Je Suis Charlie

[maninahat]

I had this same problem with "Draw Muhammad Day", which is framed as an act of defiance against extremists. When you draw a picture of Muhammed, you aren't criticising the murderers, you are criticising all muslims through a casual display of intolerance to their beliefs. I don't think it is bold or commendable to show such callousness, even when it is framed as a defence of free speech. I also don't think having a right to free speech makes it at all reasonable to draw that crap.

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.

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".

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.

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.

"Oh, you're offended? So fucking what?"

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.

 

[Simonism451]

I wanna drop this here: Not all Muslims are terrorist, but the vast majority of terrorists are muslim.

While horrible people can say the deaths of the satirists are their own fault, what about the jews who were slaughtered? Did they deserve it because muslim fanatisicm is at an all time rise? People blaming religion, are jews also at fault for being jewish? Should all religions suffer? It's a single religion at fault, and it's far worse outside europe (like a 10 year old girl being a suicide bomber today in Nigeria if the source's right). Are jews need (again) to be sacrificed to appease the rising muslim majority in europe? We can't even have a country for ourselves without europe selling parts of it off to get muslims happy.

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.

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

"Terrorism: the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims" those acts are not terrorism, but hate actions, there's a big difference. so your wrong (though those acts are still unjustifiable).

Also, this are acts against jews in europe this year alone: www.adl.org/anti-semitism/international/c/global-antisemitism-2014.html
and their communities are much smaller than muslims but also suffer.

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.
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.

 

[Random Gamer]

How is it stupid? I think it is a legitimate point to make that, although no one should be murdered over cartoons, the cartoons in question were racist (or at least xenophobic, if you're the pedantic sort who points out that islam isn't a race, whilst ignoring how Muslims in these cartoons are always depicted as a stereotype Arabs). Therefore, replicating the racist art work as an act of solidarity isn't a good idea; it accidentally condones racism.

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.

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...

"Oh, you're offended? So fucking what?"

So if I'm offended by what you are doing I'd like you to fucking stop it Stephen, you idiot.

Being offended gives you no fucking right at all. NONE.
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.

 

[Cecilo]

I had this same problem with "Draw Muhammad Day", which is framed as an act of defiance against extremists. When you draw a picture of Muhammed, you aren't criticising the murderers, you are criticising all muslims through a casual display of intolerance to their beliefs. I don't think it is bold or commendable to show such callousness, even when it is framed as a defence of free speech. I also don't think having a right to free speech makes it at all reasonable to draw that crap.

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.

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".

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.

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.

"Oh, you're offended? So fucking what?"

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.

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)

 

[Shamanic Rhythm]

Good and important cartoon, shame this thread has been hijacked by all the agendas.

 

[maninahat]

"Oh, you're offended? So fucking what?"

So if I'm offended by what you are doing I'd like you to fucking stop it Stephen, you idiot.

Being offended gives you no fucking right at all. NONE.
People should get this in their tiny brainless skull once and for all.

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.

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.

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.

 

[cathou]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

 

[Therumancer]

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.

 

[JMac85]

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.

A more apt example would be if your uncle demanded that, since he has a phobia of balloons, that they should be banned. Just in case if he's ever at a restaurant and stumbles upon a birthday party. After all, it's not his responsibility to cope with a world that doesn't share his sensibilities. Everyone else should be mindful of him, right? He's a poor, troubled minority.

Hundreds of millions of people are religious outraged by the positive depiction of homosexuality in the media. Should be comply with their requests to shutter them away? But don't worry, I'm not suggesting he outlaw it like they have in their countries. Just keep them out of the public eye. Unless of course this doesn't placate the religious extremists. They did manage to pressure a whole other culture into changing what they allow to satisfy them, so why should they stop there?

 

[Carzinex]

Russian Orthodox Christianity hates homosexuals and lobbies for laws against it (http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2014/01/10/orthodox-church-of-russia-homosexuality-must-be-banned-and-excluded-from-society/) : Shocking, horrible must be stopped, boycott there country!!!

Extremist Islam kills 12 people because they published some blasphemous cartoons: Well they should respect their religion!!


Some people are very strange

 

[JMac85]

It's funny because most Islam controlled countries (I'm talking about countries that have things like Sharia law instated) treat homosexuals just as bad if not worse than Russia yet you see far less outcry with them for some odd reason.

Really. With all the cries of "The Patriarchy" and "rape culture" from the social justice crowd over trivial bullshit like some guy wearing a tacky shirt with pin-up girls on it, you'd think they'd speak of the Middle East like it was Mordor or something.

 

[Carzinex]

It's funny because most Islam controlled countries (I'm talking about countries that have things like Sharia law instated) treat homosexuals just as bad if not worse than Russia yet you see far less outcry with them for some odd reason.

Really. With all the cries of "The Patriarchy" and "rape culture" from the social justice crowd over trivial bullshit like some guy wearing a tacky shirt with pin-up girls on it, you'd think they'd speak of the Middle East like it was Mordor or something.

Probably because only straight white males can ever do any wrong. Obviously Muslims are oppressed minorities and we should respect their culture.

I think alot of them seem to equate the middle-east and northern Africa with central and southern Africa.

These are VERY rich populous areas of the world, that 1. invented slavery 2. have an ancient culture that goes back just as far as European middle ages 3. Have worst humanitarian and wealth distribution records than any Anglo-European culture.

The Muslim world is not something to be molly-coddled and looked after, they can look after themselves, well the governments/theocracies/monarchies look after themselves just not their people.

If we have white privilege they definitely have some of their own mojo in their home countries.

 

[maninahat]

You should have read the next bit, where I talk about how empathy trumps rights.

?Your rights end where my feelings begin?

Or, "Your rights have nothing to do with whether you are being an inconsiderate jackass to others."

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.

Why exactly are you trying to say here? No one is being forced to celebrate Christmas (which let?s be honest, it?s just as secular as it is religious at this point) nor is anyone forced to close on Sunday to observe the Sabbath, this is all a case of individual people or companies practicing their freedom of religion.

I was responding to a previous commentor, who was arguing that for a society that accommodated the Islamic rule of not depicting Muhammad would run afoul of people's right to freedom of religion. I'm pointing out that many Western societies already accommodate many Christian customs, and even officially integrate them into public holidays, so their argument was mute.

Here?s the thing though, any moderate Muslim should be able to tolerate having their religious figure being drawn and/or mocked just as most religions do. I?m a Christian myself but do I cry bloody murder every time Jesus or my religion in general is made fun of? Fuck no, it doesn?t affect me personally and I really don?t care about it beyond not finding it all that funny. I?m just wondering, why does Islam get this special treatment? It?s not like there?s anything in official doctrine saying Muhammed can?t be portrayed or mocked, this all stems from different interpretations by various sects and religious officials. The only reason it?s done in the first place is because Islam is pretty much the only religion that would get you killed for doing something as trivial as drawing a picture.

I find this is an interesting argument - that because other religions don't have an equivalent taboo on depicting religious figures, muslims are unreasonable to have such a taboo. It's convenient for those arguing it is daft to have never lived by such a taboo.

That said, even though non-muslims don't have a strict taboo on depicting religious figures, all people have customs that seem arbitrary to outsiders. I'll give you a personal example: my wife is from India, where wedding rings have little (if any) significance. One day, she took off her wedding ring and asked, in all earnestness, whether she could use one of her other, more valuable rings as her wedding band instead. She was surprised to see that I upset by this question. She was actually annoyed that this could ever bother someone. Being from a society that placed no importance on such things meant she was not equipped to sympathise with the importance that I (like many Westerners) place on them. So the question is, am I an idiot to be placing such an importance on a damn ring? And as an ignorant outsider, just how useful is her perspective in judging my reaction? How can I honestly criticise some muslim taboo, whilst expecting my own esoteric taboos to be respected? I'm not going to argue that one can't criticise other people's customs at all, just that if we are going to be fair in judging these things, a superficial understanding isn't going to cut it.

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.

Not really sure how that scenario is equivalent. No one is going into these people?s homes and shoving these pictures into their faces. A more adequate scenario is if your balloon-phobic uncle started campaigning to have balloons removed from all forms of media or even to ban balloons completely and complain that you?re somehow being insensitive if you don?t comply with his ludicrous demands. If these people have a problem with seeing their prophet being mocked then maybe they should just fucking ignore it. No one is forcing them to read Charlie Hebdo and they probably wouldn?t be reading it in the first place. It?s the same issue with the burning of the American flag which is funny since the same people that would take issue with drawings of Muhammad would probably be completely fine with the practice and maybe even advocate it. The world is filled with things we don't like, doesn't mean we need to start trying to remove everything that upsets our tender sensibilities.

People are shoving the Mohammad drawings in muslims faces though. Newspapers and zines are reproducing them, artists are taking to twitter to re-tweet them, people even pushed to make an annual event of drawing Muhammad - that is very definitely rubbing it in muslim's faces. My uncle, ever the moderate, might have been fine with people keeping their balloons in their own homes and out of his sight, but he probably wouldn't be fine with them tumbling out of his morning's paper.

As a final question, why the hell shouldn't we start trying to remove things that upset our tender sensibilities?

 

[JMac85]

As a final question, why the hell shouldn't we start trying to remove things that upset our tender sensibilities?

Because that's authoritarianism?

 

[geizr]

Looking at some of the latest news reports on the terrorism incidents in France, it would appear I need to change my assessment of the situation. I'm currently leaning toward Charlie Hebdo was simply a convenient excuse for the terrorists. I am thinking that the terrorists had already planned their acts of murder and violence, and Charlie Hebdo was merely a convenient starting point. If not Charlie Hebdo, then the terrorists would have chosen another target.

This all seems to be coming conveniently as France is debating its immigration laws. However, thanks to the actions of these terrorists, there is significant voice from the right-wing, now, to simply closing the borders (at least to Muslim immigration) and possibly kicking out the Muslims that currently are in France. This is just going to turn into a shit-storm no matter how you go, because people are just scared, right now.

ADDENDUM: Just want to clarify that what I'm saying here is that I don't think the terrorists were actually responding to anything by Charlie Hebdo. Instead, they were just using Charlie Hebdo as a convenient rallying cry for their own faction and twisted views. They probably had any number of targets they were considering, and Charlie Hebdo simply drew the short straw.

Which makes the terrorists actions even more criminally horrific, in my opinion.

 

[Davroth]

Well, I might be late to the party, and I had a whole thing prepared where I would try to explain why Charlie Hebdo was in fact absolutely not racist and/or rightwing, but then I found this article that did a far better job then I could have ever done, so there we are:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/01/11/1356945/-On-not-understanding-Charlie-Why-many-smart-people-are-getting-it-wrong

I'd suggest everyone reads it and the material in it, and try not to use their US American sensibilities to judge a French magazine.

 

[cathou]

Looking at some of the latest news reports on the terrorism incidents in France, it would appear I need to change my assessment of the situation. I'm currently leaning toward Charlie Hebdo was simply a convenient excuse for the terrorists. I am thinking that the terrorists had already planned their acts of murder and violence, and Charlie Hebdo was merely a convenient starting point. If not Charlie Hebdo, then the terrorists would have chosen another target.

This all seems to be coming conveniently as France is debating its immigration laws. However, thanks to the actions of these terrorists, there is significant voice from the right-wing, now, to simply closing the borders (at least to Muslim immigration) and possibly kicking out the Muslims that currently are in France. This is just going to turn into a shit-storm no matter how you go, because people are just scared, right now.

of course it was just a starting point. The cartoons showing muhammad are a bit old, they did do a front page with islam for a while now. Plus all three of them talked to journlaists before they die, and all three of them talked about the implication of france in Syria and against ISIS.

And the irony of that is that Charlie was dying anyway. if they didnt attacked it, it would had probably closed within two years. They had less and less exclusive employees and hire more freelance because they were lacking the funds to pay everyone full time. they were selling roughly 50000 copy per week now, and they were barely profitable. But now a lot of people that havent heard of them before know them, a lot of people will buy the journal just to make a point against terrorism. Tomorrow, Charlie come out with 3 millions copy to sell, in 16 languages and will be distributed worldwide. they will get a load of money to fund the journal that they would never had otherwise.

Well, I might be late to the party, and I had a whole thing prepared where I would try to explain why Charlie Hebdo was in fact absolutely not racist and/or rightwing, but then I found this article that did a far better job then I could have ever done, so there we are:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/01/11/1356945/-On-not-understanding-Charlie-Why-many-smart-people-are-getting-it-wrong

I'd suggest everyone reads it and the material in it, and try not to use their US American sensibilities to judge a French magazine.

It's the best article i've seen about what is Charlie, very well find

 

[Agent 26]

Je Suis Charlie... 'nuff said!!

 

[Canyoureadmydeadpan]

https://i.imgur.com/1UOJqPz.png < writer of feminist frequency justifying the terror attacks.

 

[wAriot]

Je Suis Charlie.

What I don't manage to understand is why Muslims tend to be so thin-skinned when it comes to critics and satirizations of their faith. They tend to jump fairly easily in my experience, something that I haven't seen from, say, Christians (the amount of parodies of the Bible and Jesus is honestly surprising), Jews (and oh boy they get some shit thrown at them) or even Atheists (with the fedora meme and whatnot).
Keep in mind I'm talking in general, I know there are certain groups that are, well, less "moderate" in their views. But as I said, when I personally talk with Muslims, they usually are fairly defensive (more than others anyway). See all the people in online media saying that the Charlie Hebdo guys "had it coming", for example.