Je Suis Charlie

[Dr_Fred]

Being a French escapist who knows well Charlie Hebdo, I can at least vouch for that : they really aren't racist, and they don't hate Arabs specifically.

They're provocative, very cynical, and use freedom of speech to the point of abuse, but their mocking have always targeted equally bigots of all religions (as well as right-wing nationalists, who, in France, are very opposed to Muslims regardless of whether they're extremists or not).

It is, however, likely that all references of them you find on the Internet will discuss their caricatures of Muslims, because this is what made the news - they were already threatened by islamists a few years ago, and a Molotov previously burned their building once. By the way, the first caricatures they published of Muhammad were merely a reprint of another drawer's work, who himself had received death threats - and to whom[1] they wanted to show support.

They knew full well that they were threatened and decided to keep publishing, because well... that would be the right thing to do. There was even permanent cop presence at their building for added safety, which, sadly, didn't help.

[1] Hum... to whom they... ? Is this grammatical ? Oh well. Pardon my frenglish.

 

[FogHornG36]

"some idiots" what a nice way to try and play around the whole fact that they are Muslim, and that this is a Muslim thing.

 

[llyrnion]

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.

Yes, quite likely. There are nutjobs everywhere, not just in religious groups. However, I don't recall any dead cartoonists when they "stuck a condom" in the Pope's nose.

Makes me wonder why the victims did not see this one coming,especially after receiving death threats for about two years ago.

They did. They had bodyguards, and a code-locked door. Unfortunately, these nutjobs were well-trained, allegedly in Iraq/Syria.

I understand nobody wants to be censored and has the freedom of speech, but is it limitless and without consequence?

No. That's why civilized people have this thing called the Law. It's not perfect, otherwise we could call it Justice, but it's better than what we saw yesterday.

I think that religion is a very sensitive subject and should be treated with more care.

I see. So, if one of these nutjobs threatening feminists/SJWs actually acted on it and killed one or two, we'd have to start treating them with more care?

I don't think so.

I know it's been said before, but it bears repeating ad nauseam - it doesn't matter if the folks at Charles Hebdo were the most obnoxious racist xenophobes ever to walk the Earth. Prosecute them with the Law, if necessary. There is absolutely no defense for what happened. None.

 

[silasbufu]

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.

In no way did I say they deserved it, I am extremely against any form of terrorist attack. It's just that in this particular case, I can't get myself to consider the victims as martyrs.

 

[Immsys]

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.

I have seen their work on many subjects and I still believe that they are racist. They are not portraying Muslims as a religion, but as an ethnic group, as you can clearly see by the visual shorthand they employ for "Muslim" (Hook noses, beady eyes, headscarf, beard/facial hair) pretty much every picture of a Muslim that they have drawn contains this visual shorthand. If I asked you to draw a picture that represented Black men and you drew a criminal or African Tribesman or something similar, then that would be racist. Just as the fact that Charlie Hebdo chose to draw Muslims as dark skinned, beady eyed, headscarf wearing and hook nosed is racist. You cannot tell me that the picture drawn of the Boko Harram sex slaves (implying that it is a trait of Islam to mistreat women) is without racial moti. If you are still not convinced, then the book Oriantialism by Edward Said might be an interesting read.

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.

None of the cartoonists at Charlie Hebdo deserved to die for those cartoons. However, those cartoons contributed to a society of fear and oppression for Muslims, contributed to the idea that "Muslim" means the same thing as "beady eyed, hook nosed bearded man who hates freedom and women". There is nothing inherent in being Muslim that forces you to conform to that stereotype. If you think that a drawing of Boko Haram sex slaves as "welfare queens" is a legitimate criticism, or an exercise of "free speech" rather than just the hate filled garbage that it is, then you have woefully missed the point. Its really easy as the dominant group to insist that "all satire is equal, everybody who is offended should just get over themselves!" but that's not really the point, its not really about "offense"; its about a systematic portrayal of Muslims as strawmen, not human beings. As the article I originally quoted says:

Changing your twitter avatar to a drawing of the Prophet Muhammad is a racist thing to do, even in the face of a terrorist attack. The attitude that Muslims need to be ?punished? is xenophobic and distressing. The statement, ?JE SUIS CHARLIE? works to erase and ignore the magazine?s history of xenophobia, racism, and homophobia. For us to truly honor the victims of a terrorist attack on free speech, we must not spread hateful racism blithely, and we should not take pride in extreme attacks on oppressed and marginalized peoples

SOME Muslims attacked Charlie Hebdo. ISLAM did not attack anyone, but it is Islam (and the Muslim minority in Europe) that are going to be punished for this attack. That sickens me.

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.

Just further proof of your racism. "Islam" is a collection of beliefs, as is any religion. There are not traits of Islam that ALL Muslims must follow, they choose to follow what they choose, your attempt to strawman "Islam" as bad are childish and absurd. Furthermore, your assumptions are poisonous and represent exactly what we are trying to avoid happening in this event; a backlash against Muslims. How you can unironically talk about "Reason not working on 'These' people" while having a discussion on racism is mind boggling.

 

[dangoball]

snip

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.

snip

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.

Aw, man, you were doing so well in the fist response and then you had to go on and ruin it. Let me point it out for you:

Its full of hatespewing intolerant bullshit ... it should be destroyed

See the hypocite you made yourself out to be? Religion is not the problem. Ignorance, hate and needless violence are the problem. You CAN argue with the religious - a lot of people converted from one religion to another. Augustinus, one of the most influential Christian thinker, actually went through many religions before settling for christianity. Who you can't argue with are the ignorant, the fantatical and those of sick mind. Following a religion implies none of it and if you belive so, you are the same as those you hate. Want to know what religion gave us? Ethics. The western culture is basically christian ethics filtered through Descartes. It also gives art, culture, sense of belonging and hope. Not for everyone, but there are those who can't get it anywhere else.

One last thing: if you think religion was the REASON for wars and without it there would be no confilct, you are sadly mistaken. Religion only ever served as a flimsy justification, because "go die so I can haz moar moniez!" is not the best of rallying calls. As long as humans are greedy, hateful, violent and suscetible to mental instability, there will be war and there will be crazed assholes with guns shooting innocent people.

Apologies for making this look like a post in RnP.

 

[maffgibson]

-snip-

In no way did I say they deserved it, I am extremely against any form of terrorist attack. It's just that in this particular case, I can't get myself to consider the victims as martyrs.

I would say them being martyrs of some kind (whether you consider the cause a positive or negative one) is pretty indisputable, by your own account.

They did something for a cause.
They were threatened in an attempt to stop them.
The continued, believing that it was important.
They were killed for the same.

Pretty much follows the pattern of Christian martyrs, that being essentially the main root of the concept in the West.

But yeah, I acknowledge that you aren't saying that they deserved it. But advocating deference to maniacs with AK-47s? I am not sure how much better that is.

 

[The Bucket]

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.

The church goers would be well within their rights to heavily criticize them, ask to leave etc. If they moved onto to physical violence, or god forbid, gun them down, that would be clearly detestable and illegal.

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.

The consequences you can get from exercising your right to free speech do not include getting gunned down. They are victims, its not their obligation to tip toe around or placate murderers, freedom of speech means they can say what they want without obstruction by the government or violence from other people.

 

[Sanunes]

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 highly doubt that in most countries where Christianity is practiced that it would be met with lethal force if someone walked in wearing a shirt like that, but even if they did it to me at least this is a false equivalency because they didn't go into a Mosque wearing a shirt depicting those cartoons.

I do find those cartoons to be a little on the crude side of things, but that is the way most countries work anymore, there have been editorial cartoons in my local paper depicting Jesus or other Christian figures in less then ideal circumstances, but I don't see Cardinals calling for those people to die. Heck the other day I saw some jerk posting a picture of standing infront of a statue making it look like he was getting oral sex from the statue, I don't see people going out of their way to kill that man either.

The other issue I have is religion is not a race and they aren't saying that another religion is superior so calling any of these cartoons "racist" is wrong by definition.

 

[CrazyGirl17]

Very nice tribute, guys.

I'm surprised at the religion-bashing in the thread, especially considering that it was a small minority or radical Islamic nutters who perpetrated this horrible crime.

We shouldn't let the actions of a rotten few ruin the reputation of the rest.

 

[Immsys]

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.

Oh really, that's the point is it? So we should all insult Islam, because 3 Muslims decided to attack some cartoonists. How progressive! Tell me, what did Islam in general do to earn this ire? Because what you've said is that these three people have done something wrong, not the entire religion of many, many people. This isn't about insults, its about the reality that Muslims in western countries face. Which thanks to Hebdo and these 3 idiots, will be made 100 times worse. Whether or not they were "cricising Islam" what Charlie Hebdo were certainly doing is portraying Muslims as caricatures and supporting the belief stereotypes that are being propagated. That's why I stand for free speech, but not in solidarity with such people. I am sorry that they died, they did not deserve it at all. But Hebdo's actions are not without criticism, so criticise I will.

 

[BinaryOverride]

Oh really, that's the point is it? So we should all insult Islam, because 3 Muslims decided to attack some cartoonists. How progressive! Tell me, what did Islam in general do to earn this ire? Because what you've said is that these three people have done something wrong, not the entire religion of many, many people. This isn't about insults, its about the reality that Muslims in western countries face. Which thanks to Hebdo and these 3 idiots, will be made 100 times worse. Whether or not they were "cricising Islam" what Charlie Hebdo were certainly doing is portraying Muslims as caricatures and supporting the belief stereotypes that are being propagated. That's why I stand for free speech, but not in solidarity with such people. I am sorry that they died, they did not deserve it at all. But Hebdo's actions are not without criticism, so criticise I will.

You don't seem to understand that CHarlie Hebdo was portraying everybody the same way.
Here look

http://www.lemonde.fr/societe/portf...r-la-betise-en-faisant-rire_4551377_3224.html

 

[Dr_Fred]

snip

I do not want to enter the debate about the consequences of this for Muslims in France, which, sadly, are going to be bad. In fact, if you can catch a french news channel, you will see that they already are. Right-wing extremists who borderline on facism are already jumping on this excuse to desecrate mosques, and act like their usual hate speech is justified.

However, I feel like you lack context on the topic of CH itself. Yes, their cartoons look very aggressive, and may even seem hateful. This is true, but CH has always provided an equally aggressive treatment to each and every topic of their caricatures. They aim low and hit low on purpose, because their very "raison d'être" is to stretch the limits of the free press - a bit like the slightly more mainstream "Canard Enchaîné", but with more liberties in their tone.

A journal such Charlie Hebdo has usually been regarded as something that is on the boundaries of what you're allowed to publish. This is on purpose on their part, the editorial board has always been made of very smart people, who felt that such an organ of press was necessary to ensure that our democracy, well... stays one.

They enjoyed a reliable number of readers over time, which, I can assure you because I know a few, were *not* people who took the contents of the magazine at face value. It is what it is - a caricature of a journal, that acts like a canary in a coal mine : as long as they stand, it means that there is still free press in France. This is also true, to a large extent, of the Canard Enchaîné, but it looks like CH might not make it. Given how large a fraction of their team they have lost, it is by no means certain that they will keep going further.

Which makes me, personally, quite worried.

 

[Immsys]

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.

I have seen their work on many subjects and I still believe that they are racist. They are not portraying Muslims as a religion, but as an ethnic group, as you can clearly see by the visual shorthand they employ for "Muslim" (Hook noses, beady eyes, headscarf, beard/facial hair) pretty much every picture of a Muslim that they have drawn contains this visual shorthand. If I asked you to draw a picture that represented Black men and you drew a criminal or African Tribesman or something similar, then that would be racist. Just as the fact that Charlie Hebdo chose to draw Muslims as dark skinned, beady eyed, headscarf wearing and hook nosed is racist. You cannot tell me that the picture drawn of the Boko Harram sex slaves (implying that it is a trait of Islam to mistreat women) is without racial moti. If you are still not convinced, then the book Oriantialism by Edward Said might be an interesting read.

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.

None of the cartoonists at Charlie Hebdo deserved to die for those cartoons. However, those cartoons contributed to a society of fear and oppression for Muslims, contributed to the idea that "Muslim" means the same thing as "beady eyed, hook nosed bearded man who hates freedom and women". There is nothing inherent in being Muslim that forces you to conform to that stereotype. If you think that a drawing of Boko Haram sex slaves as "welfare queens" is a legitimate criticism, or an exercise of "free speech" rather than just the hate filled garbage that it is, then you have woefully missed the point. Its really easy as the dominant group to insist that "all satire is equal, everybody who is offended should just get over themselves!" but that's not really the point, its not really about "offense"; its about a systematic portrayal of Muslims as strawmen, not human beings. As the article I originally quoted says:

Changing your twitter avatar to a drawing of the Prophet Muhammad is a racist thing to do, even in the face of a terrorist attack. The attitude that Muslims need to be ?punished? is xenophobic and distressing. The statement, ?JE SUIS CHARLIE? works to erase and ignore the magazine?s history of xenophobia, racism, and homophobia. For us to truly honor the victims of a terrorist attack on free speech, we must not spread hateful racism blithely, and we should not take pride in extreme attacks on oppressed and marginalized peoples

SOME Muslims attacked Charlie Hebdo. ISLAM did not attack anyone, but it is Islam (and the Muslim minority in Europe) that are going to be punished for this attack. That sickens me.

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.

Just further proof of your racism. "Islam" is a collection of beliefs, as is any religion. There are not traits of Islam that ALL Muslims must follow, they choose to follow what they choose, your attempt to strawman "Islam" as bad are childish and absurd. Furthermore, your assumptions are poisonous and represent exactly what we are trying to avoid happening in this event; a backlash against Muslims. How you can unironically talk about "Reason not working on 'These' people" while having a discussion on racism is mind boggling.

 

[shirkbot]

snip

Man, that was just really well said. Religions are a symptom of the human condition, and like every other thing ever, it can and will be used to package/justify some horrific stuff.

"some idiots" what a nice way to try and play around the whole fact that they are Muslim, and that this is a Muslim thing.

I shouldn't respond to this, but I'm going to...
They are just some idiots because no matter what their religion, they killed other human beings over a comic. Not to mention that until they are caught, we can confirm almost nothing about them.

OT: Je suis non Charlie, but I certainly understand the sentiment. Nobody deserves to die over a cartoon. Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequence, but this shouldn't ever be the consequence. Best of luck to the French authorities, and may the bereaved find solace without turning to hatred.

 

[Mr.Mattress]

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.

Oh really, that's the point is it? 1: So we should all insult Islam, because 3 Muslims decided to attack some cartoonists. 2:How progressive! Tell me, what did Islam in general do to earn this ire? Because what you've said is that these three people have done something wrong, not the entire religion of many, many people. 3: This isn't about insults, its about the reality that Muslims in western countries face. Which thanks to Hebdo and these 3 idiots, will be made 100 times worse. 4:Whether or not they were "cricising Islam" what Charlie Hebdo were certainly doing is portraying Muslims as caricatures and supporting the belief stereotypes that are being propagated. That's why I stand for free speech, but not in solidarity with such people. I am sorry that they died, they did not deserve it at all. 5:But Hebdo's actions are not without criticism, so criticise I will.

1: If you want to, yes. But you don't have to. That's the beauty of Freedom of Speech. You only say what you want, your not forced to say anything else. And what these terrorists did was try to curtail that freedom.

2: I don't know. What did Christianity do to deserve it's ire? What did Jews do? What did Hindu's, Buddhists, Atheists, Shintoists or any other Religion or Non-Religion do to deserve being insulted or made fun of? Both a lot of things, and nothing. But anyone can make fun of any of these religions and not expect death threats or murder. Islam should not be different, but sadly death threats and murder do happen because of the radicals.

3: Right, so Murder is the only solution right? To get anything accomplished, to make your society better, you have to murder people with no real connection to any governing agency, right? That's how things work now? No. These 3 (Or 2 as it might be) could have done anything but murder people to voice their complaint. Instead, they killed innocent people who did nothing to them but draw funny pictures. They didn't target Muslims solely, they didn't demand Muslims be treated like slaves or crap, they didn't burn Mosques, they just drew pictures. Yet these 3 (or 2) killed 12 people for these pictures. How will that fucking fix any problem they, or any Muslim in general, have in Western Society?! How does Murder help their fucking situation?!

4: Firstly, if it's not about Insults, why are you focusing on Charlie Hebdo? Charlie Hebdo might have insulted Islam, but you said it yourself, this is about how Muslims are treated in the Western World, not the Insult itself. Charlie Hebdo had nothing to do with how Muslims are treated in the Western World. Secondly, do you honestly think any normal French person would look at these drawings and say "Oh yeah, this is how Muslims are"? Especially when they did drawings of Muhammad hating his followers and making out with a French Man? The only French people that would would be morons or ultra-conservatives/nationalists. But I think Most French people know better then to believe in Satire.

5: And I agree that Charlie Hebdo is not without Criticism. But good god did they not deserve to die for Drawing fucking pictures, especially not this way. I also don't agree with you that they were being malicious or seriously racist, but while I may disagree with you, I won't be storming your office and shooting you and your co-workers for doing so.

 

[Immsys]

Oh really, that's the point is it? So we should all insult Islam, because 3 Muslims decided to attack some cartoonists. How progressive! Tell me, what did Islam in general do to earn this ire? Because what you've said is that these three people have done something wrong, not the entire religion of many, many people. This isn't about insults, its about the reality that Muslims in western countries face. Which thanks to Hebdo and these 3 idiots, will be made 100 times worse. Whether or not they were "cricising Islam" what Charlie Hebdo were certainly doing is portraying Muslims as caricatures and supporting the belief stereotypes that are being propagated. That's why I stand for free speech, but not in solidarity with such people. I am sorry that they died, they did not deserve it at all. But Hebdo's actions are not without criticism, so criticise I will.

You don't seem to understand that CHarlie Hebdo was portraying everybody the same way.
Here look

http://www.lemonde.fr/societe/portf...r-la-betise-en-faisant-rire_4551377_3224.html

All those other people aren't minorities who face actual persecution and hatred. If as a result of a cartoon, three Catholics had attacked Hebdo then I would be arguing the exact same for Catholicism that I am doing for Islam.

There isn't wide spread distrust of Catholics (actually that is starting to change because of all this paedophilia stuff, but I digress) which causes society to treat Catholics as different. The assumption inherent in your argument is "they were mean to loads of people, thus its ok!" is fallacious. Its not about being "mean" or "offending" people, its about a consistent depiction of an oppressed and marginalized group in a caricature or stereotypical way. That has an effect on the society that it sits it, and is more than just "satire", its a reflection on the kind of society that enjoys it. This isn't "satire for satire's sake" as people claim Hebdo is about. They can hide behind that claim if they wish, but these are constant depictions of Muslims in starkly racist terms, claiming otherwise is to ignore the reality which underpins their claims.

 

[ObsidianJones_v1legacy]

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.

I don't want to get into a religious debate, namely because I don't care about it and you seem firmly set in your beliefs (which is irony number one), but to move on to Irony number two...

... You say freedom of speech is important, but your next idea is to eradicate and remove a majority of people's belief system.

Ok.

So, I have to ask you. If you can't argue with something, then it should be destroyed... should someone spend time destroying yours and fellow atheists way of thinking? What else should be destroyed if you can't argue it? Or is it just on a basis of things you and others who think like you find disagreeable?

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.

However, Silas is nonetheless right.

As one of the black guys you were just talking about, I know how unjust it would be if I was shot dead for my skin color. I know that it might start more protests or create a bigger divide between the races now if I did nothing and a cop pulled a gun because he was 'scared of me', or if he just had an axe to grind.

But the maintenance of my life is only my responsibility. It is noble to die for a cause you believe in. If pressed, hopefully I'll die for a cause I believe in one day. They were prepared to do that, and for that reason I hope the victims of Charlie Hebdo died with relative peace in their convictions.

But noble deaths do leave holes. And usually, the only thing that can fill them is anger. Why did this have to happen? Who can I rage against? There are people who must mourn their loved ones, and sometimes have to do so needlessly in their eyes because they didn't share their convictions. It might be a silly quest to those who are left behind. Not understanding and not being able to grasp a situation leads to anger. Hell, we saw that first hand with the terrorist's reaction. Their cause... not really just, but it was created by not understanding the situation and having anger over that. It's a cycle that will be ongoing.

I think people are overworked nowadays, people are tired of being told what to think and what to do, and more over, I think people are angry. People are snapping over everything. Theists and Atheists alike. Calling for thought in taking care of your own life isn't victim blaming. It's thinking about survival. It has no good or evil moral standing.

I'm not going to do anything but be semi subservient to cops for a bit. Internally, the idea outrages me that I have to shut my mouth and take whatever treatment I get, but it's more important to me to live and fight a battle I can win instead of provoking a cop to shoot me and make up some lie.

 

[Silence]

"What is allowed in satire?

Everything."


To quote one of my favourite german authors. Everything means everything.
I would hate it if muslims as a whole were attacked now, but still, claiming they should not draw as they want is wrong. You can say it is racist (even if it would be wrong, I mean, South Park is racist then by the same definition).

And there is no fucking oppression of muslims in europe as a whole. There can be xenophobia etc. etc., but oppression would be oppression of the state and that does not happen.


Two things MUST NOT come out of this: Censorship of ANY kind ... and more islamophobia.

 

[tzimize]

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.

I have seen their work on many subjects and I still believe that they are racist. They are not portraying Muslims as a religion, but as an ethnic group, as you can clearly see by the visual shorthand they employ for "Muslim" (Hook noses, beady eyes, headscarf, beard/facial hair) pretty much every picture of a Muslim that they have drawn contains this visual shorthand. If I asked you to draw a picture that represented Black men and you drew a criminal or African Tribesman or something similar, then that would be racist. Just as the fact that Charlie Hebdo chose to draw Muslims as dark skinned, beady eyed, headscarf wearing and hook nosed is racist. You cannot tell me that the picture drawn of the Boko Harram sex slaves (implying that it is a trait of Islam to mistreat women) is without racial moti. If you are still not convinced, then the book Oriantialism by Edward Said might be an interesting read.

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.

None of the cartoonists at Charlie Hebdo deserved to die for those cartoons. However, those cartoons contributed to a society of fear and oppression for Muslims, contributed to the idea that "Muslim" means the same thing as "beady eyed, hook nosed bearded man who hates freedom and women". There is nothing inherent in being Muslim that forces you to conform to that stereotype. If you think that a drawing of Boko Haram sex slaves as "welfare queens" is a legitimate criticism, or an exercise of "free speech" rather than just the hate filled garbage that it is, then you have woefully missed the point. Its really easy as the dominant group to insist that "all satire is equal, everybody who is offended should just get over themselves!" but that's not really the point, its not really about "offense"; its about a systematic portrayal of Muslims as strawmen, not human beings. As the article I originally quoted says:

Changing your twitter avatar to a drawing of the Prophet Muhammad is a racist thing to do, even in the face of a terrorist attack. The attitude that Muslims need to be ?punished? is xenophobic and distressing. The statement, ?JE SUIS CHARLIE? works to erase and ignore the magazine?s history of xenophobia, racism, and homophobia. For us to truly honor the victims of a terrorist attack on free speech, we must not spread hateful racism blithely, and we should not take pride in extreme attacks on oppressed and marginalized peoples

SOME Muslims attacked Charlie Hebdo. ISLAM did not attack anyone, but it is Islam (and the Muslim minority in Europe) that are going to be punished for this attack. That sickens me.

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.

Just further proof of your racism. "Islam" is a collection of beliefs, as is any religion. There are not traits of Islam that ALL Muslims must follow, they choose to follow what they choose, your attempt to strawman "Islam" as bad are childish and absurd. Furthermore, your assumptions are poisonous and represent exactly what we are trying to avoid happening in this event; a backlash against Muslims. How you can unironically talk about "Reason not working on 'These' people" while having a discussion on racism is mind boggling.

Racism. I hear you keep saying that word but I dont think it means what you think it means. Racism means treating a race poorly because of that. Its not racism to say that religion is bad. Muslims are not a race. Its not racism to say something is bad. Its racism to say something is bad because of nothing. If I say black people are inferior because they are black, THAT is racism. If I say religion is BAD because it makes people do BAD THINGS, then that has NOTHING to do with racism. My world view is based upon rationality. Rationality is the polar opposite of religion. Religion is blind faith. Blind faith makes people shoot other people because of drawings. Nothing else can.

I am not strawmaning Islam to be bad, I am saying religion is poisonous shit. Not because I simply THINK so...but because it is MAKING PEOPLE SHOOT OTHER PEOPLE BECAUSE OF DRAWINGS. RELIGION does that. You cant rationalize with that. How would anyone have a discussion about values when the other persons values are handed down from heaven? You cant. There is no argument. There is only absolutism. This is the difference between science/rationality and religion. Science is open to argument, and being proven wrong. Religion is NOT. It is about faith. BLIND faith. Thats why it is BAD. I'm not sure if this has been verified but as far as I know, the guys shouted Allauh Akbar or whatever the spelling is when firing on the elderly, unarmed people. Yes people did this, but they did it because of RELIGION.

I have nothing against any races, what I hate is ignorance and stupidity. Religion has been shoveling ignorance down peoples throat for centuries. It is the enemy of rationality and civilization and should be eradicated. RELIGION should, not people. You cant be racists towards religion, its not a person or a people.