoritarians, responding to different pressures from the env and exhibiting different behavior (even if the underlying general/coarse principle of authoritarianism stays the same).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday June 16 2017, @10:59AM (1 child)
We always agreed on that. My point all along was that "right wing" as mentioned earlier had been redefined to mean authoritarian. I don't know why Bob Altemeyer felt the need to create a new meaning for "right wing" that is redundant with authoritarian and differs from actually usage of right wing and left wing, but I strongly suspect it's a propaganda move merely to label right wing groups with the authoritarian label. However, as a result, it creates unnecessary semantics confusion such as your earlier mentioned inability to think of examples of left wing authoritarianism despite the obvious example of 20th century communism and Runaway's mention of the "there ought to be a law" behavior.
In other words, things that normally would be not right wing are considered right wing merely because we're using a non-standard definition for right wing. And notice how your last sentence about gun owners is a complete non sequitur. Gun owning, even for the "pretense" of exercising a right, is not authoritarian. Irrationality often follows such weird semantics games like this and I think we see a little of that in action in your much earlier post.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Saturday June 17 2017, @06:12AM
Ok, I have no beef with your critique on his choice of terms. It's indeed a terminology syntactically overlapping with other ones without enough share of semantics.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford