Je Suis Charlie
- Thread starter The Wooster
- Start date
maninahat said:
that article does not make a valid point in any way. You can like what they were doing or not, it doesnt matter it's your personal tastes. However, judging a 30 years old newspaper that have 16 pages that are at least 50% text news articles, by only looking upon a bunch of front page cover, without even reading it once, is stupid. Islam was just one of their target, and not even the target they picked on the most.
the cartoon you say always depicted a stereotype arab. well, the cartoon depicted mostly extremist, which more than often look like a stereotype arab when they post videos of beheading on the net...
When you draw a picture of Muhammad, you are not insulting all muslims, you are only insult, maybe half of them, just to clarify. and a good chunk of this half can overcome that. Hey i've been insulted more than once on this forum when people say that people from quebec are all xenophobic, crazy french, and should learn English, but nobody never said that people are were racist because of that.
Also, we live in a society of law, not in a religious state. there's no way that any religion can say : you have do not have the right to draw our prophet/god/idol/whatever because we think it's offencive. the only people who can say that is the court, by interpreting the laws, and in several occasion, the French courts have declare that Charlie habdo had the right to publish that, that drawing Muhammad didnt fall under hate speech
My problem with the article is that it basically raises a moot point in the wake of something all the more important.maninahat said:
Do I find images of Jesus having anal sex with God distasteful? Offensive even? Of course I do, and if -IF- these people were still around for me to say so; then that'd be one thing. But they're not.
However racist or xenophobic Chuck and his ilk were or weren't; what must be acknowledged that they only had to do one thing to get on the shit list and that's dissing the prophet.
THAT is the most salient point. THAT is why I'm absolutely fine with encouraging people to draw the prophet, because whatever disrespect is intended; that it can get you killed makes doing so a far more powerful statement: "We are not afraid of you."
However disgusting you may find their work (and it IS disgusting) their deaths prove it was not idle meaness.
you have the right to dislike their art, but but far too much people have made an opinion on a few drawing instead of actually try to at least see one edition of the newspaper. it's pretty much like only looking at trailers of movies, instead of looking them.senordesol said:
By the way, all my respect to the team, since they decided to publish the next edition wednesday despite all the drama
When you fight extremists, the innocent get caught in the crossfire. Luckily, when your ammunition is drawings and jokes, the only thing that gets hurt are people's feelings.maninahat said:
Parody doesn't have to be poignant or nice. All that matters is you be able to freely express it. You call it casual intolerance of their beliefs? So what? Why is it wrong to make fun of or criticize someone's beliefs? I find people who believe the Earth is flat and only 6,000 years old to be stupid, I find people who believe vaccines cause autism to be stupid, and I find people who believe the image of some asshole that's been dead over a thousand years is worth more than human life to be stupid.
Frankly, I'm disturbed with this attitude that justifies restricting people's ability to express themselves because it might hurt someone's feelings. And it's not just when it comes to criticizing religion, it's being applied to just about every facet of society. Physicists being harassed for their shirt, law professors being told they need to issue trigger warnings for their lectures. To paraphrase Steven Fry: "Oh, you're offended? So fucking what?"
That's a bit of a moot point in itself isn't it? It wasn't their articles that got them killed.cathou said:
I would just like to point out that there have been around fifteen acts of terrorism since this event happened, all of them AGAINST Muslims.inu-kun said:
http://www.vox.com/2015/1/10/7524731/french-muslims-attacks-charlie-hebdo
http://www.thelocal.fr/20150108/muslim-targets-attacked-after-magazine-killings
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/08/mosque-attacks-charlie-hebdo_n_6436224.html
No, that is not all that matters. Freedom of expression is a very important thing, but so to is a degree of care in what you are expressing, and how you express it. I don't normally have a problem with artists drawing critical images of what they consider to be stupid or laughable, but that is because artists generally are capable of making a distinction between making a critique of a stupid belief, and how to simply antagonise a belief without providing anything of value beyond "look how mad I can make people".JMac85 said:
It isn't just about restricting an artist's rights, it is about that artist being reasonable enough to express themselves without aiming to hurt people's feelings in the first place. Modern day satirists and humorists are generally quite capable of knowing where the line is, and why they shouldn't cross it (even if they can). There is a range of subjects they won't depict, or consider taboo. But as we have become more multi-cultural, some artists aren't used to dealing with the taboos of other cultures, or the cultures of minorities, they seem to lack that natural ability to see the line, or at least, to not see why they shouldn't cross it. They haven't been brought up to see Muhammad in the same way as muslims, so can't fully appreciate the negative impact it causes when they draw him.
That's what makes it all so hypocritical of the artists. There are loads of things they avoid drawing (often instinctively, without thinking about it), because they are familiar enough with the issue and respectful enough not to do it. And yet depicting Muhammed is the one thing they will rally around, and insist on drawing. And its all because they don't have that same instinct or belief ingrained into them, for them to be familiar enough with the issue and respectful enough not to draw it.
So if I'm offended by what you are doing I'd like you to fucking stop it Stephen, you idiot.
If I'm doing some thing and then I discover that thing to be upsetting someone, I typically have enough empathy to realise I should probably stop doing that thing. Perhaps that offence is misplaced, or what I am doing is important enough to
justify me disregard that upset, but I am not seeing that level of empathy or temperance among the artists, exclusively in respect to muslims.
Also, it usually isn't always just about offence. Trigger warnings are there to help assist with post traumatic distress disorder. The criticism of the scientist's shirt stems from the fact that it demonstrated how critically under-represented women were in that field (that a guy probably wouldn't feel comfortable dressing like that in a place full of women co-workers). To muslims, it isn't just offensive to depict Muhammad, it is morally wrong to do so. The West has a habit of casually misrepresenting, oppressing, or generally being outright intolerant of ethnic minorities. Depicting Muhammad, irrespective of how muslims feel about it, is representative of that attitude that it is okay to punch down at muslims because they don't matter. Their beliefs are just an obstacle to us, and we refuse to accommodate them at all.
Eh, I think with cases like these it's hard to seperate the "hate actions" from the terrorist ones, since we can't really know the motives in most cases, so they might as well be pursuing political aims (i.e. making muslims feel not safe in france, so that they either leave or don't express their faith in public). While it's true that there are many cases of politically motivated violence I personally would be reluctant to call terrorism, I haven't so far come up with one that deals with the whole "one man's terrorist is another man's hate criminal"-problem and I don't think the definition you posted above actually helps with that.inu-kun said:
Anti-semitic attacks don't justify burning down mosques, the same way they don't justify burning down churches or the equivalent for the attackers of all other faiths or ethnicities or whatever.
The bulk of Muslims in France are Arabs, and the abusive tendency to conflate Arab with Muslim is common in France. The cartoons rely on stereotypes - just like when they mock Israel, they make sure to rely on classical Jewish stereotypes.maninahat said:
I'll say it again, this article is bordering criminal, it's cherry-picking stuff out of any context to rile up people, in a pretty close way to how islamists used them to rile up Muslims against Charlie / The West. If supposedly liberal people are fine with that, then I have to say there's something rotten in the American kingdom of liberalism.
And want to know the bitter irony? They were meeting to discuss their next issue, which was about the rising racism in Europe. Yup, they were killing drawing crude outrageous cartoons making fun of racist bigots. Good job, offended people and terrorist scum, good job. Instead of letting Charlie offend and mock the French racist right / far-right, you just handed them a few more voters...
Being offended gives you no fucking right at all. NONE.maninahat said:
People should get this in their tiny brainless skull once and for all.
As for not drawing Mohammed, let's put it this way: this is a purely religious order that comes from Islam.
So, basically, you want a country where 90+% of the people are NOT Muslims to conform to the religious beliefs of a few?
Well, this isn't about freedom of the press or even freedom of speech, this is about bloody freedom of bloody religion - in this case, the freedom of the many not to have to follow the religion of the few.
If you're ok with not drawing Mohammed "because Islam says so", then you'd better stop drinking alcoholo and eating pork right now.
To your last bit, unless someone has some kind of medical condition, that can help prove that being offended or triggered does something serious to them, then no. I am afraid that is never going to force anyone to do anything and for good reason. You can be offended by anything, in fact I am offended by the idea that our society needs to change to suit the needs of people who are so easily offended, as such I demand that society stop doing it! (There, Paradox, Now the system will collapse on itself)maninahat said:
You should have read the next bit, where I talk about how empathy trumps rights. When someone asks you to stop doing something, they are tacitly acknowledging you have the power to keep doing it, but they are hoping their request that you take their views into consideration all the same, and that this will hopefully be enough to encourage you to stop it. Freedom of speech may protect my rights to direct homophobic slurs at people, but a basic degree of respect and compassion for others disinclines me from doing it.Random Gamer said:
Contrariwise, should I ban Christmas holidays or forbid banks from closing on Sundays? You're already living in a society drenched in religious conventions, like it or not.
What I'd like is for that 90% to show a basic degree of respect and empathy to the 10%. A non-muslim doesn't typically have any reason to draw Muhammad (that includes cartoon satirists), and it really is absolutely no difficulty for them to comply with a request from muslims to keep not drawing him. But for some, just being asked not to do something for the sake of a minority (no matter what it is) is in itself an intolerable concession. And that's absurd. It's the equivalent of me going to my uncle, who has a phobia of balloons, and waving balloons in his face just to prove that I don't have a problem with them myself, that I don't have to do as he asks, and that I have a freedom to take my balloons wherever I like. People would quickly see my triumphant display of personal freedoms as me being a self-centred dickhead.
Freedom of speach have the limits the law is giving it. you cannot direct homophobic or racist slurs at people because it fall into hate speach, because the laws say so. Drawing Muhammad, does not fall into that, as the courts in France have stated. We live in a society of laws, what you can say or not is dictate by that law, it's the the role of religion. And i might add that the interdiction of prtraying Muhammad is mostly from Sunites orthodixy, shiites have a much more relax view of that. you can found images of Muhammad pretty easily in Iran for exemple.maninahat said:
You see it the wrong way. living by religious convention would be to forbid the banks to open on sunday. they can open on sunday, they just chose not to do so. Chrimas holyday have been stripped out of religious context long ago.
again you see it by the wrong end. what they did is the equivalent of your uncle going out of his home, poping all the ballons he see
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWwCKvvodBA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lWMN-2PlCKA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7IpMIhR6Yg
The point of these links is that people tend to be fairly nasty in their portrayal of groups and cultures their own culture happens to be in conflict with. Propaganda, and negative media, is part of conflict. Islamics do it about their enemies, and to be brutally honest pretty much everyone the US has conflicted with has done it about us, albeit they don't have our platform.
Recently I've seen a lot of disturbing comments by people at least implying that terrorism is justified when someone says something bad about them. This is both in response to the recent attacks in France, and in response to the cyberterrorism campaign launched by North Korea, which was combined with threats of actual terrorism.
Freedom of speech doesn't mean "the freedom to say what I agree with" nor does it mean that people can't say things back. It most certainly does mean that you shouldn't be attacked or murdered for saying things other people do not like. What's more it should be expected when it comes to large scale conflict. Both sides say nasty things about each other and what they respectively believe and stand for.
To be honest these kinds of attitudes are part of what I've been afraid of given left wing domination. Starting with attacks on people who say things liberals don't like "hate speech" and the like, along with defenses of private "back door" censorship due platforms being controlled by private citizens allowing only one side of an issue to be represented, as opposed to calls for reform in requiring private platforms to accept free speech as much as public ones in an era where almost all major platforms are private, and not regulating private platforms fundamentally gives private citizens more power over other citizens than elected officials. Not things I'm going to debate right now, just things I've talked about before with mixed responses
Right now it seems to be a disturbing extension of things to see an attitude where those who are not being politically correct DESERVE retaliation against them, something which can go in some very unpleasant directions if such attitudes continue to dominate.
I think the first world needs to start serious rallying here before things get any worse above and beyond my statement above. At the end of the day the desire to avoid engaging in "total war" has rendered the first world more or less impotent. What we're seeing right now is second and third countries and barbarian cultures, totally unafraid of the repercussions, attacking vocal foreign opposition and critics, without facing any noteworthy retaliation. Theaters in the US backed down because they do not believe the government is able to protect them, through retaliation if nothing else, and right now we've seen terrorists able to kill an opposing political cartoonist on behalf of their culture without any retaliation. At the time this is going on the first world has some people saying "well the deserved it" while foreign propaganda, just as bad and offensive, continues. I'm beginning to seriously fear for the future when we not only let our enemies trod all over us like this, but our own people seem to be in support.
Nothing particular about the comic itself, and the people saying the things that brought this out do seem to still be a minority, but the fact that they are out there at all, combined with all the other free speech issues that have been under discussion has been making me rather disturbed.
I didn't want to post too many links, but basically the media of Islamic countries is full of all kinds of anti-western and anti-jewish stuff. I didn't dig deeply since I've posted this stuff before, but basically even the Palestinians who are relatively small/poor players produce tons of this stuff pretty casually. They even have versions of children's programming down there where their versions of Big Bird and Barney teach kids to kill the infidel and prepare to dominate the world along with the alphabet. Iran's reps in international meetings sit there and actually address the USA as "Great Satan" as opposed to by it's name. I hardly think it's out of line for first world cartoonists in countries like France to be inflammatory back... that's kind of their job. When relations improve, or one side or the other falls as a major problem, the cartoonists and stuff chill out.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lWMN-2PlCKA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7IpMIhR6Yg
The point of these links is that people tend to be fairly nasty in their portrayal of groups and cultures their own culture happens to be in conflict with. Propaganda, and negative media, is part of conflict. Islamics do it about their enemies, and to be brutally honest pretty much everyone the US has conflicted with has done it about us, albeit they don't have our platform.
Recently I've seen a lot of disturbing comments by people at least implying that terrorism is justified when someone says something bad about them. This is both in response to the recent attacks in France, and in response to the cyberterrorism campaign launched by North Korea, which was combined with threats of actual terrorism.
Freedom of speech doesn't mean "the freedom to say what I agree with" nor does it mean that people can't say things back. It most certainly does mean that you shouldn't be attacked or murdered for saying things other people do not like. What's more it should be expected when it comes to large scale conflict. Both sides say nasty things about each other and what they respectively believe and stand for.
To be honest these kinds of attitudes are part of what I've been afraid of given left wing domination. Starting with attacks on people who say things liberals don't like "hate speech" and the like, along with defenses of private "back door" censorship due platforms being controlled by private citizens allowing only one side of an issue to be represented, as opposed to calls for reform in requiring private platforms to accept free speech as much as public ones in an era where almost all major platforms are private, and not regulating private platforms fundamentally gives private citizens more power over other citizens than elected officials. Not things I'm going to debate right now, just things I've talked about before with mixed responses
Right now it seems to be a disturbing extension of things to see an attitude where those who are not being politically correct DESERVE retaliation against them, something which can go in some very unpleasant directions if such attitudes continue to dominate.
I think the first world needs to start serious rallying here before things get any worse above and beyond my statement above. At the end of the day the desire to avoid engaging in "total war" has rendered the first world more or less impotent. What we're seeing right now is second and third countries and barbarian cultures, totally unafraid of the repercussions, attacking vocal foreign opposition and critics, without facing any noteworthy retaliation. Theaters in the US backed down because they do not believe the government is able to protect them, through retaliation if nothing else, and right now we've seen terrorists able to kill an opposing political cartoonist on behalf of their culture without any retaliation. At the time this is going on the first world has some people saying "well the deserved it" while foreign propaganda, just as bad and offensive, continues. I'm beginning to seriously fear for the future when we not only let our enemies trod all over us like this, but our own people seem to be in support.
Nothing particular about the comic itself, and the people saying the things that brought this out do seem to still be a minority, but the fact that they are out there at all, combined with all the other free speech issues that have been under discussion has been making me rather disturbed.
I didn't want to post too many links, but basically the media of Islamic countries is full of all kinds of anti-western and anti-jewish stuff. I didn't dig deeply since I've posted this stuff before, but basically even the Palestinians who are relatively small/poor players produce tons of this stuff pretty casually. They even have versions of children's programming down there where their versions of Big Bird and Barney teach kids to kill the infidel and prepare to dominate the world along with the alphabet. Iran's reps in international meetings sit there and actually address the USA as "Great Satan" as opposed to by it's name. I hardly think it's out of line for first world cartoonists in countries like France to be inflammatory back... that's kind of their job. When relations improve, or one side or the other falls as a major problem, the cartoonists and stuff chill out.