Je Suis Charlie

Immsys

New member
May 23, 2009
50
0
0
http://www.hoodedutilitarian.com/2015/01/in-the-wake-of-charlie-hebdo-free-speech-does-not-mean-freedom-from-criticism/

Before everyone jumps on the ol' bandwagon, I highly recommend reading some of Charlie Hebdo's cartoons and their general attitude towards Islam in general, both of which can be found in the article linked. Obviously I don't condone the shooting up of any journalists or their place of work, but that doesn't change the fact that a lot of CH's work is racist and that "solidarity" with them is not exactly what we need.
 

JaceArveduin

New member
Mar 14, 2011
1,952
0
0
Immsys said:
http://www.hoodedutilitarian.com/2015/01/in-the-wake-of-charlie-hebdo-free-speech-does-not-mean-freedom-from-criticism/

Before everyone jumps on the ol' bandwagon, I highly recommend reading some of Charlie Hebdo's cartoons and their general attitude towards Islam in general, both of which can be found in the article linked. Obviously I don't condone the shooting up of any journalists or their place of work, but that doesn't change the fact that a lot of CH's work is racist and that "solidarity" with them is not exactly what we need.
So... He's not actually any worse than Trey Parker or Matt Stone?
 

BinaryOverride

New member
Sep 30, 2014
4
0
0
Immsys said:
http://www.hoodedutilitarian.com/2015/01/in-the-wake-of-charlie-hebdo-free-speech-does-not-mean-freedom-from-criticism/

Before everyone jumps on the ol' bandwagon, I highly recommend reading some of Charlie Hebdo's cartoons and their general attitude towards Islam in general, both of which can be found in the article linked. Obviously I don't condone the shooting up of any journalists or their place of work, but that doesn't change the fact that a lot of CH's work is racist and that "solidarity" with them is not exactly what we need.
They weren't racist. The fact that you have only seen their work on Islam donsn't change the fact that they used the same tone when they were writing about christians and jews.
Most of the time they were trying to show that fundamentalism was the worst that could hppen to any religion.
 

silasbufu

New member
Aug 5, 2009
1,095
0
0
Edited because of the tons of quotes from people who misread my post. I am not defending the terrorists, but I am also not considering the victims as martyrs. Have a fantastic day
 

Gethsemani_v1legacy

New member
Oct 1, 2009
2,552
0
0
Am I the only one seeing the danger in de-humanizing the people who performed this heinous attack? Calling their minds barren because their view of the world does not correlate with our own is the first step on the road of getting into the same mindset that these murderers no doubt had. A mindset in which the other person isn't as much a human being as I am, because they do not think like I do.
 

freaper

snuggere mongool
Apr 3, 2010
1,198
0
0
Great one, guys. I'm relieved so many people have spoken out against what happened.
 

PunkRex

New member
Feb 19, 2010
2,533
0
0
If the cartoons were racist in anyway then I can understand peoples concerns but running in to an office and gunning people down CANNOT be justified.

A world were cartoons get people killed is not one I want to live in.
 

The Wooster

King Snap
Jul 15, 2008
15,305
0
0
Immsys said:
http://www.hoodedutilitarian.com/2015/01/in-the-wake-of-charlie-hebdo-free-speech-does-not-mean-freedom-from-criticism/

Before everyone jumps on the ol' bandwagon, I highly recommend reading some of Charlie Hebdo's cartoons and their general attitude towards Islam in general, both of which can be found in the article linked. Obviously I don't condone the shooting up of any journalists or their place of work, but that doesn't change the fact that a lot of CH's work is racist and that "solidarity" with them is not exactly what we need.
Grey actually posted this on his Twitter feed last night, so I think it goes without saying that its recommended that everybody take a read. I presume that its part of the reasoning why this strip merely has Erin and Suchong, no depictions of Muhammad or anybody else.
 

Immsys

New member
May 23, 2009
50
0
0
MarsAtlas said:
Immsys said:
http://www.hoodedutilitarian.com/2015/01/in-the-wake-of-charlie-hebdo-free-speech-does-not-mean-freedom-from-criticism/

Before everyone jumps on the ol' bandwagon, I highly recommend reading some of Charlie Hebdo's cartoons and their general attitude towards Islam in general, both of which can be found in the article linked. Obviously I don't condone the shooting up of any journalists or their place of work, but that doesn't change the fact that a lot of CH's work is racist and that "solidarity" with them is not exactly what we need.
Grey actually posted this on his Twitter feed last night, so I think it goes without saying that its recommended that everybody take a read. I presume that its part of the reasoning why this strip merely has Erin and Suchong, no depictions of Muhammad or anybody else.
I wasn't aware that he posted that to twitter, but that does make sense and good on him for doing so. I wasn't trying to presume that everyone here, especially not Grey and Cory who did the strip, was ignorant or lacking information about what Charlie Hebdo does, I was just trying to add another voice into the discussion. Sorry if it came across as callous or arrogant to anybody.
 

tzimize

New member
Mar 1, 2010
2,391
0
0
Immsys said:
http://www.hoodedutilitarian.com/2015/01/in-the-wake-of-charlie-hebdo-free-speech-does-not-mean-freedom-from-criticism/

Before everyone jumps on the ol' bandwagon, I highly recommend reading some of Charlie Hebdo's cartoons and their general attitude towards Islam in general, both of which can be found in the article linked. Obviously I don't condone the shooting up of any journalists or their place of work, but that doesn't change the fact that a lot of CH's work is racist and that "solidarity" with them is not exactly what we need.
On the contrary, its EXACTLY what we need. The thing is, even if Charlie Hebdo was the most racist, xenophobic assholes on the planet...they STILL shouldnt be shot for their opinions. Thats the values of western society. This quote springs to mind: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it". Thats western society. If you dont like it...I'm tempted to quote South Park...but I'll refrain.

Gethsemani said:
Am I the only one seeing the danger in de-humanizing the people who performed this heinous attack? Calling their minds barren because their view of the world does not correlate with our own is the first step on the road of getting into the same mindset that these murderers no doubt had. A mindset in which the other person isn't as much a human being as I am, because they do not think like I do.
Its not so much about being a human being, as being sane. And its not so much about being insane, as it is about being religious. There is not a single reason in the world that can justify acting like this other than religion. I wish people would wake up and smell the coffee. Religion is BAD. PERIOD. It contributes NOTHING to society. Its full of hatespewing intolerant bullshit, and even worse, its immune to criticism because some skyman laid down the rules.

The people that did this are bad. But their religion is ALSO bad. Its BAD. I wish people would get it through their heads. Thats whats so important about freedom of speech. We HAVE to be able to critique and mock this madness, how else would we be able to point out the madness of it? Rationality doesnt work on these people, and rationality even works on my dog, as long as I explain it in a language she understands. You cant argue with religion, so it should be destroyed. Slowely but surely. I dream of the day when we can finally be rid of this bullshit.
 

maffgibson

Deep Breath Taker
Sep 10, 2013
47
0
0
Immsys said:
http://www.hoodedutilitarian.com/2015/01/in-the-wake-of-charlie-hebdo-free-speech-does-not-mean-freedom-from-criticism/

Before everyone jumps on the ol' bandwagon, I highly recommend reading some of Charlie Hebdo's cartoons and their general attitude towards Islam in general, both of which can be found in the article linked. Obviously I don't condone the shooting up of any journalists or their place of work, but that doesn't change the fact that a lot of CH's work is racist and that "solidarity" with them is not exactly what we need.
I had already read the whole article as well as all the comments trying to make my mind up, and am pretty uneasy about the approach taken.

I don't think that "racist" is an apt description. The art style is generally extremely grotesque: although the "hook/ big nose" is a fundamental part of the racist "arab" caricature, if you look at the covers NOT dealing with muslims, you will find pretty much everyone has one, regardless of race or creed. They were certainly deliberately offensive, but this was directed in every direction.

The author seems to throw quite a wide net over:
"Mocking an extremist point of view of a creed = mocking a certain creed = mocking to a certain race = racist".

Somewhere in the article or comments someone defends this connection by saying that Western culture has already racialised the Muslim religion. Which doesn't sit right with me, as it is basically saying "Oh, you started the association, now I will reinforce it and assume its existence".

I feel like the author is very much from a social liberation background (the kind of people CRUCIAL to the progress of Western society), but is discomfited by the issues arising from this incident, and can't really adjust their approach to issues to suit the situation. Hence why he claims that the staff was entirely "white men" (the proofreader who died was French-Arab), and riffs on standard "powerful white men as the primary fair play target for personal attacks" tropes as a way to avoid trying to look deeper into the issues. Which works as a discursive approach if the "white men" being discussed ARE in positions of power, and currently using it without much consideration. Not so much if they have been massacred by people with AK-47s and RPGs.

The author is fundamentally right: discussion about the correct use of free speech is paramount, and shouldn't end just because of what has happened. However, his arguments that the deceased were "racist assholes" don't hang together.

One of the commenters snarked it well:

"White male hegemony is so powerful, white men have the power to oppress even while being murdered for drawing cartoons."
 

The Wooster

King Snap
Jul 15, 2008
15,305
0
0
Immsys said:
I wasn't aware that he posted that to twitter, but that does make sense and good on him for doing so. I wasn't trying to presume that everyone here, especially not Grey and Cory who did the strip, was ignorant or lacking information about what Charlie Hebdo does, I was just trying to add another voice into the discussion. Sorry if it came across as callous or arrogant to anybody.
Yeah Grey was actually quite critical about the article, having disagreements with it, but he also called the Hebdo strips "crude", and he said that the guise of satire is "not just an excuse to be a douchebag either". In other words, shades of agreement and disagreement. Against abiding by the sensibilities of people whom you are rightfully punching at upwards, but not being a racist twat when you do so.
 

danielcofour

New member
May 6, 2014
28
0
0
The response to this whole thing is irony at it's finest.

I've seen right-wing people, who in a heartbeat would restrict the freedom of speech of people they disagree with, pretend they stand up for freedom of speech. I've seen left-wing people, who go on day in day out about people victim-blaming women, start victim blaming the satirists and calling them racists. Yes... because satirizing a religion and the crazies that follow it is racism...

You all disgust me.
 

Mr.Mattress

Level 2 Lumberjack
Jul 17, 2009
3,646
0
0
Immsys said:
http://www.hoodedutilitarian.com/2015/01/in-the-wake-of-charlie-hebdo-free-speech-does-not-mean-freedom-from-criticism/

Before everyone jumps on the ol' bandwagon, I highly recommend reading some of Charlie Hebdo's cartoons and their general attitude towards Islam in general, both of which can be found in the article linked. Obviously I don't condone the shooting up of any journalists or their place of work, but that doesn't change the fact that a lot of CH's work is racist and that "solidarity" with them is not exactly what we need.
The point is: Racists don't deserve Jail time Until they commit a violent crime against anyone. Charlie Hebdo might have been racist, the whole staff might have been racists, but they never hurt a single person with their cartoons. They never forced any Muslim to read them, they never forced any Atheist/Christian to read them, and they never attacked anyone for being a Muslim. Meanwhile, these 3 terrorists decided to kill a bunch of cartoonists just because their precious Idol was drawn in a satirical manner, trying to silence them and anyone else from criticizing Muhammad. Also, the Cartoons might be in bad taste, but I don't think the label of "Racist" applies here.

OT: I applaud you guys for supporting Charlie Hebdo, but you know what would have been an even more powerful statement? If you had a drawing of an Arab or Muhammad with that Shirt on instead of your Original Character.
 

maffgibson

Deep Breath Taker
Sep 10, 2013
47
0
0
silasbufu said:
Makes me wonder why the victims did not see this one coming,especially after receiving death threats for about two years ago. I understand nobody wants to be censored and has the freedom of speech, but is it limitless and without consequence? Yesterday we have been reminded that the answer is no. I am by no means condoning the actions of those insane terrorists and I hope they burn in whatever hell they believe in. I think that religion is a very sensitive subject and should be treated with more care.
I find this a little bit problematic. I understand that you are not defending the actions of the terrorists. And since you are not, this means that you consider what occurred to be unjust.

Therefore, saying "well, surely they should have thought harder about the possible injustice that could befall them due to other humans being dicks before they did what they did" doesn't really work.

To draw a couple of very current comparisons:

"Why do black people go out at night in America, knowing full well that they could be shot?"
"Why do women drink and wear clothes that show skin, knowing full well that they could be attacked"

As danielcofour says above: this is victim blaming in a very pure form.

But to actually answer your question, interviews with staff in past months showed that they were fully aware that they could be killed. They just wouldn't let that stop them. If you think that that means that they in any way "deserved" it, you are ACTUALLY defending the actions of the terrorists.

Regardless of what you think of the cartoons, their bravery was laudable, not grounds to question their intelligence.
 

Susan Arendt

Nerd Queen
Jan 9, 2007
7,222
0
0
silasbufu said:
I have just read an interesting article today where the author was raising an interesting question: what would happen if someone entered some random christian church, preferably, for the sake of the argument, in a more backward region, with a t-shirt saying "jesus is a fag" (or whatever other inapropriate message), suggesting that this person would probably not get out of there on their own feet. Makes me wonder why the victims did not see this one coming,especially after receiving death threats for about two years ago. I understand nobody wants to be censored and has the freedom of speech, but is it limitless and without consequence? Yesterday we have been reminded that the answer is no. I am by no means condoning the actions of those insane terrorists and I hope they burn in whatever hell they believe in. I think that religion is a very sensitive subject and should be treated with more care.
I'm quite sure they did see the threat and chose to continue their work anyway. Journalists go into war zones aware that they're putting themselves in harm's way, but they go because they believe it's important to do so. They believe that they must. Same thing here. The people at Charlie Hebdo believed the message they were sending was an important one that needed to be sent, even though they were putting themselves in harm's way to send it.