Je Suis Charlie

[Rad Party God]

I didn't know what the heck was a Charlie Hebdo until yesterday. Digging a little more into this debacle, I don't see these guys that different from Trey Parker and Matt Stone, South Park has done quite a lot of satirical shit for decades, sometimes even borderline mean spirited, but they still manage to get away with it because of "free speech".

Sometimes I may not agree with what they say, but they absolutely have the right to say whatever they want. The day someone gets killed for a goddamn cartoon is a sad day indeed.

 

[Andy Shandy]

A nice touch, Cory and Grey.

 

[Immsys]

What is allowed in satire?

Everything.{/quote]


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.

I completely agree with your conclusions. Nothing worse could come out of this than Censorship and Islamaphobia. I'd suggest a similar quote on the idea of satire though, see what you think:

"Well, when the issue came up of the Danish cartoons [of Muhammad] I observed that the test I apply to something to see whether it truly is satire derives from H. L. Mencken's definition of good journalism: It should 'afflict the comfortable and comfort the afflicted.' The trouble with a lot of so-called 'satire' directed against religiously motivated extremists is that it's not clear who it's afflicting, or who it's comforting. This is in no way to condone the shooting of the journalists, which is evil, pure and simple, but our society makes a fetish of 'the right to free speech' without ever questioning what sort of responsibilities are implied by this right."
?As told to Oscar Rickett '

 

[tzimize]

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.

Dont put words in my mouth please.

I am not making myself out to be a hypocrate at all. Destroying religion is not the same as destroying persons. Just because I use aggresive wording does not mean my intentions are violent. I would like to DESTROY ignorance. But that doesnt imply I want to kill the stupid. Education can be the destruction of ignorance as effectively as a gun can.

Religion did not give us ethics. It gave us a set of ethics. Ethics are inherent in human beings. We live in societies/tribes. They have rules. These rules develop with or without religion. Ethics have been around as long as we have lived together, they have just changed through the centuries. You think no one forgave each other before Jesus? Please. The only thing religion is contributing is absolutism. An ethical rule can be discussed and changed, except when it is handed down from the divine. How would you go about trying to "convert" a religious persons ethical belief to your own supposedly rational one? You couldnt, because their ethics are not based on rationality. "God/the bible/Quaran/whatever said it is so, and I will stick to this.

You think it was insanity that made people shoot defenseless elderly people? It was not. It was religion. They thought they were doing the RIGHT THING. Thats the problem. They were NOT insane, unless you count religiousness as a sort of insanity. Insane people dont plan stuff like that. This was a specific plan with a specific purpose for a specific reason. A reason born in Islam.

Does this mean I'm convinced all muslims are bad people and want to do crazy stuff? No. Of course not. But they DO believe in the same book. They DO believe in crazy things. Just like christians do. Or jews. It contributes NOTHING to society. If you cant see the difference in hating ignorance and religion and hating people that draw cartoons, then I pity you. If you have a good argument for why I shouldnt hate religion I am ready to be convinced. I really fucking doubt you could say the same about those guys that gunned down people in paris. Or most religious people for that matter.

 

[Dr_Fred]

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.

I will stop at this last answer, because it looks more and more like you will not see reason. You seem to be pushing with extreme force in highly unfortunate circumstances the opinion that Muslims are always the main victims of everything wrong in western countries, which possibly stems from hard-lived experience, but does not excuse your attitude here. Or, alternatively, you may be purposefully trolling, but I will assume it is not the case.

At any rate, your belief that CH was targeting only "non-threatened" minorities is obviously wrong [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism_in_21st-century_France] - I assume you have failed to notice the Jewish caricatures that go alongside the Catholic and Muslim ones, even though they were pretty obvious. Maybe you really ought to believe, well... *every bloody person except for yourself* when you are repeatedly told and explained that Muslims were not a favorite target of CH. Only the extremists of all kinds are, and it turns out that Al Qaida, ISIS and consorts have been quite voicely during the last few years, and that islamists radicals (who I agree should not be confused with the rest of Muslims) have declared a personal vendetta upon Charlie Hebdo, and have already performed multiple attacks against them previously.

 

[maffgibson]

-snip-

-snip-

"silasbufu" -snipped and detagged because he has clearly had enough-

-snip-

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 they 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.

You are entirely right: in the face of injustice, every individual has to make their own call. For people who don't suffer from such shittiness, it is REALLY easy to stand back and say:

"Hey, just do the brave thing! I always feel like doing brave stuff after some quail and a massage from my butler, have you tried that?"

The tone of Silas's comment (now taken down because he was bored, fair play) was that it was not a conscious choice made by the staff at the CH, but thoughtlessness:

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

I chose my two analogies because they were, in my mind equally unreasonable. As you say,some choices are stupid, even if they shouldn't be. In the example you give, you aren't going to talk back to a cop because it would be a clearly bad idea. However, in my mind, this is not what drawing cartoons in the West is equivalent to. Drawing cartoons, then talking back to a maniac holding a gun in your face, perhaps.

What Silas (to my mind) was saying was more equivalent to saying that people shouldn't even initiate the possibility of the situation (hence, leaving the house).

As I have already said, it is one thing for someone with actual experience of a situation to say "this is a choice for me to make". It is another thing for someone with no personal experience of the situation to say "you should have thought about that before drawing a picture/having a drink/leaving the house". That, in my eyes, is blaming the victim.

 

[Product Placement]

http://www.hoodedutilitarian.com/2015/01/in-the-wake-of-charlie-hebdo-free-speech-does-not-mean-freedom-from-criticism/

Last time I checked, "criticism" didn't involve mowing someone down with a machine gun.

I understand what you mean by the fact that Charlie isn't a magazine free of controversy but no one, I repeat, NO ONE is a free game for murder, just because it's someone you don't agree with.

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.

Generalizing much? I understand that there are not nice people out there but just because you spot the rotten apples, does it mean that the whole fruit basket is spoiled.

 

[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.

I will stop at this last answer, because it looks more and more like you will not see reason. You seem to be pushing with extreme force in highly unfortunate circumstances the opinion that Muslims are always the main victims of everything wrong in western countries, which possibly stems from hard-lived experience, but does not excuse your attitude here. Or, alternatively, you may be purposefully trolling, but I will assume it is not the case.

At any rate, your belief that CH was targeting only "non-threatened" minorities is obviously wrong [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism_in_21st-century_France] - I assume you have failed to notice the Jewish caricatures that go alongside the Catholic and Muslim ones, even though they were pretty obvious. Maybe you really ought to believe, well... *every bloody person except for yourself* when you are repeatedly told and explained that Muslims were not a favorite target of CH. Only the extremists of all kinds are, and it turns out that Al Qaida, ISIS and consorts have been quite voicely during the last few years, and that islamists radicals (who I agree should not be confused with the rest of Muslims) have declared a personal vendetta upon Charlie Hebdo, and have already performed multiple attacks against them previously.

IF that is what is interpreted from my posts, then obviously I have miss-stepped and I apologize. It appears I am also biased, or at least unable to state what I mean without ambiguity.

 

[tzimize]

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?

I absolutely realize the irony of it, but the main difference is that I would not shoot another person for what they believe. I want the destruction of a set of beliefs. Not a set of people. And while I realize that this will not happen, at least not in my lifetime, I'm allowed some hope. A few hundred years ago people believed in Zeus and Thor. Maybe a few hundred years from now yahwe, jesus, muhammed and any other such name will be just that...superstition. I would never go about this with a gun in hand, I dont want the destruction of people, I want the destruction of ignorance and superstition. The only way to go about that is education. It seems however that not everyone WANTS education...and its leaving me a bit stumped to the solution to be honest.

Hopefully after a few generations of muslims in western society they will realize that freedom is better than oppression and slowly be secularized. Its impossible to convince religious people of anthing, but hopefully as the generations go...the need of faith will lessen, and secular muslims will become the norm....and further down the line...atheism or at the very least agnosticism. This will be the slow destruction of religion, it is what I want. Not by violence...but by the slow and steady education and spread of rationality. I will not experience it, it will take several hundred years more (provided we dont nuke ourselves into orbit by then)...but hopefully, in time...it will happen. And no one will ever think of names like jesus or muhammed again without shaking their heads in disbelief.

 

[Silence]

What is allowed in satire?

Everything.{/quote]


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.

I completely agree with your conclusions. Nothing worse could come out of this than Censorship and Islamaphobia. I'd suggest a similar quote on the idea of satire though, see what you think:

"Well, when the issue came up of the Danish cartoons [of Muhammad] I observed that the test I apply to something to see whether it truly is satire derives from H. L. Mencken's definition of good journalism: It should 'afflict the comfortable and comfort the afflicted.' The trouble with a lot of so-called 'satire' directed against religiously motivated extremists is that it's not clear who it's afflicting, or who it's comforting. This is in no way to condone the shooting of the journalists, which is evil, pure and simple, but our society makes a fetish of 'the right to free speech' without ever questioning what sort of responsibilities are implied by this right."
?As told to Oscar Rickett '

Well, I agree and disagree with the quote.
Satire is not journalism. Satire is not to comfort those afflicted. Satire is in parts evil.
Still, Satire needs to have a core in truth. Some things are just not satire. I found a link to the whole text I was quoting, translated: http://kurttucholsky.blogspot.de/2006/02/was-darf-die-satire.html
Especially satire against extremists (which seems the thing CH did) should never be denied. Satire is one of the weapons against extremsists, of all kinds.

"Satire seems to be a thoroughly negative thing. It says: "No!" A satire that calls for an increase in the war debt, is none. Satire bites, laughs, whistles and beats the gigantic trooper's drum against everything that is stagnant and unresponsive.

Satire is a thoroughly positive thing. Nowhere do those lacking character betray themselves quicker than here, nowhere does he show himself swifter, that tomfool without a conscience, one who attacks this today and that tomorrow."

Satire does not comfort as it's main product. It can be a by-product, but it is neither motivation nor goal. Satire is to make people uncomfortable. I think that's why I mostly disagree with the quote.

 

[Ishigami]

"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.

QFT.
Remember: No One Murdered Because Of This Image [http://www.theonion.com/articles/no-one-murdered-because-of-this-image,29553/]

vive la liberte *tiphat*

 

[Immsys]

Well, I agree and disagree with the quote.
Satire is not journalism. Satire is not to comfort those afflicted. Satire is in parts evil.
Still, Satire needs to have a core in truth. Some things are just not satire. I found a link to the whole text I was quoting, translated: http://kurttucholsky.blogspot.de/2006/02/was-darf-die-satire.html
Especially satire against extremists (which seems the thing CH did) should never be denied. Satire is one of the weapons against extremsists, of all kinds.

"Satire seems to be a thoroughly negative thing. It says: "No!" A satire that calls for an increase in the war debt, is none. Satire bites, laughs, whistles and beats the gigantic trooper's drum against everything that is stagnant and unresponsive.

Satire is a thoroughly positive thing. Nowhere do those lacking character betray themselves quicker than here, nowhere does he show himself swifter, that tomfool without a conscience, one who attacks this today and that tomorrow."

Satire does not comfort as it's main product. It can be a by-product, but it is neither motivation nor goal. Satire is to make people uncomfortable. I think that's why I mostly disagree with the quote.

That's completely fair enough, I agree that satire has to bite or it is meaningless. My only question is whether this "satire" done by CH is about making fun of extremists (a very positive thing), or about making left wing French atheists feel more comfortable dismissing Muslims as "irrational" (somewhat more negative)

I really do like that quote though.

 

[UrinalDook]

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.

He's not saying they're racist because they railed against Muslims, he's saying they're racist because the means by which they did it used stereotypical and exaggerated features of Arabic men. It's not 'racism' against Muslims he's concerned over, it's racism against Arabs.

I don't know that I personally agree with Immsys, though he does raise a point I'm having to take into consideration, but if you're going to argue with him, at least argue against the point he's actually making, and not what you've decided you want to argue.

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.

Yeah, you kinda are and no, no it really isn't. PEOPLE are making people shoot other people because of drawings. Actually, scratch that. People are deciding to shoot other people because of drawings. Religion can't make people do anything, it's not some pervading consciousness buried within a book dominating those who come too close, or some controlling hive mind assimilating everyone who steps into a mosque.

Nowhere in the Qu'ran does it say 'at the start of 2015 some dudes in Paris are gonna talk shit about our Prophet, go shoot him with AKs (you'll know what they are) or else we'll get you'.

People chose to do this. People who have chosen to let their warped interpretation religion replace their rationality. People who have chosen to let religion annihilate their humanity rather than enhance it. Awful fucking people.

Religion can and has been abused, yes, I will grant you that. But all those traits you seem to value, rationality, free thought etc don't just evaporate the minute they come into contact with religion. They can and do exist side by side.

How many eminent, accomplished scientists do you think believe in God? How many do you think are practicing Christians, or Jews or, yes, Muslims? If you really think the answer is none, you may need to get a reality check.

OT: Nicely done Grey and Cory. It's nice to see solidarity simply being its own message.

 

[CaitSeith]

You know Grey and Cory are really upset when Erin's face show less emotion than Vivian James.

 

[Deathfish15]

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.

First off, let me explain that Muslim is not a race but instead a religion. The whole thing about making an image of the Prophet Muhammad is a religious person seen holy as said to be the last messenger of God and supposed founder of Islam. Making a satire of him is considered to Muslims to be an attack against their religion. It's the same as how they're equally offended if someone tries to draw an image of Allah (the Muslim equivalent to God).


And this is not understandable for people's concerns on this. Every religion, every single one of them, has been under satire, scrutiny, joke, mockery, and so on since forever ago. This is Freedom of Speed, a thing that shouldn't be exclusive to America but instead be a universal right to all peoples of the world. However there are fanatics that see it as their "right" to attack those that speak out against what they believe and kill them for the sake of getting some 72 virgins in some paradise. So their interpretation of their "religion" is batcrap crazy as well as sexist. .. ....why should there be any understanding?

 

[Sight Unseen]

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.

Islam isn't a race. You can't be "racist" towards an ideology? Are you racist against communism too?

 

[Immsys]

snip

having just written that, I've found a really good explanation of the point I am trying to make. So without any chance for me to screw it up, I'll post it for others enjoyment.

1. Being an equal opportunities offender, doesn't mean that the particular depictions of muslims weren't' racist. Vice, South Park, and Private Eye have all been good at lampooning all groups equally; that doesn't mean that they aren't often racist, homophobic, etc.

2. The point isn't that the cartoons are 'offensive', as Tanith mentioned above. I'm not saying that people should somehow be protected from being upset. That would be a fucking stupid and paternalistic argument to make.

3. Racism. Race isn't a thing. There are no 'races'. Oddly, if there were actually races, then that might well provide a justification for racism. Racialisation of a group is done through connecting certain (usually accentuated) physical features to particular cultural and social practices. Groups who have been racialized include africans, jews, serbs, arabs, chinese, japanese, asians. Race, then, can cut across cultural, linguistic, national, and continental boundaries boundaries; there is no meaningful taxonomy here, there is no stable and essential base for 'race'.

4. Race making is a process that occurs within society, and it is done through legal, political, academic, and (in the case of Charlie Hebdo) cultural practices. Groups in society are given essential characteristics, they are given a 'character'. Think about, for example, discussions and books on 'the negro mind, the jewish personality', the 'arab character'.

5. As I said before, race is constructed through connecting certain cultural markers with exaggerated physical features of the target group. The representations of Muslims in Charlie Hebdo do just that. The hooked nose, the scraggly beard, sunken eyes, and overall ratty depiction connected with so called traditional dress. Jews, were, of course, depicted in much the same way in 1930's Germany. Such a depiction is, historically, a one size fits all representation of both Jews and Arabs. As Said says, 'the transference of a popular anti-semitic animus from a Jewish to an Arab target was made smoothly, since the figure was essentially the same'.

6. As to the reason why this is important, there is, I believe a fundamental connection between cultural representation of particular groups and the manner in which said groups are treated, both by wider society and by the state. State racism always comes with certain cultural depictions of the particular group, to further categorise that group as a distinct 'other'. So, in 20th century America punitive laws against black people were coupled with particular depictions of black people in media: as ape-like, predatory, overly sexual, thick, servile. In the same way, state racism against muslims (see the article I posted above) is coupled with a particular cultural representation of muslims. Charlie Hebdo maintains and perpetuates this particular, negative, representation of muslims as a dangerous 'other'.

7. If anyone's interested, the key bit to read in Orientalism is the final section, Orientalism Now, where Said goes into the process of race making in the Orient (especially in relation to Jews and Arabs), and talks about its connection to, among other things, particular scientific and academic discourses.

 

[Verlander]

"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.

QFT.
Remember: No One Murdered Because Of This Image [http://www.theonion.com/articles/no-one-murdered-because-of-this-image,29553/]

vive la liberte *tiphat*

Truth? That's a laugh. No one was murdered for an image of Mohammad either. These are fringe lunatics, who are actively seeking reasons to commit atrocities. There is no one drawing cartoons of Mohammad in Iraq - has that stopped ISIS? Of course not, because it's not about that. These idiots (and that's what they are) know full well that their actions will bring about a rise in kneejerk Islamophobia. That's their intent, to divide the community. People will react, blame "all muslims" and say it's a "muslim thing" and their hate will radicalise the moderates. It keeps happening again and again, but morons are still playing their game and blaming Islam.

Of course, it's worth remembering that the deadliest terrorist attack in the last ten years in Europe was by a white Christian man, who killed more than every single Islamic murder in the last ten years combined... and that's including the Paris attack yesterday and the London bombings.

 

[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.

Islam isn't a race. You can't be "racist" towards an ideology? Are you racist against communism too?

Did you read the article? Or any articles or writings on Islamaphobia? If you want to start, I would highly recommend Edward Said's Orientalism, as it has a great description of why the idea of "racism" in that context doesn't make sense.

The point is that when Charlie Hebdo draws "muslims" what they actually draw are caricatures for Arabs. The dress, the hair, the beard; all scream "negative image of Arab male" But actually I can't begin to explain the reality of created race discourses, I will really have to direct you to someone that knows better.

 

[webkilla]

Whelp - now I know what's going on my May 20th prophet drawing this year - gotta keep up that danish cartoonist gig.