The Big Picture: Je Suis Charlie

Burnouts3s3

New member
Jan 20, 2012
746
0
0
An interesting stance.

I, myself, have been wondering about the whole 'getting back at them' sentiment with 'Draw Mohammad Day' response.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/cartoonist-promises-to-draw-mohamed-every-day-for-the-rest-of-the-year-in-protest-of-charlie-hebdo-attack-9964703.html
 

Evonisia

Your sinner, in secret
Jun 24, 2013
3,258
0
0
Super-serious? Well, I suppose, but I find this attempt at being serious much less condescending than the censorship episodes or the Jack Thompson episode, so this is well received by me.
 

madigan

New member
Oct 27, 2010
24
0
0
Thanks for this one, MovieBob! I couldn't agree with you more on this issue.

The only "simple" take-away from the Charlie Hebdo attack is that murder and terrorism is always wrong and horrible, and that the right to free speech is a concept more nuanced than most people seem to realize.
 

JoJo

and the Amazing Technicolour Dream Goat 🐐
Moderator
Legacy
Mar 26, 2020
7,126
66
53
Country
🇬🇧
Gender
♂
Yeah, you've hit the nail on the head when it comes to power, it's an easy enough to say truisms like "punch up, not down," but it's very difficult to pin down exactly who is powerful and who isn't in our messy world and that is multiplied tenfold when you cross international borders into different cultures.

I'm not a reader of Charlie Hebdo, I can read at best only a little French so I can't be completely certain but from the screenshots of the magazine I've seen, it doesn't really cross the line into racism and is actually very critical of far-right parties like the FN. It hits on religion a lot but even then the Prophet Muhammad got off fairly lightly when for example in the past they've done a magazine cover of the Holy Trinity of Christianity having a threesome :p
 

Lieju

New member
Jan 4, 2009
3,044
0
0
Well, that was far better episode than I feared.

I'm not French, but I do know some things of French culture (and was vaguely familiar with the work of some of the cartoonists killed) and know French people (including muslims, feminists, LGBT+ people etc) and some of them were offended by the Charlie Hebdo drawings, some weren't, some thought they were punching down, some disagreed with that.

But what all of them are saying is that people who have no context should stay away from the discussion.
Especially on the Internet where American views and English-speakers tend to dominate the discussion.
 

faeshadow

New member
Feb 4, 2008
60
0
0
Evonisia said:
Super-serious? Well, I suppose, but I find this attempt at being serious much less condescending than the censorship episodes or the Jack Thompson episode, so this is well received by me.
I agree! I just kept watching this video thinking "I'm actually agreeing with Bob for once, wow." Not sure I agree with him implying that Charlie Hebdo is racist, but I'll let that slide since the rest of it was right on the nose.
 

bobdole1979

New member
Mar 25, 2009
63
0
0
I'm not a fan of people calling him "The Prophet Muhammad" Just call him Muhammad if you aren't Muslim. Otherwise its like always referring to Jesus as "Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ"

Since this happened all the news channels keep calling him "the Prophet Muhammad"

Great video btw
 

deathbydeath

New member
Jun 28, 2010
1,363
0
0
Love the intro, but I feel like we're going to disagree.

EDIT: Nevermind, this video is pretty legit. I apologize for assuming your SJW tendencies would muck this up, as this video is one of the better takes on issue that's not only thorny, but where many people pretend like those thorns don't exist.
 

JMac85

New member
Nov 1, 2007
89
0
0
I'm really sick of that "punching up/down" bullshit when it comes to saying what jokes you're allowed to make. If you have a point to make, it shouldn't matter how "privileged" you are compared to the person or entity you're ripping on.
 

Zato-1

New member
Mar 27, 2009
58
0
0
Condemning South Park for "punching down" instead of "punching up" completely misses the point about the show. South Park is not about social justice and speaking truth to power, it's about confronting ugly truths and being irreverent to a fault, which has its own value.

Also, this:
JMac85 said:
I'm really sick of that "punching up/down" bullshit when it comes to saying what jokes you're allowed to make. If you have a point to make, it shouldn't matter how "privileged" you are compared to the person or entity you're ripping on.
 

JediMB

New member
Oct 25, 2008
3,094
0
0
Yeah, I pretty much share Bob's views on this one.

The killings were wrong, as murder tends to be. Full stop. No caveats.

With that said, I'm not Charlie and I have no intention to defend the publication. I'll only argue for the right of its employees to live.
 

Scarim Coral

Jumped the ship
Legacy
Apr 30, 2020
18,159
1
3
Country
UK
Burnouts3s3 said:
An interesting stance.

I, myself, have been wondering about the whole 'getting back at them' sentiment with 'Draw Mohammad Day' response.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/cartoonist-promises-to-draw-mohamed-every-day-for-the-rest-of-the-year-in-protest-of-charlie-hebdo-attack-9964703.html
Not only that but that magazine company that got attacked will publish Prophet Muhammad on its cover tomorrow-http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-30790409

Yeah I can see this being punch up and punch down. Punch up as they are defining the terrorist but punch down by offending the Muslim who do not support terrorism.
 

endtherapture

New member
Nov 14, 2011
3,127
0
0
I think that most people are getting annoyed at those criticising Charlie Hebdo is because they're making arguments that basically amount to victim blaming. Given that the majority of people making these arguments are those from Tumblr and social justice crowds, them crying out against victim blaming for rape victims, but saying "Oh the cartoonists didn't deserve to get shot, but should not have made these dodgy cartoons" is hypocrisy of the highest order.
 

HemalJB

New member
Oct 10, 2011
43
0
0
Yeah, I see that happen a lot. I mean, there are a lot of jokes and insults directed towards Feminists but feel as though they are just attacking women. Then there are jokes against Radical Christians which feel like they're attacking Christianity as a whole. It's hard to enjoy humor in these cases.
 

Xman490

Doctorate in Danger
May 29, 2010
1,186
0
0
When it comes to cartoons like South Park, mockery is a form of satire of real hatred. The characters in it do such ridiculous things that it's hard to take them seriously. When a character becomes part dolphin or characters decide to establish "cis" and "trans" bathrooms, their ridiculousness is clear. They are obviously exaggerations and representations of what bigots might believe certain groups' agendas are.
 

Recaxion

New member
Sep 16, 2014
2
0
0
excellent episode bob, a lot to digest maybe have to watch it a few times so I can properly consider your points.
 

MovieBob

New member
Dec 31, 2008
11,495
0
0
Exactly the video I was hoping for from Bob. As the saying goes, free speech is not freedom from consequence, and though getting shot isn't a consequence that should be expected, we can't allow that speech to become untouchable. Its a tough line of thought for people to adhere to, even when not caught in an emotional hurricane the likes that the attack has created. Just because you should be allowed to say something doesn't mean that I have to agree with it, or even that it should be said. This goes for all speech (that isn't directly harmful in its creation), as just because you can and should be able to write an incredibly distasteful cartoon (which I'm not necessarily saying Hebdo are) doesn't mean you should or that it should be defended from criticism the same way its defended from censorship or fanatics with guns.
 

P-89 Scorpion

New member
Sep 25, 2014
466
0
0
The MAMA picture showing 15 attacks against Muslims in France were 7 are graffiti? so graffiti is an attack now?

15 'attacks' resulting in 1 assault that of a 17 year old by a gang of teenagers that happen all the time anyway against everyone who's a teenager.
 

JMac85

New member
Nov 1, 2007
89
0
0
endtherapture said:
I think that most people are getting annoyed at those criticising Charlie Hebdo is because they're making arguments that basically amount to victim blaming. Given that the majority of people making these arguments are those from Tumblr and social justice crowds, them crying out against victim blaming for rape victims, but saying "Oh the cartoonists didn't deserve to get shot, but should not have made these dodgy cartoons" is hypocrisy of the highest order.
That, and the hypocrisy of crying "we should respect their culture" when they just got through a diatribe about "the patriarchy" and "rape culture" here in the West.
 

Baresark

New member
Dec 19, 2010
3,908
0
0
It was a good episode, though some of it felt argumentative for the sake of it. The punching up and punching down thing is a strange thing if for no other reason than it all is a matter of perspective. For instance, anything about Obamacare is essentially about punching at the current administration for not fixing healthcare and at the same time making it significantly more complicated. No one is sitting in their chairs saying, "poor people don't deserve healthcare". The border stuff is punching up at legislation because it doesn't level the playing field as much as it plays favorites with people wandering over a specific border. With the citizenship stuff, they could have changed the laws so it's easier for illegal immigrants to become US citizens, but instead they want to summarily make them all citizens while leaving the same broken rules and laws in place for people coming in every other way into the country. My good friend spent about $20k of his own money and three years of his life to make his Scottish wife a US citizen. There is no equality in that legislation, it amounts to buying votes for the next election.

Anyway, I couldn't agree more with a lot of the video though. I'm sure they stepped over the line at Charlie Hebdoe because the people making that stuff don't have any personal connection to any of it. That said, no one is allowed to go murdering people because they said or published something they don't like. I am forced to sit and roll my eyes at all the headlines treating it like an insane attack on freedom of speech as if they are 100% innocent of outright offending people and that is OK. I don't want anyone to be murdered, but everyone should be culturally sensitive enough to know that as you would not like your beliefs attacked, others also do not want theirs attacked.
 

daibakuha

New member
Aug 27, 2012
272
0
0
JMac85 said:
I'm really sick of that "punching up/down" bullshit when it comes to saying what jokes you're allowed to make. If you have a point to make, it shouldn't matter how "privileged" you are compared to the person or entity you're ripping on.
Well then expect people to get offended and call you things like bigot/misogynist. When you punch up you are condemning those who already empowered, it's not mean-spirited because those groups already hold social and political power. Punching down only further marginalizes minorities, it's like looking back at all those racist cartoons and saying that they aren't racist because all they're doing is punching down.
 

GamemasterAnthony

New member
Dec 5, 2010
1,009
0
0
This was definitely something that needed to be said.

True, the satirists did not deserve to be shot, but it is safe to say they weren't exactly on the side of angels either. In fact...

Burnouts3s3 said:
An interesting stance.

I, myself, have been wondering about the whole 'getting back at them' sentiment with 'Draw Mohammad Day' response.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/cartoonist-promises-to-draw-mohamed-every-day-for-the-rest-of-the-year-in-protest-of-charlie-hebdo-attack-9964703.html
...THAT is definitely not cool. Especially since it sort of borders on punishing the innocent along with the guilty. In this case, attacking Muslims in general for the acts of the extremists. This also happened as a result of 9/11 when American Muslims were vilified for the attacks DESPITE those very same American Muslims speaking out against what Bin Laden did.
 

endtherapture

New member
Nov 14, 2011
3,127
0
0
JMac85 said:
endtherapture said:
I think that most people are getting annoyed at those criticising Charlie Hebdo is because they're making arguments that basically amount to victim blaming. Given that the majority of people making these arguments are those from Tumblr and social justice crowds, them crying out against victim blaming for rape victims, but saying "Oh the cartoonists didn't deserve to get shot, but should not have made these dodgy cartoons" is hypocrisy of the highest order.
That, and the hypocrisy of crying "we should respect their culture" when they just got through a diatribe about "the patriarchy" and "rape culture" here in the West.
Yeah.

If you wanna feel gross, just go on Jonathan McIntosh's twitter (Sarkeesians writer), located here: https://twitter.com/radicalbytes

His stuff about Charlie Hebdo is just clearly being used to push his annoying agenda. People are posting an article around called ""In the Wake of Charlie Hebdo, Free Speech Does Not Mean Freedom From Criticism". That's just an horrible article to be sharing around when the bodies are still warm, and the title heavily implies that they're condoning murder of cartoonists.
 

JMac85

New member
Nov 1, 2007
89
0
0
daibakuha said:
Well then expect people to get offended and call you things like bigot/misogynist. When you punch up you are condemning those who already empowered, it's not mean-spirited because those groups already hold social and political power. Punching down only further marginalizes minorities, it's like looking back at all those racist cartoons and saying that they aren't racist because all they're doing is punching down.
Or, y'know, I just happen to find certain attitudes and actions objectionable and worthy of mockery, regardless of what economic or social strata the people perpetrating it happen to occupy?
 

daibakuha

New member
Aug 27, 2012
272
0
0
JMac85 said:
daibakuha said:
Well then expect people to get offended and call you things like bigot/misogynist. When you punch up you are condemning those who already empowered, it's not mean-spirited because those groups already hold social and political power. Punching down only further marginalizes minorities, it's like looking back at all those racist cartoons and saying that they aren't racist because all they're doing is punching down.
Or, y'know, I just happen to find certain attitudes and actions objectionable and worthy of mockery, regardless of what economic or social strata the people perpetrating it happen to occupy?
Just keep in mind that humor and satire don't exist in a vacuum, and that sometimes when you poke fun at a group, you are actually contributing to it's marginalization rather than it's acceptance.
 

Ken_J

New member
Jun 4, 2009
891
0
0
HemalJB said:
Yeah, I see that happen a lot. I mean, there are a lot of jokes and insults directed towards Feminists but feel as though they are just attacking women. Then there are jokes against Radical Christians which feel like they're attacking Christianity as a whole. It's hard to enjoy humor in these cases.
Very true. I think that all has to do with how you as an audience member feel or are apart of that group, even if there is a point behind it. While I myself am a christian I tend to get a little sore at Anti-Christian and religious jokes or sentiment as they hit a little to close to home, even if they are squarely about the more extreme ones. While because I am not a woman feminist jokes tend not to.

Even in this episode there's an example. I'm a big fan of South Park and I kinda don't like how their being presented as bully's hiding behind satire. However, speaking for myself I can separate that and still enjoy and listen to the discussion/joke. But I now a lot of people can't.
 

JMac85

New member
Nov 1, 2007
89
0
0
daibakuha said:
Just keep in mind that humor and satire don't exist in a vacuum, and that sometimes when you poke fun at a group, you are actually contributing to it's marginalization rather than it's acceptance.
Maybe, but bullshit still needs to be called out. The "little guy" is just as capable of being a bully as the big kid at recess.
 

MovieBob

New member
Dec 31, 2008
11,495
0
0
endtherapture said:
His stuff about Charlie Hebdo is just clearly being used to push his annoying agenda. People are posting an article around called ""In the Wake of Charlie Hebdo, Free Speech Does Not Mean Freedom From Criticism". That's just an horrible article to be sharing around when the bodies are still warm, and the title heavily implies that they're condoning murder of cartoonists.
Its a good thing that the article doesn't condone the attacks, and rather does nothing but pretty much say what Bob himself said in this very video.

Also, drop the "bodies are still warm" schtick. Thats politics - recognizing that people will react in a certain way to events when the aftermath of the events have yet to conclude. The world is political, shit happens, and the reality is that pretending like things won't happen in the aftermath of a tragedy is naive, not to mention that its a lost opportunity to have discussions that need to happen. Its about on par to "think of the children!", both in that it gets in the way of much needed discussion, as well as being frequently used by people to defend their positions from being challenged.
 

endtherapture

New member
Nov 14, 2011
3,127
0
0
MarsAtlas said:
endtherapture said:
His stuff about Charlie Hebdo is just clearly being used to push his annoying agenda. People are posting an article around called ""In the Wake of Charlie Hebdo, Free Speech Does Not Mean Freedom From Criticism". That's just an horrible article to be sharing around when the bodies are still warm, and the title heavily implies that they're condoning murder of cartoonists.
Its a good thing that the article doesn't condone the attacks, and rather does nothing but pretty much say what Bob himself said in this very video.

Also, drop the "bodies are still warm" schtick. Thats politics - recognizing that people will react in a certain way to events when the aftermath of the events have yet to conclude. The world is political, shit happens, and the reality is that pretending like things won't happen in the aftermath of a tragedy is naive, not to mention that its a lost opportunity to have discussions that need to happen. Its about on par to "think of the children!", both in that it gets in the way of much needed discussion, as well as being frequently used by people to defend their positions from being challenged.
Je Suis Charlie is about showing solidarity with the victims, who have families that have survived them, and about not letting the extremists win and dictate to us what we can and can't print over fear of death.

I personally find the comics in bad taste, but I am not going to criticise it with opposing movements in such a short aftermath of the attacks, because it is simply in bad taste.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 26, 2020
5,493
1,253
118
Country
United Kingdom
Zato-1 said:
Condemning South Park for "punching down" instead of "punching up" completely misses the point about the show. South Park is not about social justice and speaking truth to power, it's about confronting ugly truths and being irreverent to a fault, which has its own value.
Well, it's that word, "irreverent". If someone consistently targets others who aren't receiving "reverence" anyway- people who are vulnerable and under threat- then it's a little off to call it "irreverent".

Don't get me wrong, I realise that South Park's crosshairs encompass a broad range of targets.
 

Worgen

Follower of the Glorious Sun Butt.
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
11,705
1,055
118
Gender
Whatever, just wash your hands.
I had this whole long thing written out, but then I decided not to get caught up in what will undoubtedly turn into a stupid discussion so I decided to just post this since I actually didn't know it was based on another image and Bob used that image.

 

linforcer

New member
Sep 10, 2012
41
0
0
Wow. Whenever Bob has anything remotely serious to say I usually don't need to be persuaded. I am typically on the same side from the beginning. On the rare occasions I am not he usually can't convince me. But today Bob, you have made me think, and I feel enriched in a way that episodes about how weird comics or tv are, could make me feel.

This is a thank you from the heart.
 

Boris Goodenough

New member
Jul 15, 2009
1,428
0
0
bobdole1979 said:
I'm not a fan of people calling him "The Prophet Muhammad" Just call him Muhammad if you aren't Muslim. Otherwise its like always referring to Jesus as "Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ"

Since this happened all the news channels keep calling him "the Prophet Muhammad"

Great video btw
The name Muhammed is very common among Muslims, Jesus is not common among Christians (save for Spanish speaking countries/communities).
 

JMac85

New member
Nov 1, 2007
89
0
0
Boris Goodenough said:
The name Muhammed is very common among Muslims, Jesus is not common among Christians (save for Spanish speaking countries/communities).
And yet if you name a teddy bear Muhammad, you're arrested and possibly whipped. Also, a mob of 10,000 people will demand your blood.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudanese_teddy_bear_blasphemy_case

But no, this is a culture we should totally respect.
 

Fox12

AccursedT- see you space cowboy
Jun 6, 2013
4,828
0
0
... I, uh, actually liked this one Bob. Good job. I thank you made the best of a complex situation.
 

MovieBob

New member
Dec 31, 2008
11,495
0
0
endtherapture said:
Je Suis Charlie is about showing solidarity with the victims, who have families that have survived them, and about not letting the extremists win and dictate to us what we can and can't print over fear of death.

I personally find the comics in bad taste, but I am not going to criticise it with opposing movements in such a short aftermath of the attacks, because it is simply in bad taste.
Criticizing the satire and standing in solidarity with the victims aren't mutually exclusive. As the saying goes, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Its about making sure that we don't make a mistake and deify some arguably racist caricatures and make them untouchable from criticism in the name of freedom of speech. Freedom of speech includes calling out speech that you find disagreeable.
 

geizr

New member
Oct 9, 2008
850
0
0
It is interesting that I presented a similar controversial opinion in another thread and nearly got crucified for it. However, some other things I've been hearing in the news lately suggests to me that the terrorists in this case may not have been responding, necessarily, to anything from Charlie Hebdo. Instead, this was a premeditated act on their part, and Charlie Hebdo was simply a target of opportunity at the time.

Regardless of any of that, one question has entered my mind: at what point did otherwise, so-called, intelligent people come to think that mockery is a valid method for changing a person's opinion on an issue or otherwise engaging in reasoned debate and discourse, rather than being something that'll just piss people off? To me, there is a difference between satire and mockery.
 

Matthewmagic

New member
Feb 13, 2010
169
0
0
So this may put me in the middle of a flame war, but I guess I'll try and articulate this question.

Can't he be right and doing it wrong? I haven't really done my research well but if he felt it was a big enough issue to murder this guy chances are there are a ton of peaceful yet still angry people who hold the same point of view. We really shouldn't let this guys actions frame their entire argument and position.
 

zorgonstealth

New member
Nov 18, 2009
24
0
0
No Bob, you totally missed the point with this video. It is about free speech, that is what they are attacking, the think their prophet should be immune to criticism, and that is against free speech. The different types of satire the magazine made is completely beside the point. It was Voltaire who said "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
 

Dr. Crawver

Doesn't know why he has premium
Nov 20, 2009
1,100
0
0
This was a good episode. Actually, no, this was a fantastic episode. You clearly put a lot of thought and care into it due to the subject matter, and it really shows and shines through.

Thank you bob for this insight, I'd never really thought about it in this light, and I'm glad you opened it up in such a way.
 

zorgonstealth

New member
Nov 18, 2009
24
0
0
Islam is all about peace. I would say its more about defending peace at all costs, and by peace i mean a peaceful islamic society, dying as a warrior in defence of your peaceful faith in jihad to become a martyr and go to paradise.
 

DANEgerous

New member
Jan 4, 2012
805
0
0
Despite the fact I liked this episode all the "Punch up , punch down" to me is a whole lot of false dichotomy. Generally none of this punching at all it is revealing a real problem in a humorous light. It is like saying "Hey we have a problem with poverty in America" is that punching up at the bureaucracy and red tape and unfair taxes, or down at the impoverished? The answer to that question is... I do not think you understood the question.
 

Erttheking

Member
Legacy
Apr 23, 2020
10,846
1
3
Country
United States
zorgonstealth said:
Islam is all about peace. I would say its more about defending peace at all costs, and by peace i mean a peaceful islamic society, dying as a warrior in defence of your peaceful faith in jihad to become a martyr and go to paradise.
You really didn't need to make a second post directly after your first post. If you want to add to your point just edit your original post.

Also, I know that Islam has a lot of problems, but all about making yourself a martyr? Last time I checked the majority of the religion wasn't comprised of suicide bombers.
 

thejboy88

New member
Aug 29, 2010
1,515
0
0
As much as I admire Bob for saying these things and trying to get this point across, I can't help but feel worried that he might have made himself a target in doing so, especially given how many angry people there are on both sides of the issue right now.
 

Zhukov

The Laughing Arsehole
Dec 29, 2009
13,768
0
0
JMac85 said:
Boris Goodenough said:
The name Muhammed is very common among Muslims, Jesus is not common among Christians (save for Spanish speaking countries/communities).
And yet if you name a teddy bear Muhammad, you're arrested and possibly whipped. Also, a mob of 10,000 people will demand your blood.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudanese_teddy_bear_blasphemy_case

But no, this is a culture we should totally respect.
Yeah, because a religion of millions that spans from North Africa to Indonesia is totally one single culture.

And that one culture is entirely encapsulated by some people being hysterical idiots over a teddy bear's name.

Totally.
 

JoJo

and the Amazing Technicolour Dream Goat 🐐
Moderator
Legacy
Mar 26, 2020
7,126
66
53
Country
🇬🇧
Gender
♂
JMac85 said:
Boris Goodenough said:
The name Muhammed is very common among Muslims, Jesus is not common among Christians (save for Spanish speaking countries/communities).
And yet if you name a teddy bear Muhammad, you're arrested and possibly whipped. Also, a mob of 10,000 people will demand your blood.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudanese_teddy_bear_blasphemy_case

But no, this is a culture we should totally respect.
If you look further down the article you linked, it also mentions that the treatment of the teacher was utterly condemned by British Muslims and two Muslim peers specifically travelled to Sudan to get her released.

But anyway, if you're going to equate extremists from a war-torn third world country with over a billion people across the globe who follow that particular religion, then you should also be condemning Christians equally as there are African Christians out there lynching gay people and burning children as witches. It's not a Christian problem or a Muslim problem, it's a problem of ignorance and intolerance that's unfortunately common to every race and creed.
 

MovieBob

New member
Dec 31, 2008
11,495
0
0
Matthewmagic said:
So this may put me in the middle of a flame war, but I guess I'll try and articulate this question.

Can't he be right and doing it wrong? I haven't really done my research well but if he felt it was a big enough issue to murder this guy chances are there are a ton of peaceful yet still angry people who hold the same point of view. We really shouldn't let this guys actions frame their entire argument and position.
Murdering somebody over speech is an extension of their position, an expression of their values. That is position in which violence is a perfectly acceptable retaliation to being offended. There's plenty of people who find the comics by Charlie Hebdo in poor taste, yet think that violence is an immoral response to it. Bob and Grey (from Critical Miss) both have spoken negatively about the strips, but its absurd to think they think violence is acceptable retaliation, and they'd be quite upset if somebody, intentionally or not, lumped them into the same category as the people who think that violence is an acceptable response to being offended.
 

EternallyBored

Terminally Apathetic
Jun 17, 2013
1,434
0
0
zorgonstealth said:
No Bob, you totally missed the point with this video. It is about free speech, that is what they are attacking, the think their prophet should be immune to criticism, and that is against free speech. The different types of satire the magazine made is completely beside the point. It was Voltaire who said "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
I think you're the one that missed the point, since that is essentially what Bob says, he states at both the beginning and the end that what the terrorists did was unacceptable and that violence is not a sympathetic response to people exercising their right to free speech, and says that the french cartoonists absolutely had the right to say the things they did and not deserve any sort of violence against them.

Bob's criticism is based around the twisting of speech that often happens after disasters like theses, where certain topics become sacred cows that cannot be analyzed or criticized, like after 9/11 where criticizing certain government actions became tantamount to unpatriotic behavior to both sides of the political spectrum for a number of years.

This video is pretty much the epitome of the quote you posted, Bob is saying that he likely disagrees with some of the things Charlie Hedbo published, but that their right to say it should never be met with violence, and that society should not lionize said speech as sacred and untouchable because that undermines the foundation of free speech.
 

SonOfVoorhees

New member
Aug 3, 2011
3,509
0
0
All those murderers have achieved is making Charles Hedro more famous. They had a print run of 60,000 and tomorrow the print run is 3,000,000. Its like with all things, as soon as you try and ban or block something it makes more people interested in it.

Personally i think muslims should be more interested in the people using their religion to kill and murder thousands of people around the world instead of some stupid cartoon.
 

DANEgerous

New member
Jan 4, 2012
805
0
0
JMac85 said:
I'm really sick of that "punching up/down" bullshit when it comes to saying what jokes you're allowed to make. If you have a point to make, it shouldn't matter how "privileged" you are compared to the person or entity you're ripping on.
Very much so, the idea that satire or commentary is an attack by necessity make this video a good point poorly made. It is a car and they are deciding how to make it faster a guy said "Hey what about replacing the break pedal with another gas pedal!" no, not everything is an attack some things are just statements, some things are a defense of an idea that attacks nothing, somethings are just fun and some of the things that are just for fun are intentionally offensive even "Crossing the line" offensive. The "The seven dirty words" by George Carlin was intentionally offensive and was so just so people could laugh at it. We even agree with such a things today, you can say many of the seven words on TV and almost no one under 60 will care in the slightest.
 

JMac85

New member
Nov 1, 2007
89
0
0
Zhukov said:
Yeah, because a religion of millions that spans from North Africa to Indonesia is totally one single culture.

And that one culture is entirely encapsulated by some people being hysterical idiots over a teddy bear's name.

Totally.
"Some people" nothing. That's Sharia Law, government-mandated by over a dozen countries, with cultural pushes in dozens more. Ignoring the 10,000 person mob that demanded her head for a second, she was arrested and tried by the state. How the hell can you possibly defend that?

JoJo said:
But anyway, if you're going to equate extremists from a war-torn third world country with over a billion people across the globe who follow that particular religion, then you should also be condemning Christians equally as there are African Christians out there lynching gay people and burning children as witches. It's not a Christian problem or a Muslim problem, it's a problem of ignorance and intolerance that's unfortunately common to every race and creed.
I'm just as critical of Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Scientology, etc. But you don't see those people committing international acts of terrorism like you do with Islam.
 

Rabidkitten

New member
Sep 23, 2010
143
0
0
If they had shot up a Fascist magazine that made horribly racist articles it would be just as wrong. Once you cross the line into using violence and terrorism to push your ideology you immediately become the censor. And the worst type, a censor through fear.

As for the whole "punch up/down" and other 2 sided issues that are pointed. That is basically any and everything ever. Due to the subjective nature of morality, you can always turn and twist any joke, comment, thought, or art into some kind of negative. For example, go to the Vatican and look up at the Sistine Chapel. That wonderful fresco could be looked at as a master piece, or a wonderful homage to the christian deity. On the flip side you could say that it was a symbol of Catholic excess in the 1400s, a piece of art that symbolizes that the church used funds forced from the hands of the world to do nothing more then over decorate their own palace. A pretty mask used to cover all the evils of the church in that era.

That could be done with anything from owning a dog, to simply existing at all.
 

Darth_Payn

New member
Aug 5, 2009
2,868
0
0
The "punching up/ punching down" bits lead me to think of the difference between person and people. That it's all too easy to forget "people" as a collection of individuals, each one a person with their own attitudes and beliefs and opinions. That said, things would work so much easier if I heard more from moderate Muslims saying "The terrorists and their guns and bombs do not speak for me. They are using our faith as a mask for their own insanity and sadism. Fuck all of them; they can eat every dick!" Or something along those lines.
 

God of Path

God of Path
Jul 6, 2011
119
0
0
faeshadow said:
I agree! I just kept watching this video thinking "I'm actually agreeing with Bob for once, wow." Not sure I agree with him implying that Charlie Hebdo is racist, but I'll let that slide since the rest of it was right on the nose.
I don't think he meant to imply that the Charlie Hebdo staff/cartoons are racist, only that it's possible both to see them as good satire and also as an unfortunate jab at underprivileged peoples; that they aren't quite so irreproachable as we seem to be making them out to be.
 

Jacked Assassin

Nothing On TV
Jun 4, 2010
732
0
0
I didn't know anything about Je Suis Charlie beyond a religious sounding commercial I skipped last night wanting another flood or something. And yeah I might defend their right to say it.... well, if I had to.... They still sound like a bunch of religious nutters.

As far as South Park goes, well I find those guys inconsistent. A couple of examples.

In one episode Kyle wanted to kill all those he defined as Clods based on a writing called Gods And Clods. In another episode he gets mad at Eric Cartman for not seeing the similarity between what Cats & Jews went through in an episode about saving cats from their own form of holocaust.

Then there's the episode about Catholic Priest raping under aged boys. It never resolves that problem. But instead goes on to declare the bible as the good book. And how they were tired of "this Atheist crap". Yet also ignores all the racist, sexist, homophobic, genocide, & rape in the bible.

As for the trans episode goes looking in my poor knowledge of scientific terms goes.
If it produces sperm its male.
If it produces eggs its female.
if it has both its either herm or unisexual. And for an example of unisexual those would be flowers.

So yeah by my (poor) terms

Birdo is actually a female. In fact I'm certain Birdo is a land version of a seahorse. A type of animal that reproduces when the female shoots her eggs at the male, he catches, & becomes pregnant.
Yoshi is also a female. Based on the fact that there are real life lizards that reproduce eggs asexually.
GodZillas from the 1998 versions are female because they also are part of an asexual egg reproducing species.
And Kif from Futurama is more man than Piccolo from Dragon Ball because Kif reproduces through fertiled tadpoles (or sperm) while Piccolo asexually reproduces by spitting out eggs.

There's also the XY thing but that's only in male mammals.
Female hyenas have pseudo penises.
There was also an episode of the Colbert Report that talked about a type of female fly that actually had the penis while I assume the male had the vagina.
And the clitoris is actually the female equivalent to the males' tip & shaft. Except that their urethra is below their clitoris instead of a part of it. And their shaft is built on the inside instead of the outside.

As for feminist versus transgender females goes.... Well one is about destroying the idea of gender roles. While the other is about enforcing gender roles and then declaring themselves to be a part of that gender they weren't born as. The closest I get to middle ground is that transgender females should also be against gender roles, but still want the things that have defined as a female gender role without calling it that.

As for me I honestly wish I could become an actual Khajiit C-Boy. But that's based in part by my life experience of being an "Evil White Heterosexual Man" with a penis that might be too small.... Also I don't role play in a sexual way.... but when I do get near role playing.... if it is role playing at all.... I tend to be racist towards humans.... Yeah I've had a screwed up childhood / life.... Like no one has heard that one before.
 

Rattja

New member
Dec 4, 2012
452
0
0
To be honest, the more I hear about this the more it just sounds like a fight small children would have, only that there is no adult that can just grab them and pull them apart and talk some sense to them.
One keeps calling the other names, the other one hates it and gets violent. But instead of punishing them both, the one calling the other names is cheered on by everyone and actually asked to keep doing so. Do something like that in school and that is straight up bullying.

I get the freedom of speech, and I support the idea that everyone should be able to say/draw/mean whatever they want, but gang up and keep poking the angry bear after it ate your friend because he poked it is not right or very smart.

Terrorism is wrong, but making fun of people that clearly do not like you doing so is also wrong, so just... just stop it..all of you.. please?
Don't go out of your way doing something that you KNOW pisses somebody off, no matter how entitled you think you are to do so.
Even worse is it to make fun of some of the most crazy people there is, so might be a good idea to cut back on that, just saying.

Just to be clear here, no I do not support the terrorist, but I don't care much for people poking the bear either.
 

Rabidkitten

New member
Sep 23, 2010
143
0
0
Rattja said:
Just to be clear here, no I do not support the terrorist, but I don't care much for people poking the bear either.
But you should poke the bear, you should scream in its ear to waken it from its slumber. No one should be immune to speech, not even the bear, ever.
 

JMac85

New member
Nov 1, 2007
89
0
0
Rattja said:
To be honest, the more I hear about this the more it just sounds like a fight small children would have, only that there is no adult that can just grab them and pull them apart and talk some sense to them.
One keeps calling the other names, the other one hates it and gets violent. But instead of punishing them both, the one calling the other names is cheered on by everyone and actually asked to keep doing so. Do something like that in school and that is straight up bullying.

I get the freedom of speech, and I support the idea that everyone should be able to say/draw/mean whatever they want, but gang up and keep poking the angry bear after it ate your friend because he poked it is not right or very smart.

Terrorism is wrong, but making fun of people that clearly do not like you doing so is also wrong, so just... just stop it..all of you.. please?
Don't go out of your way doing something that you KNOW pisses somebody off, no matter how entitled you think you are to do so.
Even worse is it to make fun of some of the most crazy people there is, so might be a good idea to cut back on that, just saying.

Just to be clear here, no I do not support the terrorist, but I don't care much for people poking the bear either.
You ever bother to stop and ask why they're being made fun of? They're not just being dicks for the sake of being dicks, they're calling out the blatant discriminatory practices that treats women like shit, universally condemns homosexuality, and demands everyone be unquestionably obedient, even those who don't follow their religion, to some asshole who died over a thousand years ago. Said asshole who made sweeping demands of his followers, many of which are downright horrific to our modern, free society. Said asshole who over a billion people revere as flawless and should be emulated entirley... including by marrying children.
 

Akjosch

New member
Sep 12, 2014
155
0
0
zorgonstealth said:
It was Voltaire who said "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
*sigh*

No, it wasn't.

It was Evelyn Beatrice Hall [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evelyn_Beatrice_Hall]. In her own words:

I did not mean to imply that Voltaire used these words verbatim and should be surprised if they are found in any of his works. They are rather a paraphrase of Voltaire's words in the Essay on Tolerance ? "Think for yourselves and let others enjoy the privilege to do so too."
You know, it's not really against you. It's just that it gets really annoying with so many people mis-attributing this famous quote recently. Just google it, FFS.
 

MovieBob

New member
Dec 31, 2008
11,495
0
0
JMac85 said:
I'm just as critical of Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Scientology, etc. But you don't see those people committing international acts of terrorism like you do with Islam.
Ahem.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Norway_attacks

He was quite clear that his religion, Christianity, was a major motivation.

Then there's shit like Christians in Africa persecuting non-christians and LGBT people, which is being supported by Christians from the United States.

Darth_Payn said:
That said, things would work so much easier if I heard more from moderate Muslims saying "The terrorists and their guns and bombs do not speak for me. They are using our faith as a mask for their own insanity and sadism. Fuck all of them; they can eat every dick!" Or something along those lines.
I would think that it would go without saying that they're opposed to that, given their status as a moderate. I know Christians who think that being gay should be a capital offense, but I don't demand moderate Christians to condemn those ideas because they're moderate Christians. Additionally, as a people group that is not based on free association, it should be considered prejudice in the same stripe as racism is. Attendance at a religious function, be it a temple or a political organization, on the other hand, are matters of free association, and if somebody freely associates with an organization that says something like "murder is an appropriate response to being offended", then you should be upset with them for that association, not for drawing meaning from a book that a billion other people also draw some sort of meaning from. Its sort of like holding somebody who likes Catcher in the Rye responsible for some nutter went out and shot John Lennon after reading it.
 

Toilet

New member
Feb 22, 2012
401
0
0
daibakuha said:
JMac85 said:
I'm really sick of that "punching up/down" bullshit when it comes to saying what jokes you're allowed to make. If you have a point to make, it shouldn't matter how "privileged" you are compared to the person or entity you're ripping on.
Well then expect people to get offended and call you things like bigot/misogynist. When you punch up you are condemning those who already empowered, it's not mean-spirited because those groups already hold social and political power. Punching down only further marginalizes minorities, it's like looking back at all those racist cartoons and saying that they aren't racist because all they're doing is punching down.
This argument makes comedy and satire appear as a type of bullying instead of an example of community coming together to laugh at itself and each other. It's the silly (and lazy) collective argument that implies people are their groups and everything they say and do is representative of the whole. The reality is people represent themselves unless that person is in uniform.

Would a racist caricature of a black guy complete w/ friend chicken, watermelon and purple drank be equally as offensive and in bad taste if a black guy drew it instead of a white guy? Those Charlie Hebdo cartoons and caricatures aren't racist b/c they were drawn by a white guy(s) they are racist because individual people find them distasteful.
 

Skatologist

Choke On Your Nazi Cookies
Jan 25, 2014
628
0
0
I really do think Bob is at his best when he really acts more in a self reflective, question asking manner where he acknowledges the unclear answers and possibilites of the things he discusses. That being said, this was probably one of the better responses to the tragedy I've seen so far, covering all[footnote]or at least most [/footnote] the bases within a matter of several minutes.
 

Callate

New member
Dec 5, 2008
5,118
0
0
I think it needs to be considered that if caricaturing, criticizing, or generalizing Muslims risks legitamizing resentment, hatred, or violence towards innocent people, the Charlie Hebdo massacre makes a pretty good case that it's also possible for criticism of, say, cartoonists to run the risk of legitimizing violence against people with a podium who say things you don't like. After all, someone has to stand up for the "little guy" against those big bullies, right?

...And we're all oh so ready to define the "little guy" as us. We're the outsiders. We're the mavericks. We're the rebels. We're the bullied. What actions could we take against such an entrenched, evil force that would not be justified, given what is arrayed against us?

Amidst all the noise of modern life, it's so damned easy to feel that one has no voice at all, furthering the suggestion that they're justified doing something hideous because, dammit, no one will listen otherwise. That's part of the reason genuinely free speech is important, beyond narrow blinkered ideas that only government can block free speech. It's a bulwark against the idea that only entrenched interests can get heard. Even if some of those things that get heard are offensive or stupid.

There are some ideas, and some ideals, that are important to uphold. It is important to believe that adults, given access to others' ideas and information, can pick the good ones from the bad ones, find information beyond what supports what they already wish to believe, what is comfortable to believe. That they will take the trouble and do the work in order to do what is right.

Every day, we see plenty of examples that fly in the face of that ideal. Yet it is still important to believe in it, even if the world we see around us often doesn't seem to live up to that ideal. That democracy, if imperfect, still works enough that we don't just give in and let a plutocracy or a theocracy or some other form of oligarchy rule our lives.
 

newwiseman

New member
Aug 27, 2010
1,325
0
0
Great episode.

I feel like I should say more but I've actually been struggling to articulate the argument and stance that you just laid out perfectly.
 

Malisteen

New member
Mar 1, 2010
86
0
0
zorgonstealth" post="6.868772.21748266 said:
No Bob, you totally missed the point with this video. It is about free speech, that is what they are attacking, the think their prophet should be immune to criticism, and that is against free speech. The different types of satire the magazine made is completely beside the point. It was Voltaire who said "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."[/quote

Who is "they"? Muslims? There are reports that the people who conducted this attack drank alcohol and smoked pot, but thing also forbidden to Muslims. One of the officers killed in the process of stopping the attack was Ahmed Merabet, a Muslim man. Was he "they"?

The 'us/them' reaction to these events, the attacks on muslim men, the harassment of women who wear the scarf, these events serve the terrorists by refusing Muslims a place in Western society. And there is absolutely a rising tide of systemic grass roots racism in Europe today, increasing attacks and popular sentiment aimed against imigrants, muslims, blacks, romani, jews, and muslims.

Absolutely condemn the murders, absolutely condemn the terrorist attack, absolutely defend the right to free speech. But as Bob said, letting the terrorists determine the views you enshrine is not better than letting them determine what you aren't allowed to say. Do not conflate those who criticize hate speech (not silence, not censor, but criticize) with those who respond to it with bullets.
 

cathou

Souris la vie est un fromage
Apr 6, 2009
1,163
0
0
geizr said:
It is interesting that I presented a similar controversial opinion in another thread and nearly got crucified for it. However, some other things I've been hearing in the news lately suggests to me that the terrorists in this case may not have been responding, necessarily, to anything from Charlie Hebdo. Instead, this was a premeditated act on their part, and Charlie Hebdo was simply a target of opportunity at the time.

Regardless of any of that, one question has entered my mind: at what point did otherwise, so-called, intelligent people come to think that mockery is a valid method for changing a person's opinion on an issue or otherwise engaging in reasoned debate and discourse, rather than being something that'll just piss people off? To me, there is a difference between satire and mockery.
well, givin that Charlie didnt put Muhammad on the front cover since last october, it's sure it's something plan for a very long time. BFMTV in France have spoken with one of the Kouachi brother and Coulibaly. The Kouachi brothers said that they were send by al-quaida in Yemen and that they didnt killed civilian, women or children, that they only kill targets. That we, the west, are the ones who kill civilians, women and children in Syria and Irak. Coulibashi on the other end say that he's from ISIS, and that he coordonate his action with the brothers, that he was doing that to defend islam from the West.
 

hentropy

New member
Feb 25, 2012
737
0
0
JMac85 said:
"Some people" nothing. That's Sharia Law...
It is Sharia Law, but the concept is adapted from Jewish law. Jews were the ones who established the rule of "no idols, ever", which in the old Jewish tradition is still taken seriously, along with Islam. The rule never shows up in the Koran. It's supposed to be the law in Christianity as well, but they just use the loophole of "so long as you're not worshiping the actual statues it's not idolatry", but that's not really what the Bible says or means.

I'm just as critical of Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Scientology, etc. But you don't see those people committing international acts of terrorism like you do with Islam.
Jewish law also demands the killing of rebellious teenage sons, not to mention gays and all sorts of others, including the execution of those that make idols. There's no conditions or ambiguity to these laws, and they are not outright refuted in the New Testament, meaning that it's still the law in Christianity, as well. One of the executions listed is pouring molten lead down someone's throat. Much if not most of Sharia is taken from old Jewish law, not from anything said explicitly in the Koran that is different from the Bible. Many Christians in the middle east, although they are persecuted in their own ways, tend to support some of the more fundamentalist/traditional ideas being pushed in these countries, because they are not exclusively Islamic.

Really what you see is the contrast between what strict adherence to religion REALLY looks like, and what religion looks like when people ignore 90% of it and focus on the few romantic aspects, which is what happens in the west. That is the only way these religions are palatable to modern sensibilities, if you just strip out all the ugly stuff to get to the stuff you can teach in Sunday School.

The X factor, the factor that makes Palestinian Christians hate Israelis as much as the Muslims, is poverty and socio-political factors, which is a long history and can't be properly summed up here. The one underlying factor in all these cases is that extremism is bred in politically unstable, impoverished countries. 80 innocent tea farmers were gunned down in India just a few weeks ago because of something that had nothing to do with religion, and yet that never scratched the news because it didn't involve Muslims on either side.
 

CaitSeith

Formely Gone Gonzo
Legacy
Apr 14, 2020
5,164
153
68
Rabidkitten said:
Rattja said:
Just to be clear here, no I do not support the terrorist, but I don't care much for people poking the bear either.
But you should poke the bear, you should scream in its ear to waken it from its slumber. No one should be immune to speech, not even the bear, ever.
Before trying to prove the bear isn't immune to speech, be sure you are immune to its claws.
 

JennAnge

New member
May 15, 2012
86
0
0
Good episode, Bob. It's nice to see somebody taking the time to calmly analyze the situation and the fine lines.

I used to read the Hebdo, as well as Fluide Glaciale and similar mags when I was a teenager. The comparison to Mad Magazine is incorrect. It's more like if they made South Park into a magazine and then dialed it up to 11. Sometimes their satire hit the mark with remarkable accuracy, and the cartoon was necessary because it was saying something other news or comedy outlets could not say due to, well, good ol' sense and sensibility.

That was the Hebdo's JOB, if you want. We (French teens and young adults, probably their greatest readers at the time) knew what politics they stood for - libertarian and so far left some of them were card carrying members of the French Communist Party. So anything that might be taken for racism, or whatever -ism you want, was seen as short-hand, a necessary shortcut in a one-box or one-strip cartoon that did not have a lot of space to establish its subject matter. You ignored that part and focused on the critique, and because of that, they could get away with critisizing things that others had a hard time to. Because they did not CARE if they were punching up, down or sideways - don't get me wrong, those guys were always aiming high, but if the blows fell low, I imagine they just saw that as part of the risk of their kind of expression and didn't lose any sleep over it.

BUUUUUT there's also a downside to that approach. First off, using short-hand is wrong, IMO. 'Hook nose, beard, headscarf'=The Muslim Man=A Terrorist is, well, really wrong. The Hebdo crew would say that it's the WORLD that is wrong to make those connections, from their drawings or from the real life news, and maybe they're right. But the short hand is still reductionist and I did not like it.

And of course there were all those cartoons they made that really seemed to be there to just see how far they could push the limits of free speech. And taste. And basic human decency. I mean, is there ANY time in history where it will be okay to make a Holocaust joke? They made an entire MAGAZINE about it back in the early '80s. Could have been a side-issue to another magazine, but the same guys, particularly Wolinksi, were involved IIRC - and there's some debate on whether you can tell Holocaust jokes if you're jewish and/or had family members involved. I know which side of the debate I'm on. The special edition was just about as tasteless as you can imagine, or more so. And it upset a lot of people, as well it should. And it started a lot of dialogue on subjects that were previously taboo and were slowly being forgotten and/or discreeltly gnawed away by revisionists. That's how their advocates defended them back then, and maybe they're right, but at that point the Hebdo types of satirists and I parted ways.

I no longer read the Hebdo or Fluide or even the Canard Enchainé - I try to get impartial news when I can, without having to chip away through two centimeters of bias, hardened cynisism and overtaxed vocabulary. But yeah, needless to say, I would and will always defend their right to publish (and then get sued or insulted or petitioned by whichever group they've pissed off this week, because that, too, is part of democracy).

(Incidentally, I and other French readers know these guys pretty well. They courted debate, and they would be HORRIFIED if you tried to sanctify them or their work. Turning them into monuments that you cannot mock is the exact opposite of what they and their 'there is nothing sacred' philosophy stood far.)
 

Starblaiz

New member
Aug 25, 2011
1
0
0
Great episode Bob.

I don't normally post around here, but as someone from Europe who watched in horror at the events that unfolded in our own back yard last week, I just wanted to add my two cents to this.

The purpose of a Terroroist? is to terrorise (i.e. to put people into a state of fear). While these cowards certainly managed that in the heat of the moment, the immediate response following the tragedy was the people of Europe standing up and saying "we are not afraid". The massacre happened on Wednesday, Friday they were brought to justice (but not without causing more death and destruction), and on Sunday there were over 2 *MILLION* people marching through the centre of Paris, and hundreds of thousands more doing the same in other EU capitals including my own London. We all stood up with one voice, and sent our message loud and clear. To use the words of the late Stephane Charbonnier:

I'd Rather Die Standing Than Live On My Knees
What was seen during the rallies wasn't hostility, it was defiance. Even more importantly, it was a show of unity - Christians, Jews, Sikh, Buddhists, and yes - even Muslims - all turned out in support. It was particularly touching seeing so many Muslims holding banners with statements like "Not in our name", clearly demonstrating that this is not what Islam stands for. We also saw many interviews with Jewish people who recounted great acts of kindness by Muslims towards them on the day too. One jewish man and his daughter stood there holding white roses that had been given to them by a Muslim man who hugged and kissed them, and couldn't stop apologising for what had happened and the Kosher supermarket. This was far from the only story of unity between Muslim and Jewish people to come out of the day.

Then today, the Charlie Hebdo team made their latest publication. It features the prophet Mohamed, holding a "Je Suis Charlie" sign and a tear coming from his eye. The headline is "Tout Est Pardonne", which translates to:

Everything Is Forgiven
Honestly? I can't think of a better response. Love and forgiveness beats hatred and prejudice, while at the same time they're showing that they are not scared.

In summary, the attacks in Paris last week destroyed some of my faith in humanity, but the nature of the response (at least here in Europe) has restored it. As it turns out, the pen really is mightier than the sword.

Je Suis Charlie.
Je Suis Flic.
Je Suis Juif.
Je Suis Humaine.

Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite
 

killerbee256

New member
Aug 14, 2014
76
0
0
bobdole1979 said:
I'm not a fan of people calling him "The Prophet Muhammad" Just call him Muhammad if you aren't Muslim. Otherwise its like always referring to Jesus as "Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ"

Since this happened all the news channels keep calling him "the Prophet Muhammad"

Great video btw
Non Muslims do it because Muhammad is at her common name in the world.
 

Darmani

New member
Apr 26, 2010
231
0
0
If ONLY you took this stance openly, and REGULARLY, in "Social Justice" with nerds and gaming. Or prefering Expendables to Scott Pilgrim
 

Lono Shrugged

New member
May 7, 2009
1,467
0
0
I never watch Bob any more and decided to give this episode a watch. It pretty much sums up my personal feelings and shows that I am not the only one who is not overly enthusiastic about the "Je Suis Charlie" stuff everywhere. Solidarity is at it's core a tribalist practice.

You have my attention again Bob.
 

MovieBob

New member
Dec 31, 2008
11,495
0
0
One bit of context most people don't seem to know is that the late editor of Charlie Hebdo actually had strong ties to the arab community via his wife. Jeanette Bougrab is the daughter of algerian immigrants, and a board member of both HALDE (a semi official entity who works to eliminate, denounce and prosecute cases of inequality and discrimination) and the Arab World Institute. hardly the assosciation one could do to an islamophobe.

There's also a distinction that is visible when one actually sees their drawings, not only their religious ones, but their political ones. While I can definitely see where people would find them offensive, they were predominantly anti-establishment, mocking the religion far more than they ever would its followers. It was Islam as an institution that was mocked and ridiculed, not muslims per se. Indeed, the only time I saw them cross the line into insult was when they covered the Le Pens and the dar right national front, going so far as to call them and their electorate turds. That's a line I did not ever see being crossed in any of the many cartoons I have seen since then.
 

cathou

Souris la vie est un fromage
Apr 6, 2009
1,163
0
0
JennAnge said:
Incidentally, I and other French readers know these guys pretty well. They courted debate, and they would be HORRIFIED if you tried to sanctify them or their work. Turning them into monuments that you cannot mock is the exact opposite of what they and their 'there is nothing sacred' philosophy stood far.

this morning Laurent Leger was adsked in an interview on a french candian radio, what Cabu, Charb, Tignou and the other would think of the big manifestations, holland and all the other politician shouting freedom of speach and things like that. he said they would had been deeply amused by that, and that they would have make a cartton about that in the next edition.
 

MovieBob

New member
Dec 31, 2008
11,495
0
0
Baresark said:
For instance, anything about Obamacare is essentially about punching at the current administration for not fixing healthcare and at the same time making it significantly more complicated. No one is sitting in their chairs saying, "poor people don't deserve healthcare".
Obamacare prevents insurance companies from refusing to sell people health insurance if they have pre-existing problems. So many people who oppose Obamacare are effectively saying that "poor people don't deserve healthcare".

The border stuff is punching up at legislation because it doesn't level the playing field as much as it plays favorites with people wandering over a specific border. With the citizenship stuff, they could have changed the laws so it's easier for illegal immigrants to become US citizens, but instead they want to summarily make them all citizens while leaving the same broken rules and laws in place for people coming in every other way into the country.
That's because of international laws. Basically if an immigrant is already in your country you can't simply sent them to another country. You need proof that they came from this country.

If the US can't deport illegal immigrants then they tend to make them citizens so that they can work and pay taxes because keeping them in immigration centre is expensive.

I am forced to sit and roll my eyes at all the headlines treating it like an insane attack on freedom of speech as if they are 100% innocent of outright offending people and that is OK. I don't want anyone to be murdered, but everyone should be culturally sensitive enough to know that as you would not like your beliefs attacked, others also do not want theirs attacked.
The response by the gunmen was disproportionate, therefore immoral. Just because the gunmen didn't like some cartoons doesn't justify murder, all it justifies is making cartoons criticising the person who's criticising your beliefs.
 

MovieBob

New member
Dec 31, 2008
11,495
0
0
I though the South Park episode was about the dangers of extreme plastic surgery, mainly because I'd previously watched programmes about a man who had plastic surgery to become more like a cat and another man who wanted to be a lizard.
 

MovieBob

New member
Dec 31, 2008
11,495
0
0
Sensitivity is weird like that. There was definitely a time, which stretched out just enough to get us into all kinds of trouble, after 9/11 where it was a death sentence to say anything bad about the US while within it's borders. Over time its ok now, they even made a movie(charlie wilsons war) about how in a big way we were ourselves to blame as a nation. We accept "some" of the blame.

I flipped through some of the offending articles and while I'm baised, (I'm pretty anti organized religion)believing shitting on a religion publicly should be the right and duty of every human being I can't help but think "wow these guys really poked a hornets nest". Some of it was childish immature and really stupid. They didn't just dissent. They clearly said "also, fuck your mum" to these guys plus every other follower of islam.

I take the very baised free speech side. All respect to every human being but fuck allah fuck jesus and all the rest of them. I'm a Pisces and I'll happily say fuck Neptune too. Let it go you dinks.
 

MovieBob

New member
Dec 31, 2008
11,495
0
0
Starblaiz said:
And yeah, as a fellow european I mostly agree with your sentiment, and found that CH's new charicature was surprisingly poignant and classy. And I agree on the response, though I'd do the safeguard of extending that courtesy to the popular response. The political grandstanding smacked of opportunism on more than a few occasions, to me, and some of the surviving staff denounced the politicians' response with that same sentiment. And I'd add that I'd personally like a similar look to be extended to other cases of brutal attacks that are no less deserving of being called terrorism, and to have those being judged on their own particularities rather than a byproduct of muslim extremism. Certainly one would need to put this on an equal stand to say, Wisconsin's Sikh temple massacre, Breivik's murder rampage. That the standards are still not quite the same is, to me, a little troubling.


Captcha: Look Both ways.

Heh, fitting.
 

SouthpawFencer

New member
Jul 5, 2010
127
0
0
Regarding the "Punching Up/Punching Down" argument:

When you make a claim of superiority over others, either implied of explicit, you are a valid target for satire.

When you attempt to impose your beliefs on others, you are claiming superiority over others.

When self-described Muslim spokesmen made the claim that images of Muhammad were forbidden by their religion and, therefore, other people could not produce or show those images, they made a claim of superiority over non-Muslims. At that point, they, and their claim, became fair game. By contrast, it's much more rare for Muslims to be mocked for not drinking alcohol. If they tried to shut down bars and liquor stores, however, they'd be widely ridiculed.

(Unfortunately, by claiming to be spokesmen for Islam as a whole, they made it impossible to both respect the sensitivities of Muslims who object to images of Mohammad AND to not submit to the demands of supremacists; life isn't always fair)

Likewise, nobody seems to consider it "punching down" to mock members of the Klu Klux Klan, even though its members tend to be on the lower socioeconomic rungs of American society. This is because they make a claim of superiority over others (non-whites, Jews, Catholics, homosexuals, etc).

When you demand that other people cater to your beliefs, you are claiming superiority over those people, and have no right to complain when somebody mocks you for it.

I think this is why people dubbed "SJW"s encounter so much vitriol: Very often, their delivery comes across as them lecturing others about how morally superior the so-called SJW is. For example, people interpreted Anita Sarkeesian's work as her lecturing others about how superior she was to game devs and gamers in general. I'd prefer to leave any discussion about whether that was TRUE or not to another thread, so as to not risk derailing this one.
 

MovieBob

New member
Dec 31, 2008
11,495
0
0
hentropy said:
Regardless of what Jewish law says you don't see it being practiced in any western nations while Sharia law on the other hand is considered the law of the land in many countries and some Muslims that could be considered 'moderate' are trying to push for it to be allowed to be used in Europe and the US. Religious text can say whatever they want but as soon as someone tries to actually practice it that's when the law might take issue.
 

MovieBob

New member
Dec 31, 2008
11,495
0
0
cathou said:
The Kouachi brothers said that they were send by al-quaida in Yemen and that they didnt killed civilian, women or children, that they only kill targets. That we, the west, are the ones who kill civilians, women and children in Syria and Irak. Coulibashi on the other end say that he's from ISIS, and that he coordonate his action with the brothers, that he was doing that to defend islam from the West.
What about all the thousands of Yazidis ISIL tried to kill in Syria? They're civilians, women, and children.

http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/10/21/un-official-saysisilassaultsyazidipossiblegenocide.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Yazidis_by_ISIL

Looks like the terrorists aren't as moral as they claim to be.
 

MovieBob

New member
Dec 31, 2008
11,495
0
0
JMac85 said:
I'm really sick of that "punching up/down" bullshit when it comes to saying what jokes you're allowed to make. If you have a point to make, it shouldn't matter how "privileged" you are compared to the person or entity you're ripping on.
Indeed. When the fuck did satire become about how privileged the person you are mocking is? In my opinion, there should be no sacred cows when it comes to satire. As long as your point is valid, it doesn't matter just how 'marginalized' the subject is. I swear, this 'check your privilege' shit is seeping everywhere nowadays.
 

Olas

Hello!
Dec 24, 2011
3,226
0
0
JMac85 said:
I'm really sick of that "punching up/down" bullshit when it comes to saying what jokes you're allowed to make. If you have a point to make, it shouldn't matter how "privileged" you are compared to the person or entity you're ripping on.
Obviously you're allowed to punch down, it's just that you'll look like an asshole for doing it, and people will probably treat you like an asshole. Criticizing an already marginalized group is just picking on the little guy, kicking someone while their down. Your criticism may be legitimate, but that doesn't automatically justify making it if it's just going to exacerbate someone's pain.

It's like... you know someone's having a really bad day, so you decide not to tell them what you really think about their new haircut. Maybe not the greatest analogy but whatever. It's called having sensitivity. You don't have to exhibit it, but don't act like the people who do advise it are just the PC police trying to stop people from breaking the 10 commandments of Tumblr.
 

Baresark

New member
Dec 19, 2010
3,908
0
0
uanime5er said:
Baresark said:
For instance, anything about Obamacare is essentially about punching at the current administration for not fixing healthcare and at the same time making it significantly more complicated. No one is sitting in their chairs saying, "poor people don't deserve healthcare".
Obamacare prevents insurance companies from refusing to sell people health insurance if they have pre-existing problems. So many people who oppose Obamacare are effectively saying that "poor people don't deserve healthcare".

The border stuff is punching up at legislation because it doesn't level the playing field as much as it plays favorites with people wandering over a specific border. With the citizenship stuff, they could have changed the laws so it's easier for illegal immigrants to become US citizens, but instead they want to summarily make them all citizens while leaving the same broken rules and laws in place for people coming in every other way into the country.
That's because of international laws. Basically if an immigrant is already in your country you can't simply sent them to another country. You need proof that they came from this country.

If the US can't deport illegal immigrants then they tend to make them citizens so that they can work and pay taxes because keeping them in immigration centre is expensive.

I am forced to sit and roll my eyes at all the headlines treating it like an insane attack on freedom of speech as if they are 100% innocent of outright offending people and that is OK. I don't want anyone to be murdered, but everyone should be culturally sensitive enough to know that as you would not like your beliefs attacked, others also do not want theirs attacked.
The response by the gunmen was disproportionate, therefore immoral. Just because the gunmen didn't like some cartoons doesn't justify murder, all it justifies is making cartoons criticising the person who's criticising your beliefs.
You mentioned a single aspect of Obamacare as if that is all there is to it. You are omitting details by design to backup a point that can't be enforced. I'm sure there are a minority of people out there who are literally saying, "fuck the poor", but that is at best a tiny percentage of Americans, where most of us would love to see everyone able to get reasonable healthcare. Also, people having existing health issues is not explicitly an attack on the poor, only those with pre-existing conditions.

The US has a policy that allows them deport anyone who is not a citizen (which is accepted as a matter of business in any of the US treaties with other countries). You can just send them back to their country of origin, there is a whole department in the federal government that does that. It happens all the time. TotalBiscuit has a whole video about those hard times for him. He flew to this country, was stopped at the airport, detained, and then put on a plain back to the UK. There are exceptions to this such as refugee status, but for most people, the US government sends them back to their country of origin unless they at least have a temporary pass to be here.

I never represented that I supported the action. You should quote my whole statement. In the line before I said this:

That said, no one is allowed to go murdering people because they said or published something they don't like.
I never said they had the moral high ground or that the published pieces were immoral by their nature. I never stated I supported what the gunmen did, nor did I represent their actions as being proportional to the published material.
 

MovieBob

New member
Dec 31, 2008
11,495
0
0
hentropy said:
JMac85 said:
"Some people" nothing. That's Sharia Law...
It is Sharia Law, but the concept is adapted from Jewish law. Jews were the ones who established the rule of "no idols, ever", which in the old Jewish tradition is still taken seriously, along with Islam. The rule never shows up in the Koran. It's supposed to be the law in Christianity as well, but they just use the loophole of "so long as you're not worshiping the actual statues it's not idolatry", but that's not really what the Bible says or means.
Yet there aren't Christian or Jews forcing people to live by these rules. By contrast there are Muslims trying to force non-Muslims to obey sharia law.

Jewish law also demands the killing of rebellious teenage sons, not to mention gays and all sorts of others, including the execution of those that make idols. There's no conditions or ambiguity to these laws, and they are not outright refuted in the New Testament, meaning that it's still the law in Christianity, as well. One of the executions listed is pouring molten lead down someone's throat. Much if not most of Sharia is taken from old Jewish law, not from anything said explicitly in the Koran that is different from the Bible. Many Christians in the middle east, although they are persecuted in their own ways, tend to support some of the more fundamentalist/traditional ideas being pushed in these countries, because they are not exclusively Islamic.
Again the Jews no longer follow these laws, unlike the Muslims. Just because sharia was based on Jewish law doesn't change the fact that Muslims force non-Muslims to obey these laws.

The X factor, the factor that makes Palestinian Christians hate Israelis as much as the Muslims, is poverty and socio-political factors, which is a long history and can't be properly summed up here.
Are these Palestinian Christians also becoming suicide bombers and launching rockets at Israel. If not then they don't have Israel as much as the Palestinians Muslims do. Unsure whether the Israeli Muslims hate Israel.

The one underlying factor in all these cases is that extremism is bred in politically unstable, impoverished countries.
Good thing that in enlightened places such as Europe we won't ever have extremist parties taking control of countries and engaging in genocide. Unless of course extremism isn't based on poverty.

80 innocent tea farmers were gunned down in India just a few weeks ago because of something that had nothing to do with religion, and yet that never scratched the news because it didn't involve Muslims on either side.
Or one woman being raped.
 

RoonMian

New member
Mar 5, 2011
524
0
0
As a German I threw up in my mouth a little when I first heard the Charlie Hepdo editors stylised as martyrs for free speech because looking at their "carricatures" reminded me a lot of history class... Their cartoons wouldn't have been all that conspicuous in the 1930s' German propaganda paper "Der Stürmer"...

Of course they had the right to be assholes and not be murdered for it. An asshole who gets murdered by another asshole for being an asshole isn't automatically a martyr for free speech though.

Elsewhere I've seen Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh being resurrected as a martyr for free speech. Theo van Gogh was also killed in the open street my a Muslim extremist. His "contribution" to free speech was calling Dutch Muslims "goat fuckers" and in 1984 being sentenced under Dutch hate speech laws for his carricature "two yellow stars in the gas chamber" (though he won his appeal against the verdict).

Couple this with the "patriotic Europeans against the islamisation of the occident" currently marching through cities in my country I'm really getting tired of this shit. It feels more and more like the early 90s when every night in Germany a refugee shelter or the house of a family of Germans with migrant roots burned while ordinary citizens (the kind now marching with PEGIDA) stood around and applauded.
 

daibakuha

New member
Aug 27, 2012
272
0
0
Toilet said:
This argument makes comedy and satire appear as a type of bullying instead of an example of community coming together to laugh at itself and each other. It's the silly (and lazy) collective argument that implies people are their groups and everything they say and do is representative of the whole. The reality is people represent themselves unless that person is in uniform.

Would a racist caricature of a black guy complete w/ friend chicken, watermelon and purple drank be equally as offensive and in bad taste if a black guy drew it instead of a white guy? Those Charlie Hebdo cartoons and caricatures aren't racist b/c they were drawn by a white guy(s) they are racist because individual people find them distasteful.
Your argument ignores a number of factors when deciding what is and isn't good satire. One of those is the source of the satire, the group of people it's aiming at, and surrounding zeitgeist. Take any example of satire away from it's cultural context and it seems fine, but when given the proper examination in full context it contributes to marginalization.

You seem to think the world exists in a state where individuals are uniquely responsible for their actions, and that things like actual racism doesn't exist. Looking at the bigger picture you start to see this kind of thing, it's not about the individual, it's about the group message.

It is a form of bullying after a fact. It's kicking a minority group when they are already down. Which is why it isn't ok, and shouldn't be.
 

JMac85

New member
Nov 1, 2007
89
0
0
Olas said:
Obviously you're allowed to punch down, it's just that you'll look like an asshole for doing it, and people will probably treat you like an asshole. Criticizing an already marginalized group is just picking on the little guy, kicking someone while their down. Your criticism may be legitimate, but that doesn't automatically justify making it if it's just going to exacerbate someone's pain.

It's like... you know someone's having a really bad day, so you decide not to tell them what you really think about their new haircut. Maybe not the greatest analogy but whatever. It's called having sensitivity. You don't have to exhibit it, but don't act like the people who do advise it are just the PC police trying to stop people from breaking the 10 commandments of Tumblr.
Except this isn't about making fun of someone's haircut, this is about calling people out for revering the sacred image of some long-dead twat more than human life. And I'm not just talking about those who go out and murder people, either. Muslims consider Muhammad to be more important than life itself, and to insult or criticize him is the worst possible crime.

That's fucking insane. I refuse to respect this. No one is beyond reproach, which is funny because that's pretty much what the side giving people a hard time for drawing Muhammad are saying.

This goes for everything. Marginalized or not, bad behavior needs to be called out. If that makes me a racist, misogynist, classist, homophobe, or whatever self-righteous assholes wish to call me, so be it.
 

hentropy

New member
Feb 25, 2012
737
0
0
Nods Respectfully Towards You said:
hentropy said:
Regardless of what Jewish law says you don't see it being practiced in any western nations while Sharia law on the other hand is considered the law of the land in many countries and some Muslims that could be considered 'moderate' are trying to push for it to be allowed to be used in Europe and the US. Religious text can say whatever they want but as soon as someone tries to actually practice it that's when the law might take issue.
The point is that these issues have little to do with religion, and everything to do with wealth and socio-political stability. The muslims looking for sharia law in other countries are almost always immigrants from these countries that haven't had a stable government and where religious leaders have taken the opportunity to gain power and influence. It's much easier to hate western decadence and wealth when your local imam is telling you that it is unholy.

Before the creation of Israel, there were Jewish terrorists attacking innocents because they were inhabiting land that God had promised the Hebrews 3000+ years ago. Once they got the land and set up a functioning and stable government, the extremist elements started to get eroded. People will take any opportunity to use religion to back up whatever socio-political purpose they want. Despite the fact that the Bible says nothing about abortion (and in fact infanticide was probably quite common in Jesus' time), some Christians are willing to murder abortion doctors. The socio-political problems in the middle east are simply larger and affect more people than abortion does in the US.
 

SnowWookie

New member
Nov 22, 2012
41
0
0
uanime5er said:
hentropy said:
JMac85 said:
"Some people" nothing. That's Sharia Law...
It is Sharia Law, but the concept is adapted from Jewish law. Jews were the ones who established the rule of "no idols, ever", which in the old Jewish tradition is still taken seriously, along with Islam. The rule never shows up in the Koran. It's supposed to be the law in Christianity as well, but they just use the loophole of "so long as you're not worshiping the actual statues it's not idolatry", but that's not really what the Bible says or means.
Yet there aren't Christian or Jews forcing people to live by these rules. By contrast there are Muslims trying to force non-Muslims to obey sharia law.
You're joking, right? The entire history of civilisation is one of Christians trying to force people to live by their rules.

Today in the USA, look at the same sex marriage debate, creationism, abortion, prayer in schools.... do I really need to go on?

Jews less so, because they aren't the dominant religion anywhere except Israel.
 

MovieBob

New member
Dec 31, 2008
11,495
0
0
Baresark said:
uanime5er said:
Baresark said:
For instance, anything about Obamacare is essentially about punching at the current administration for not fixing healthcare and at the same time making it significantly more complicated. No one is sitting in their chairs saying, "poor people don't deserve healthcare".
Obamacare prevents insurance companies from refusing to sell people health insurance if they have pre-existing problems. So many people who oppose Obamacare are effectively saying that "poor people don't deserve healthcare".
You mentioned a single aspect of Obamacare as if that is all there is to it.
I mentioned that one part of Obamacare that showed you were wrong. Mentioning unrelated areas would be pointless.

I'm sure there are a minority of people out there who are literally saying, "fuck the poor", but that is at best a tiny percentage of Americans, where most of us would love to see everyone able to get reasonable healthcare.
What is your point? As long as one person who opposes Obamacare is saying "poor people don't deserve healthcare" then the original point is still wrong.

Also, people having existing health issues is not explicitly an attack on the poor, only those with pre-existing conditions.
Only the wealthy with pre-existing conditions will be able to afford treatment, so it is an attack on the poor.

Also another part of Obamacare requires that everyone will have health insurance, which is better than the current system where many people are too poor to afford healthcare.

The US has a policy that allows them deport anyone who is not a citizen (which is accepted as a matter of business in any of the US treaties with other countries). You can just send them back to their country of origin, there is a whole department in the federal government that does that. It happens all the time.
Unless you can't be sent back because of one of the many exemptions the legislators decided to create; such as fleeing a country because you're going to be killed or tortured.

TotalBiscuit has a whole video about those hard times for him. He flew to this country, was stopped at the airport, detained, and then put on a plain back to the UK.
Why? I've flown to the USA from the UK a few times and I've never been forced to go back to the UK.

I never represented that I supported the action. You should quote my whole statement. In the line before I said this:

That said, no one is allowed to go murdering people because they said or published something they don't like.
I never said they had the moral high ground or that the published pieces were immoral by their nature. I never stated I supported what the gunmen did, nor did I represent their actions as being proportional to the published material.
Here's what I wrote.

The response by the gunmen was disproportionate, therefore immoral. Just because the gunmen didn't like some cartoons doesn't justify murder, all it justifies is making cartoons criticising the person who's criticising your beliefs.
I never said you supported the action, just that the action was disproportionate.

Though now that you mention it your comments about not attacking other's beliefs does make it look like you support what the gunmen did.
 

itsthesheppy

New member
Mar 28, 2012
722
0
0
JMac85 said:
I'm really sick of that "punching up/down" bullshit when it comes to saying what jokes you're allowed to make. If you have a point to make, it shouldn't matter how "privileged" you are compared to the person or entity you're ripping on.
Your opinion.

In my opinion it really should matter. The world would be a boring place if we all agreed, and I disagree with you. But that makes life interesting, doesn't it?

Where we get our accepted cultural norms tends to fall someplace close to where the majority lands, and that target is ever-shifting. It moves by fractions of a millimeter every time someone voices an opinion or consumes an expressed point of view, and it's the role of anyone particularly interested to make a compelling case for why they think what they do.

While any suggestion that certain forms of speech should be prohibited is of course beyond the pale, I think a right to speak is often confused with a right to be listened to, which is nowhere near the case. If you're sick of hearing from all angles about how there is no honor in punching down, I'd be interested in knowing why you think the underprivileged are qualified targets of ridicule by the privileged. But don't forget: you're "allowed" to make any joke you like. I'm also "allowed" to retain whatever opinion I have for you based on your joke. Accepting this is part of growing up and participating in a civilized society.
 

JennAnge

New member
May 15, 2012
86
0
0
cathou said:
JennAnge said:
Incidentally, I and other French readers know these guys pretty well. They courted debate, and they would be HORRIFIED if you tried to sanctify them or their work. Turning them into monuments that you cannot mock is the exact opposite of what they and their 'there is nothing sacred' philosophy stood far.

this morning Laurent Leger was adsked in an interview on a french candian radio, what Cabu, Charb, Tignou and the other would think of the big manifestations, holland and all the other politician shouting freedom of speach and things like that. he said they would had been deeply amused by that, and that they would have make a cartton about that in the next edition.
The cartoon would feature Hollande with his dick hanging out his pants (as the Hebdo illustrated him a few months ago)and other politicos in innapropriate poses, all thinking "Bon dieu, la presse est de notre coté! Pourvus qu'ça dure!" Or something.
 

JMac85

New member
Nov 1, 2007
89
0
0
itsthesheppy said:
While any suggestion that certain forms of speech should be prohibited is of course beyond the pale, I think a right to speak is often confused with a right to be listened to, which is nowhere near the case. If you're sick of hearing from all angles about how there is no honor in punching down, I'd be interested in knowing why you think the underprivileged are qualified targets of ridicule by the privileged. But don't forget: you're "allowed" to make any joke you like. I'm also "allowed" to retain whatever opinion I have for you based on your joke. Accepting this is part of growing up and participating in a civilized society.
Because I don't believe in "privilege", or at least not the way people on the internet have taken to throwing that around. Everyone is responsible for their own attitudes and actions. No one is beyond reproach. I don't give a damn about whatever arbitrary label you wish to put on someone. If they're an immigrant or not, if they're rich or not, if they're a minority or not. People are people. Y'know, the whole "equality" thing? Which is why I find the whole "social justice" thing to be a big screaming mire of hypocrisy. It's so focused on categorizing people and treating them differently, where as I'm more interested in the quality of their character.
 

hentropy

New member
Feb 25, 2012
737
0
0
uanime5er said:
Yet there aren't Christian or Jews forcing people to live by these rules. By contrast there are Muslims trying to force non-Muslims to obey sharia law.
There are very few Muslims who wish to impose Sharia on non-Muslims. There are currently 6 countries (7 if you count the Islamic State) that have Sharia law as their national law. Additionally, they are relatively small countries, the biggest being Iran and Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia, in particular, has more or less outlawed other religions, so imposing it on non-Muslims is a non-issue. There are about 26 Muslim-majority countries where Sharia law is not the national law.

There are Muslims in Europe who want the option to be judged by sharia law in civil court situations, but that is voluntary and no one is forced to undergo it, including Muslims.

Are these Palestinian Christians also becoming suicide bombers and launching rockets at Israel. If not then they don't have Israel as much as the Palestinians Muslims do. Unsure whether the Israeli Muslims hate Israel.
There are not many Christians in Gaza, but traditionally Christians HAVE been parts of terrorist organizations such as the PLO and now part of Fatah. The terrorist attacks on the 1972 Olympics in Munich was called Operation Iqrit and Biram, those are the name of two Christian cities that were depopulated and destroyed by Israelis during the 1948 war of independence.

Good thing that in enlightened places such as Europe we won't ever have extremist parties taking control of countries and engaging in genocide. Unless of course extremism isn't based on poverty.
Actually, Europe and extremism is a great example. Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Franco's Spain, and the Soviet Union were all born out severe economic and political unrest during and following WWI and/or the Great Depression. You need to study history if you think any of these examples happened as a result of stable, wealthy countries. They were all poor and unstable before extremism took hold, it was WHY it took hold.
 

Pizzle

New member
Dec 7, 2013
3
0
0
This was a really good and interesting video. You are raising a lot of good points, and I think this thread is much more interesting than the one that followed the critical miss "Je suis Charlie" (I liked the drawing, but god what an horrible debate in the comments).

The problem with this "Je suis Charlie" interpretation is that americans seem to totally misunderstand the meaning it has for us French. To be fair, quite a few french people do miss its meaning too. I never liked Charlie Hebdo, almost never read it, still "Je suis Charlie". Why ? Would people ask. Simply because I was in Paris, because I might be more patriotic than I thought, because I saw my city going through three days of anger and fear.

Most terrorist attacks are brutal and short. Not this one. The first day, 12 people died. The second day, a cop was shot in the street and an another person was seriously injured (but survived). The third day we had two hostage situations, 4 hostages died, several cops were wounded. On that friday, I was just wondering if this was the end or the beginning, because it seemed like every day was bringing more horrors. By no way I mean this is better or worse, that would be stupid to have a dick contest about who has the biggest terrorist threat, but this was "different". Je suis Charlie happened before this story was over, it happened during the story.

People who died were french, but they were from all origins and religions. Muslim, jewish, christian, atheist. The first cop who was shot was a white man. The second one was muslim. The last one was black. Hostages who were killed were mostly jewish. Everyone could be targeted, this was not french white christian or atheist against arabic muslim. This was fanatics against everyone who stood on their way. The terrorists ? Well, they were also french.

Je suis Charlie is not about the magazine. It's about what happened. 4+ million french people were in the streets Sunday, they were Charlie because of what happened, because of the meaning of what happened. Everyone knows here that Charlie Hebdo was in very bad taste and sometimes damn offensive, we are not stupid nor blind. But we believe that you have the right to be offensive in our society, and that you might be sued for that, but not shot down. Also, that's french humour for you, we are damn offensive. :D
 

CrazyGirl17

I am a banana!
Sep 11, 2009
5,145
0
0
Well said, Bob. The problem with satire and free speech (in my rather cynical opinion) is that if we can say whatever we want, that means we have to put up with some BS as well, and the fact that some people are so thin-skinned doesn't really help. In some ways, it's a razor-sharp edge that if you slip and fall, you'll get seriously hurt.

(And personally, I prefer to believe in an afterlife so that people like terrorists will get their just desserts for all eternity. It's a thought that helps keep me sane.)
 

WhiteNachos

New member
Jul 25, 2014
647
0
0
I don't buy for a second that proper satire punches up at the powerful and not down at the powerless.

For one it means that the same joke told by a homeless man could not be told by a ceo, and that just seems arbitrary to me. It's in some way judging the value of speech by the speaker.

But really my philosophy is that good satire punches at (to simplify things) bad people and people who screw up, regardless of how much power they have.

Someone with no power can do something stupid or evil that deserves to be mocked. Beliefs and ideas should be satirized even if they're held by the 'powerless'. And on top of that I feel "it's socially taboo to mock me" is a privilege, maybe not power, maybe not a huge privilege but hey it's there.
 

HerbertWard

New member
Dec 13, 2014
4
0
0
"The philosophy behind law protecting free speech is protecting it from suppression by government not by other citizen"

Hem, no ? Not even close ? French law protect freedom of speech from everything, not just government, that would be a pretty stupid law otherwise.

And we didn't wait for 3 jerks with kalashnikovs to hold freedom of speech sacred or culturally worthwhile. We did that, like, 3 centuries ago.

As for the punching up and down "rule of thumb", what a load of bollocks. Satirists are not soldiers in the army of political correctness, fighting to help ensure a better future to the oppressed minorities. They can even be conservative right wingers ! Crazy I know.

Thanks goodness humour and satire are not actually limited by that sort of twisted moral compass.

Satire is about ridiculing things because of reasons. Trying to making it something more or less than that is just pointless attempt at ideological hogging.

Kurt Tucholsky said:
What may satire do?
Everything.
Thanks Kurt, that's a way better rule of thumb.
 

JMac85

New member
Nov 1, 2007
89
0
0
WhiteNachos said:
I don't buy for a second that proper satire punches up at the powerful and not down at the powerless.

For one it means that the same joke told by a homeless man could not be told by a ceo, and that just seems arbitrary to me. It's in some way judging the value of speech by the speaker.

But really my philosophy is that good satire punches at (to simplify things) bad people and people who screw up, regardless of how much power they have.

Someone with no power can do something stupid or evil that deserves to be mocked. Beliefs and ideas should be satirized even if they're held by the 'powerless'. And on top of that I feel "it's socially taboo to mock me" is a privilege, maybe not power, maybe not a huge privilege but hey it's there.
Seriously, this. Privilege is an attitude, not a quantifiable measure of how much stuff you have or whatever. Being privileged means you expect to be treated differently than everyone else. And expecting to be immune from mockery or criticism is very much so a privileged attitude.
 

WhiteNachos

New member
Jul 25, 2014
647
0
0
'south park whose eternally self satisfied creators' -it's nice to envision people you don't like as being smug, it makes it easier to justify not liking them.

And 'poor disempowered groups'? Do you mean literally poor or are you just trying to get us to feel sympathy for them? Why does being disempowered mean they can't also be worthy of scorn?

How about the KKK, or NAMLBA? They're disempowered. How about the WBC? How about gang members? How about Scientologists?
 

WhiteNachos

New member
Jul 25, 2014
647
0
0
JMac85 said:
WhiteNachos said:
I don't buy for a second that proper satire punches up at the powerful and not down at the powerless.

For one it means that the same joke told by a homeless man could not be told by a ceo, and that just seems arbitrary to me. It's in some way judging the value of speech by the speaker.

But really my philosophy is that good satire punches at (to simplify things) bad people and people who screw up, regardless of how much power they have.

Someone with no power can do something stupid or evil that deserves to be mocked. Beliefs and ideas should be satirized even if they're held by the 'powerless'. And on top of that I feel "it's socially taboo to mock me" is a privilege, maybe not power, maybe not a huge privilege but hey it's there.
Seriously, this. Privilege is an attitude, not a quantifiable measure of how much stuff you have or whatever. Being privileged means you expect to be treated differently than everyone else. And expecting to be immune from mockery or criticism is very much so a privileged attitude.
I always took privilege to mean that you ARE treated differently, not that you expect or want to be.
 

JMac85

New member
Nov 1, 2007
89
0
0
WhiteNachos said:
I always took privilege to mean that you ARE treated differently, not that you expect or want to be.
Ah, yes, I'm thinking "entitled".

Damn old-timey words being given new colloquial meaning!
 

WhiteNachos

New member
Jul 25, 2014
647
0
0
Wait a second did you just imply that cartoon might be punching up at the privileged ethnic majority?

So racism can be OK and classified as 'punching up' if it's against the race that's in the majority? I think I might be interpreting this wrong, but is that what you were trying to argue?
 

Azure23

New member
Nov 5, 2012
361
0
0
JMac85 said:
endtherapture said:
I think that most people are getting annoyed at those criticising Charlie Hebdo is because they're making arguments that basically amount to victim blaming. Given that the majority of people making these arguments are those from Tumblr and social justice crowds, them crying out against victim blaming for rape victims, but saying "Oh the cartoonists didn't deserve to get shot, but should not have made these dodgy cartoons" is hypocrisy of the highest order.
That, and the hypocrisy of crying "we should respect their culture" when they just got through a diatribe about "the patriarchy" and "rape culture" here in the West.
Criticism and respect are not mutually exclusive stances, something which a hell of a lot more gamers could stand to learn these days

Also, surely you understand the difference in pointing out negative aspects of one's own culture and an ethnocentric view of other cultures. You can respect Muslim culture while also arguing that sharia law is a deeply oppressive system for most involved. It just requires being able to hold two seperate opinions at once, mind blowing I know.
 

Jeroenr

New member
Nov 20, 2013
255
0
0
First off, i must say it was good to see that all the peace marches went so peacefull.
I didn't hear any incidents worth mentioning on the news.
And that all world leaders and politicians mostly left the politics at home.

The longer lasting effects as Bob mentioned worry's me a bid.
After 9/11 airport security is still tight for example.
Now some country's are talking about the military guarding high risk locations.
In most of these country's the constitution forbid's the army to preform civil law enforcement.
suspending that law could have unwelcome effects in the long run.
 

WhiteNachos

New member
Jul 25, 2014
647
0
0
JoJo said:
Yeah, you've hit the nail on the head when it comes to power, it's an easy enough to say truisms like "punch up, not down," but it's very difficult to pin down exactly who is powerful and who isn't in our messy world
It seems like a useless standard for cases like these. If you have a gun you have power. I doubt France has the liberal gun laws of say the US but still it's theoretically possible to get that kind of power even if the government actively discriminates against you.
 

JMac85

New member
Nov 1, 2007
89
0
0
Azure23 said:
Criticism and respect are not mutually exclusive stances, something which a hell of a lot more gamers could stand to learn these days

Also, surely you understand the difference in pointing out negative aspects of one's own culture and an ethnocentric view of other cultures. You can respect Muslim culture while also arguing that sharia law is a deeply oppressive system for most involved. It just requires being able to hold two seperate opinions at once, mind blowing I know.
No, I meant more along the lines that the social justice types are losing their minds over inconsequential bullshit like tacky shirts with pin-up girls, Spider-Woman's ass on a variant comic book cover, and overhearing two guys joke about "dongles" at a conference. All the while being curiously silent about real, actual institutionalized oppression against women in Muslim society. Oh, but when they do get around to finally talking about Islam, it's to nag people for having the audacity to "punch down" at a poor underprivileged minority of 1.4 billion people.
 

Sam Squires

New member
Nov 22, 2011
3
0
0
Episodes like this are why you remain quite solidly my favorite content creator on the internet. Well said.
 

WhiteNachos

New member
Jul 25, 2014
647
0
0
daibakuha said:
JMac85 said:
I'm really sick of that "punching up/down" bullshit when it comes to saying what jokes you're allowed to make. If you have a point to make, it shouldn't matter how "privileged" you are compared to the person or entity you're ripping on.
Well then expect people to get offended and call you things like bigot/misogynist. When you punch up you are condemning those who already empowered, it's not mean-spirited because those groups already hold social and political power.
So you can't be mean spirited while attacking people with power?

daibakuha said:
Punching down only further marginalizes minorities
So every joke made about gay people further marginalizes gay people? So you believe jokes have the power to marginalize people but doing it to "powerful" groups is OK because they have "power"? That just seems totally arbitrary. Either these jokes can do real damage or they can't, and if they do saying it's OK to damage people with power is like saying there's nothing wrong with stealing from the rich. It's still stealing.
 

Baresark

New member
Dec 19, 2010
3,908
0
0
uanime5er said:
You mentioned a single part of Obamacare that you think represents your point, but you are looking at it too simply. There are many many aspects to healthcare that you obviously don't understand. Insurance goes up across the board for everyone because it also ushered in a whole new series of mandated coverages. Before Obamacare came along, the government was already discussing making it illegal for insurance companies to turn people away with existing conditions.

Lets move onto requiring medical care. The issue is that the government is going be fining people who don't have it. If my job didn't provide me with healthcare, I would make barely too much to be subsidized in any significant way by Obamacare and then I would have to pay around $800+ a month for coverage or pay the government a fine... that is stupid as the government is then profiting off of the fact that I would not be able to afford healthcare. So that is pretty much an attack on everyone. It works great for my girlfriends mother who make $12/year working for her local church though, so that is a boon. And she should have access to affordable coverage, as everyone should.

No, I'm sorry, you are wrong because it's not that simple. Nothing is that simple. Because people don't support Obamacare entirely does not mean they hate poor people or don't feel they deserve health insurance based on your one example. That is a false dichotomy.

Onto Immigration: I said that there are exceptions such as refugee status, which is what you described in your post. You can find the TB video on your own, it's right on youtube, but he does not know why and the government is not required to tell someone, which should be a crime in itself. I didn't say deportation was common, especially from that part of the world. But there illegal immigrants who entered through the US/Mexico border, get caught, get sent back, then rinse and repeat.

That last bit was almost a stroke of troll genius. I'm all to familiar with morality of actions such as that. I put in all the other stuff because I was trying to cover all the bases that you could have possibly come at. So, since you didn't say or mean any of the things I pointed out, then you don't really have a point. You simply ignored the sentence before what you quoted because it suited your very poorly assembled arguments.
 

Rattja

New member
Dec 4, 2012
452
0
0
JMac85 said:
You ever bother to stop and ask why they're being made fun of?
I have, but it does not really matter why. I just don't think mocking someone is right no matter what the situation. To me that is childish behavior or lack of understanding.
Not only that, I also think taunting the already angry, brutal and irrational people is a bad idea in general. So the fact that they are like that just makes it that much worse to poke them.
I don't know what the right thing to do would be here, but I don't think that's it. I mean have laughing at how stupid someone is ever helped anyone getting better?
I may not understand how they can think and do like they do, but the anger from being made a fool of is universal, and that I can understand.

If you can't find a way to better the situation, you should not go and make it worse.
 

josh4president

New member
Mar 24, 2010
207
0
0
Bob

Hey, hey, Bob

You can punch up and down at the same time.

You have two arms.

Just wanted to remind you that it doesn't have to be only one or the other.
 

JMac85

New member
Nov 1, 2007
89
0
0
josh4president said:
Bob

Hey, hey, Bob

You can punch up and down at the same time.

You have two arms.

Just wanted to remind you that it doesn't have to be only one or the other.
Or better yet, wildly flail your arms around. That way you're punching up, down, in front, behind, to the left, to the right, and even yourself. Equal opportunity punches!
 

Azure23

New member
Nov 5, 2012
361
0
0
JMac85 said:
Azure23 said:
Criticism and respect are not mutually exclusive stances, something which a hell of a lot more gamers could stand to learn these days

Also, surely you understand the difference in pointing out negative aspects of one's own culture and an ethnocentric view of other cultures. You can respect Muslim culture while also arguing that sharia law is a deeply oppressive system for most involved. It just requires being able to hold two seperate opinions at once, mind blowing I know.
No, I meant more along the lines that the social justice types are losing their minds over inconsequential bullshit like tacky shirts with pin-up girls, Spider-Woman's ass on a variant comic book cover, and overhearing two guys joke about "dongles" at a conference. All the while being curiously silent about real, actual institutionalized oppression against women in Muslim society. Oh, but when they do get around to finally talking about Islam, it's to nag people for having the audacity to "punch down" at a poor underprivileged minority of 1.4 billion people.
I see this argument repeated ad nauseum but here's the thing; advocacy is not a zero sum game. So while some people address what you call the inconsequential bullshit (which I call blatant unprofessionalism, not the spider woman thing though, I'm a big fan of that artist, his work in Italian comics is legendary) there are still a hell of a lot groups out there who make it their business to address the problems you brought up. For example there is a very large Muslim community in some parts of the UK, some of these communities have decided it is appropriate to handle criminal justice matters through sharia law. Needless to say this puts the women in these communities in a nasty situation, as in a lot of cases the choice whether to handle the matter through the more conventional (and effective and just) channels or through religious doctrine is in the hands of the men. Now I'm an advocate of choice in almost all forms, except when it comes to criminal justice. You live in a society and you tacitly agree to the social contract, including submitting yourself to the judiciary authorities of the society. There are numerous UK based aid groups who fight specifically against institutions of sharia law in these communities. As for "talking about Islam," well, third wave feminism has tried for years to find some sort of counter to thousands of years of dogma and sexist rhetoric but it's kind of a difficult solve.
 

The Bucket

New member
May 4, 2010
531
0
0
CaitSeith said:
Rabidkitten said:
Rattja said:
Just to be clear here, no I do not support the terrorist, but I don't care much for people poking the bear either.
But you should poke the bear, you should scream in its ear to waken it from its slumber. No one should be immune to speech, not even the bear, ever.
Before trying to prove the bear isn't immune to speech, be sure you are immune to its claws.
I dont want to live in society where people censor themselves to suit the whims of mad men with guns. The only 'claws' any person in a civilized society should be wary of is social and legal repercussions, anyone who takes their protests beyond that isn't worth listening to.
 

WhiteNachos

New member
Jul 25, 2014
647
0
0
Rattja said:
To be honest, the more I hear about this the more it just sounds like a fight small children would have, only that there is no adult that can just grab them and pull them apart and talk some sense to them.
One keeps calling the other names, the other one hates it and gets violent. But instead of punishing them both, the one calling the other names is cheered on by everyone and actually asked to keep doing so. Do something like that in school and that is straight up bullying.
This isn't like schoolyard bullying. Those offended people can just not read the magazine and ignore that it exists.

Rattja said:
Terrorism is wrong, but making fun of people that clearly do not like you doing so is also wrong,
I disagree, it's a magazine they can easily avoid, no one is forcing them to listen to their insults and they are free to insult them back.

Criticism can be insulting or take the form of mockery.
 

JMac85

New member
Nov 1, 2007
89
0
0
Azure23 said:
I see this argument repeated ad nauseum but here's the thing; advocacy is not a zero sum game. So while some people address what you call the inconsequential bullshit (which I call blatant unprofessionalism, not the spider woman thing though, I'm a big fan of that artist, his work in Italian comics is legendary) there are still a hell of a lot groups out there who make it their business to address the problems you brought up. For example there is a very large Muslim community in some parts of the UK, some of these communities have decided it is appropriate to handle criminal justice matters through sharia law. Needless to say this puts the women in these communities in a nasty situation, as in a lot of cases the choice whether to handle the matter through the more conventional (and effective and just) channels or through religious doctrine is in the hands of the men. Now I'm an advocate of choice in almost all forms, except when it comes to criminal justice. You live in a society and you tacitly agree to the social contract, including suborning yourself to the judiciary authorities of the society. There are numerous UK based aid groups who fight specifically against institutions of sharia law in these communities. As for "talking about Islam," well, third wave feminism has tried for years to find some sort of counter to thousands of years of dogma and sexist rhetoric but it's kind of a difficult solve.
Good on those who are actually doing something to prevent the tyranny of Sharia Law from spreading. And the sad thing is, up until the 70's, the Middle East had it's shit together. Just look up some photos from Iran or Afghanistan from before the Islamic Revolution.

By main gripe is with social media slacktavists like that schmuck Jonathan McIntosh, the "brains" behind Feminist Frequency. The guy is as tactful as Fred Phelps and as misguided as jack Thompson. And he too is hopping on the "criticizing Islam is racist!" bandwagon.
 

CaitSeith

Formely Gone Gonzo
Legacy
Apr 14, 2020
5,164
153
68
The Bucket said:
CaitSeith said:
Rabidkitten said:
Rattja said:
Just to be clear here, no I do not support the terrorist, but I don't care much for people poking the bear either.
But you should poke the bear, you should scream in its ear to waken it from its slumber. No one should be immune to speech, not even the bear, ever.
Before trying to prove the bear isn't immune to speech, be sure you are immune to its claws.
I dont want to live in society where people censor themselves to suit the whims of mad men with guns. The only 'claws' any person in a civilized society should be wary of is social and legal repercussions, anyone who takes their protests beyond that isn't worth listening to.
And I agree, which makes me think that the sleeping bear metaphor is ill suited for this case. What happens with the bear is expected (which makes you look like a dumb if you don't take precautions). What happened in Charlie Hebdo was much more unexpected.
 

Joseph Hutzulak

New member
May 15, 2014
24
0
0
Basically what I expected, "Its wrong to inject personal politics and agendas into such a tragedy, but let me just inject my politics into it"

Regardless, since Movie Bob obviously thinks so highly of himself and his ideas, Id love to see him debate someone because his idols seem to be so shy of actually putting their beliefs to the test.
 

V4Viewtiful

New member
Feb 12, 2014
721
0
0
WhiteNachos said:
Wait a second did you just imply that cartoon might be punching up at the privileged ethnic majority?

So racism can be OK and classified as 'punching up' if it's against the race that's in the majority? I think I might be interpreting this wrong, but is that what you were trying to argue?
To a degree it's true. It's about the perception of power, most of the time you can only gain power if someone loses it.
What that has to do with race? Well, well you could look at the way American slavery ended. White power needed to be taken away before it was "given" during the whole civil rights movement, during slavery all those anti-slave cartoons could be considered racist to white people (because the sad fact is Black people did the same things to there own as well, just watch Django).

Again this is and over simplification. but the point is it forces the majority to actually take a good look at themselves if this is how they are seen. Whether it's right or wrong? Circumstantial at least.
 

ANTIcarrot

New member
Jan 3, 2011
12
0
0
"After all the philosophy behind laws protecting free speech is protecting it from suppression from government, not by other citizens."

And you were doing so well...

For one thing, THIS IS NOT THE TIME OR PLACE to soap box about your political views on an unrelated subject.

But since you brought it up... Your views that companies cannot comit acts of censorship is the diametric opposite of everyone who stood up in favour of Net Neutrality. Even if you want to quibble over dictionary meanings, every single person who was involved with or supported that back lash knew that your key driving point was not only hilariously wrong, but counter factual to a long history of companies, and groups of companies, restricting (EG censoring) what customers could or could not buy.

Stop beating that dead horse.
 

Therumancer

Citation Needed
Nov 28, 2007
9,909
0
0
An important mistake is being made here. Free Speech is intended to be an unassailable right, NOT simply protection against the government. The right was simply created at a time when the realities of modern communications technology had not even been conceived up, nor had media corporations, or how the media and politicians would engage in a directly incestuous relationship where political and historical re-inventionism and controlling the message directed at the youth to condition them to think like you combined with Omni-present media saturation would become a routinely employed strategy. The idea that a revolution not only against government but oppression by the so called "peerage" and wealthy with their own interests influencing the government intended for individual citizens and merchant-lords to wield more control over the average person than rightfully elected representatives is ridiculous. Such logic is the refuge of the modern liberal who wants to be seen as opposing censorship, and supporting free speech, but encouraging it through back door means.

Right now with PACs (political action commitees) and similar groups so cozy with the government one cannot argue for the right of individuals to limit or suppress the speech of others through any means and be taken seriously as any kind of believer in of freedom and liberty. After all a big part of the problem with government is the deals cut between private citizens and politicians. Meaning you see deals with media companies about what they will promote for political support and vice versa, not to mention all kinds of other deals out there. Someone in the media refusing others a platform or directing attacks and such being done by a private citizen is a technicality when he's working closely with the government to begin with and probably getting various benefits by doing what his (or her) patrons want. The problem of course being compounded by media powerhouses like Ted Turner who also have a clearly stated political agenda. Indeed 'ol Ted at one point had an attempted monopoly broken up by the government in part because of his political plans. Of course that largely failed because while broken up a lot of the big wigs were supporters of his anyway and while they competed they largely held to the same ideologies. When you start looking at various conspiracy theories about the media Ted Turner's name comes up a lot, and getting past a lot of the craziness, you'll be surprised how many big shots out there especially in the media have direct ties to him, including people who will surprise you. One of the big reasons why his attempted monopoly and government action was a big deal (and largely forgotten about today). Cases can be made for the Turners being among the most powerful people in the world despite how it looks on paper, before you even get into psychotic Illuminati/Freemason stuff, or the idea of the whole "Club 33" thing with him, Walt Disney, and The Devil being a sort of trinity, and that upon his passing The Devil will manifest as the Anti-Christ in the world the other two prepared (as I said, utterly insane).


At any rate, all ranting to make this more entertaining I think a lot of what Bob is saying is fundamentally flawed. The idea of free speech is that everyone is supposed to be able to speak evenly. If you don't like what someone else does with their pen, you have the right to use yours back, and just as much of a right to representation in the eyes of society.... that includes the right to a platform, but that was never specified because the current kinds of situations were never conceived of at the time. After all if someone can deny you a platform you might as well not have free speech, especially when the lines between public and private power can be easily blurred. That said as I have posted links to in the past, Muslims produce plenty of anti-western, anti-Jewish, stuff on their own, this is hardly one sided and honestly as "offensive" as some people argue Charlie might have been, The Muslim World is worse, I mean they have children's TV shows telling them to kill Jews and Westerners, and the leaders of oountries like Iran refuse to call the USA by it's name and refer to it as "Great Satan" in televised/reported meetings and stuff.

I think people might need to realize this attack in France was a wild success, it was NOT an attack on free speech, what was said by Charlie just made him a noticeable public person. The point of this attack was to both spread fear, AND to show Muslims that if "Martyrs" are willing to strike it doesn't matter who they kill, there will be no substantial retaliation. Something a lot of opponents of the civilized world are doing. Kim Jong Un stepping over lines set by The President, attacks by ISIS, incursions by China into Japanese and Filipino territory, the invasion of Crimea/Ukraine. None of which have lead to major reprisals by the civilized world, the water is being tested so to speak. The fact that people are actually trying to defend Muslims in France after this and even promote them to an extent based on the actions of a few, never mind engaging in the kind of crack down a lot of Muslims still fear is sort of the point, the fact that a public person/office was killed/wiped out by those willing to die for the cause, doing more damage in the big picture than the loss of the scant handful of martyrs, and nothing happened in retaliation, is going to encourage more of this. Not what a lot of people want to hear though, while we go back and forth about free speech and the barbarity of violence, and actually speak out against large scale reprisals, we're pretty much leaving ourselves open to a bigger attack. Within the next year or so I can virtually guarantee we're going to see another strike somewhere within the west at least as big as this, if not larger, as a result. Remember we're dealing with terrorists, not a few protestors who went too far, on his own this guy wasn't a worthwhile target, you need to look at the big picture.
 

Canadamus Prime

Robot in Disguise
Jun 17, 2009
14,334
0
0
I think "Freedom of Speech" is another one of those words or phrases that people like to banter around without actually understanding what they mean. In the words of Inigo Montoya "You keep using that (term), I don't think it means what you think it means."
 

MCerberus

New member
Jun 26, 2013
1,168
0
0
canadamus_prime said:
I think "Freedom of Speech" is another one of those words or phrases that people like to banter around without actually understanding what they mean. In the words of Inigo Montoya "You keep using that (term), I don't think it means what you think it means."
The most common one is that I'm free to tell you to shut the hell up.
I'm also free to tell you to go away.

The people that are countering the "we shouldn't lionize Charlie" crowd generally (subjective, personal exposure) confuse disagreement with oppression. It also shows up a lot with the recent gaming diversity arguments ("leave my games alone this argument is suppressing expression").
 

JMac85

New member
Nov 1, 2007
89
0
0
MCerberus said:
The most common one is that I'm free to tell you to shut the hell up.
I'm also free to tell you to go away.

The people that are countering the "we shouldn't lionize Charlie" crowd generally (subjective, personal exposure) confuse disagreement with oppression. It also shows up a lot with the recent gaming diversity arguments ("leave my games alone this argument is suppressing expression").
Doesn't that work both ways, though? You're lambasting gamers who are objecting to demands that games change to accommodate everyone, but shouldn't they too be able to tell them to shut up and go away?
 

Gizen

New member
Nov 17, 2009
279
0
0
JMac85 said:
GamemasterAnthony said:
...THAT is definitely not cool. Especially since it sort of borders on punishing the innocent along with the guilty. In this case, attacking Muslims in general for the acts of the extremists. This also happened as a result of 9/11 when American Muslims were vilified for the attacks DESPITE those very same American Muslims speaking out against what Bin Laden did.
It's not attacking Muslims, it's attacking a stupid belief they have.
And I'd say that believing one has the right to be a jerkass without fear of reprisal is a pretty stupid belief to have. Likely even moreso.
 

JMac85

New member
Nov 1, 2007
89
0
0
Gizen said:
And I'd say that believing one has the right to be a jerkass without fear of reprisal is a pretty stupid belief to have. Likely even moreso.
Good for you. But one does indeed have the right to express an opinion, however controversial, without the fear of being attacked for it. That's the law, buddy.

Unless you meant "reprisal" as "being criticized back". Then I must ask just who do you think is expressing such a sentiment? I'm sure not. If you want to make your own political cartoons making fun of people who draw Muhammad cartoons, be my guest. Then we'll have a rousing debate on the subject. Like on just what makes someone a "jerkass". How exactly is one a jerkass for criticizing religious beliefs? One would certainly be a jerkass for advocating a systematic persecution of those who hold such beliefs, you'll get no argument from me there. But why is it ok to make fun of Christianity, but not Islam? And don't give me that "punching down" bullshit. Punches are punches, there are no directions. If one can punch me, I can punch them back.
 

cathou

Souris la vie est un fromage
Apr 6, 2009
1,163
0
0
One of the thing i realised, is that most critism against Charlie Hebdo on the internet come from people who didnt know the magazine existed a week ago. they look up a montage of 6-7 cover pages that happen to be controversial and say : oh, look how come we defend a journal that was racist, homophobic, xenophobe and that taunt constantly the extremist islamist.

just to help people to forge their own opinion on the real source material, here's all the cover from Charlie hebdo since 2008 or so...

http://stripsjournal.canalblog.com/tag/Les%20Unes%20de%20Charlie%20Hebdo.


of course they are in french and some of them really d to be put in context to be understood
 

Joseph Hutzulak

New member
May 15, 2014
24
0
0
JMac85 said:
Gizen said:
And I'd say that believing one has the right to be a jerkass without fear of reprisal is a pretty stupid belief to have. Likely even moreso.
Good for you. But one does indeed have the right to express an opinion, however controversial, without the fear of being attacked for it. That's the law, buddy.

Unless you meant "reprisal" as "being criticized back". Then I must ask just who do you think is expressing such a sentiment? I'm sure not. If you want to make your own political cartoons making fun of people who draw Muhammad cartoons, be my guest. Then we'll have a rousing debate on the subject. Like on just what makes someone a "jerkass". How exactly is one a jerkass for criticizing religious beliefs? One would certainly be a jerkass for advocating a systematic persecution of those who hold such beliefs, you'll get no argument from me there. But why is it ok to make fun of Christianity, but not Islam? And don't give me that "punching down" bullshit. Punches are punches, there are no directions. If one can punch me, I can punch them back.
Punching up/down is just post modernist doublespeak to say its okay to make fun of people I dont like but its wrong to make fun of things I like.

Remember all animals are equal, some animals are more equal then others.
 

Ih8makingUsernames

New member
Dec 9, 2014
5
0
0
Joseph Hutzulak said:
Basically what I expected, "Its wrong to inject personal politics and agendas into such a tragedy, but let me just inject my politics into it"

Regardless, since Movie Bob obviously thinks so highly of himself and his ideas, Id love to see him debate someone because his idols seem to be so shy of actually putting their beliefs to the test.
I think you and I watched completely different episodes.

All that he talked about was how the incident doesn't mean that the victims were noble heroes - they made a few things that could be labeled as racist. That is not grounds for the death penalty, and speech should not be considered grounds for that. And then he mentioned the idea of how satire works, and the duality of satire.

I also wonder why you would waste your time watching an opinion show from someones opinion you appear to have contempt for. Although based off your arguments, I don't think that needs asking - you clearly didn't.
 

Joseph Hutzulak

New member
May 15, 2014
24
0
0
Ih8makingUsernames said:
Joseph Hutzulak said:
Basically what I expected, "Its wrong to inject personal politics and agendas into such a tragedy, but let me just inject my politics into it"

Regardless, since Movie Bob obviously thinks so highly of himself and his ideas, Id love to see him debate someone because his idols seem to be so shy of actually putting their beliefs to the test.
I think you and I watched completely different episodes.

All that he talked about was how the incident doesn't mean that the victims were noble heroes - they made a few things that could be labeled as racist. That is not grounds for the death penalty, and speech should not be considered grounds for that. And then he mentioned the idea of how satire works, and the duality of satire.

I also wonder why you would waste your time watching an opinion show from someones opinion you appear to have contempt for. Although based off your arguments, I don't think that needs asking - you clearly didn't.
01:58 onward: if I can soap box for a moment

So the majority of the video is political opinion.

I watch Movie Bob for the same reason I watch actual high level leftist commentators like Rachel Maddow ,Steven Colbert and John Stewart, its why I listen to NPR and read Al-Jazeera,BBC and even the Huffington Post because Im not afraid to hear criticism of my own ideas. If I say I am against censorship, how can I censor my own mind?
 

dragonswarrior

Also a Social Justice Warrior
Feb 13, 2012
434
0
0
JMac85 said:
By main gripe is with social media slacktavists like that schmuck Jonathan McIntosh, the "brains" behind Feminist Frequency. The guy is as tactful as Fred Phelps and as misguided as jack Thompson. And he too is hopping on the "criticizing Islam is racist!" bandwagon.
Friend, you are letting one person dictate how you feel about a whole philosophy/group of people?

Islamaphobia is not automatically racist, but racism is INCREDIBLY tied up in discrimination against Islam. This is why you won't ever find a white Muslim portrayed in any of these political cartoons that are against Islam (or if you do, it will be once in a blue moon). You won't even see black Muslims. Just middle eastern, frequently bearded, almost always wearing turbans. And that biggest problem is that that's how an enormous section of the worlds population sees the ENTIRETY of the Muslim population. As brown, bearded, turban wearing nutcases.

And that's just not true. And then that becomes racist. When you get white people calling Obama a Muslim because of his name, that's racist.

Now, that being said, criticism of Islam and Islamic States are not automatically racist. Let's be real, several of those places are oppressive as fuck. If one is truly an advocate for social justice, one recognizes the multiple levels and subtleties of such a complex subject. Which I try to, and I know all of my friends (who are all raging SJW's that like to game) do as well.

I also want to add that I'm not trying to defend Jonathan McIntosh. I have no idea what that guy is saying. And I honestly don't really care. Feminist Frequency is kind of "Babies first steps in feminism!" to me, which makes me kinda meh to the whole creative team. He might be a raging idiot, or he might be bang on the nose. I honestly have no clue.

Also, you should watch this video. It's very informative, and only about ten minutes. An interview on CNN. Enjoy!

 

maninahat

New member
Nov 8, 2007
4,398
0
0
Nods Respectfully Towards You said:
JMac85 said:
I'm really sick of that "punching up/down" bullshit when it comes to saying what jokes you're allowed to make. If you have a point to make, it shouldn't matter how "privileged" you are compared to the person or entity you're ripping on.
Indeed. When the fuck did satire become about how privileged the person you are mocking is? In my opinion, there should be no sacred cows when it comes to satire. As long as your point is valid, it doesn't matter just how 'marginalized' the subject is. I swear, this 'check your privilege' shit is seeping everywhere nowadays.
It's been around for as long as there has been satire. Some cleverer person than me said: "In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal loaves of bread...". They recognised that society isn't equal, so "equal treatment" is often anything but. Satire and humour runs into the same conundrum. Even if you claim to "jab at everyone in equal measure", the effects of those jabs differ depending on the target.

That's why racist jokes have fallen out of favour, but anti-establishment jokes stay popular. It occurs to the onlookers that laughing at people who are already getting the shit end of the stick isn't all that funny, whereas those in a position of relative power can afford to be taken down a peg. That's also why black comedians can usually get away with telling the same kind of jokes that would be declared racist coming from a white comedian; in terms of relative power, the black comedian is on the same level as the people he is making fun of.
 

JMac85

New member
Nov 1, 2007
89
0
0
Ih8makingUsernames said:
I also wonder why you would waste your time watching an opinion show from someones opinion you appear to have contempt for. Although based off your arguments, I don't think that needs asking - you clearly didn't.
So as to not get yourself caught up in a confirmation bias? Echo chambers are poison to honest debate, it's important to actually expose yourself to things you don't agree with. Otherwise you become so sensitive to dissent you end up like those people who go around demanding trigger warnings for every little thing they don't like, and categorically block people for disagreeing you even once for whatever reason.

dragonswarrior said:
Friend, you are letting one person dictate how you feel about a whole philosophy/group of people?
Not at all, I was just citing an example.

As for characterizing Muslims as Middle Eastern, well, their holy land is in the Middle East, and the countries where Sharia Law is the law of the land are in the Middle East. So it stands to reason if you wish to portray a Muslim it'd make the most sense to make them Middle Eastern.
 

dragonswarrior

Also a Social Justice Warrior
Feb 13, 2012
434
0
0
JMac85 said:
Not at all, I was just citing an example.
Fair enough. I do however think you're focusing on a rather narrow and narrow minded group. Most of the folks I know involved in social justice work have much more complex views on Islam and racism.

As for characterizing Muslims as Middle Eastern, well, their holy land is in the Middle East, and the countries where Sharia Law is the law of the land are in the Middle East. So it stands to reason if you wish to portray a Muslim it'd make the most sense to make them Middle Eastern.
Uhm... But the Jewish and Christian holy lands are in the Middle East too. So that argument makes no sense.

You could try that most Muslims live in the Middle East. Except that while that may be true, a helluva lot of Muslims live in other places too.

http://www.pewforum.org/2009/10/07/mapping-the-global-muslim-population/

Significant Muslim populations can be found in Africa, while the countries with the largest populations are in Southern Asia and the Pacific Islands.

Then when you tie this into the fact that hey, you know, a good portion of Islamaphobia is racist... For example, in 2012 there was a Sikh temple shooting in Wisconsin, in which a white supremacist, who incorrectly believed he was attacking Muslims, murdered six Sikhs and was shot by police before killing himself.

Because all Arabs are Muslims, obviously.

Source (and a good read):http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2014/07/american-muslims-ongoing-civil-rights-fight-2014713883896279.html
 

Joseph Hutzulak

New member
May 15, 2014
24
0
0
dragonswarrior said:
JMac85 said:
Not at all, I was just citing an example.
Fair enough. I do however think you're focusing on a rather narrow and narrow minded group. Most of the folks I know involved in social justice work have much more complex views on Islam and racism.

As for characterizing Muslims as Middle Eastern, well, their holy land is in the Middle East, and the countries where Sharia Law is the law of the land are in the Middle East. So it stands to reason if you wish to portray a Muslim it'd make the most sense to make them Middle Eastern.
Uhm... But the Jewish and Christian holy lands are in the Middle East too. So that argument makes no sense.

You could try that most Muslims live in the Middle East. Except that while that may be true, a helluva lot of Muslims live in other places too.

http://www.pewforum.org/2009/10/07/mapping-the-global-muslim-population/

Significant Muslim populations can be found in Africa, while the countries with the largest populations are in Southern Asia and the Pacific Islands.

Then when you tie this into the fact that hey, you know, a good portion of Islamaphobia is racist... For example, in 2012 there was a Sikh temple shooting in Wisconsin, in which a white supremacist, who incorrectly believed he was attacking Muslims, murdered six Sikhs and was shot by police before killing himself.

Because all Arabs are Muslims, obviously.

Source (and a good read):http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2014/07/american-muslims-ongoing-civil-rights-fight-2014713883896279.html
Your being a bit silly here, Islam and the Middle East are tied together historically.

When one thinks of India, Jains and Buddhists arent what comes to mind. Or even Muslims since the Mughal Empire ruled the area for a long time.

When one thinks of Christianity, one thinks of Europe, not Eithopia, Turkey (Anatolia), Egypt or Persia(Iran) (Ironically the Nestorian and Copptic Faiths pre-date Christianization of a lot Europe.)

Also in your eyes how can someone be truely critical of islam and not be islamaphobic?

The articles is interesting and brings up problems in the U.S.......that are peanuts compared to the institutionalized discrimination that goes on in every muslim majority country outside of Albania.

Also Sikhs are mostly from the Punjab region of India, blame Johnny Quest for having a sikh named Hadji.
 

cathou

Souris la vie est un fromage
Apr 6, 2009
1,163
0
0
dragonswarrior said:
Islamaphobia is not automatically racist, but racism is INCREDIBLY tied up in discrimination against Islam. This is why you won't ever find a white Muslim portrayed in any of these political cartoons that are against Islam (or if you do, it will be once in a blue moon). You won't even see black Muslims. Just middle eastern, frequently bearded, almost always wearing turbans. And that biggest problem is that that's how an enormous section of the worlds population sees the ENTIRETY of the Muslim population. As brown, bearded, turban wearing nutcases.
true, that depicting a muslim as a turban wearer long beard and such is using a stereotype, but also, in one image without text, people have to understand that the caracter is muslim. i think it's not racism but rather just an easier way to pass the message in a single image
 

Dollabillyall

New member
Jul 18, 2012
97
0
0
I disagree with the point that Bob makes here about punching up and punching down. While it is relevant to consider power and "class" in many modern day discussions, the debate around islam in the west and the charlie hebdo cartoons that are a part of that is more accurately described as a struggle of idea(L)s than a class struggle.
Fact of the matter is that in a lot of European countries the debate is not so much about socio-economic class as it is about the place of religion in society with a special focus to the generally "backwards" muslim immigrants. Many of the muslim immigrants where themselves or are the children of the least educated, least skilled and least cosmopolitan groups of people in their country of origin.
In the west they found they were not free to have six wives, force their children to marry or claim to "know truths" based on religion without their religion being called into question and/or criticized. Instead they found the freedom to be mocked, ridiculed and rejected for being "silly religious nuts". This makes it hard for them to get a slice of the economic pie and to truly be a part of the dominant culture.
In western Europe religion has a different role in society than in the islamic countries. Besides that there are strong cultural norms pertaining to intellectualism, professionalism, public behavior, responsibility and homogeneity in society. For these "backwards" islamic immigrants this is a gap that many find impossible to bridge. Western European societies will keep developing away from the "medieval" / "barbaric" / "backwards" types of world views... in exactly the opposite direction of what these muslim immigrants know and wish to keep.

tl;dr This is a struggle about world views, not class. The punching up or down part has little relevancy to the actual debate.
 

Callate

New member
Dec 5, 2008
5,118
0
0
"This is the act of idiot extremists, and certainly not of all Muslims who live in France. It's a minority which is absolutely not represtative, which went and carried out this act of violence." -Stephane Charbonnier, editor of Charlie Hedbo, interviewed after the 2011 firebombing of the paper's offices.

You know what?

These people knew that they were in danger doing what they did, printing what they did. And they came in and did it anyway. So, yes, I do admire them, and I do think it's a free speech issue, and if they "went over the line" some times (whose line?) it doesn't and shouldn't matter. Did they get it wrong some of the time? Does any public figure, whose dogma some adherents claim as sacrosanct, not "get it wrong" some of the time?

Further, it seems clear that it wasn't the overall portrayal of Muslims that sparked the attack- it was the particular portrayal of the prophet Mohammed, and people who felt they had the right to impose the dictate forbidding his portrayal on people who didn't even follow that religion.

Part of the point of satire is encouraging people not to be afraid. It's the reason "black" humor- humor about death and injury and illness and things that seem unavoidable and terrifying- thrives across cultures and throughout time. That's valuable- far more valuable- than anyone's sense of propriety.

And to wield that satire when staring down the barrel of a gun, all the more so.
 

Farther than stars

New member
Jun 19, 2011
1,228
0
0
bobdole1979 said:
I'm not a fan of people calling him "The Prophet Muhammad" Just call him Muhammad if you aren't Muslim. Otherwise its like always referring to Jesus as "Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ"

Since this happened all the news channels keep calling him "the Prophet Muhammad"

Great video btw
I think it's just a way of differentiating him from the millions of other Muhammads in the world. Jesus, as a name, doesn't have that problem so much.

Zato-1 said:
Condemning South Park for "punching down" instead of "punching up" completely misses the point about the show. South Park is not about social justice and speaking truth to power, it's about confronting ugly truths and being irreverent to a fault, which has its own value.
This presupposes that the creators of South Park are capable of perfectly identifying these "ugly truths" in society, but I don't trust them to do that. I think people should always be skeptical about anyone who purports to have the right answers about everything, especially highly subjective issues like sexuality, culture or religion.
Moreover, I think common decency should be allowed to play a role to the extent that when someone goes out of their way to be offensive, it should be acceptable to criticize that person for being offensive. When someone swears at you, for instance, I don't think it should be controversial to ask that person to stop swearing at you.

endtherapture said:
I think that most people are getting annoyed at those criticising Charlie Hebdo is because they're making arguments that basically amount to victim blaming. Given that the majority of people making these arguments are those from Tumblr and social justice crowds, them crying out against victim blaming for rape victims, but saying "Oh the cartoonists didn't deserve to get shot, but should not have made these dodgy cartoons" is hypocrisy of the highest order.
That's a false comparison. Note that critics of Charlie Hebdo are explicitly not victim blaming. What they're doing is criticizing the aforementioned "dodginess" of the cartoons inherently, that is: regardless of their consequences. They're saying that softcore racism and ethnic marginalization would still worthy of criticism even if the attacks hadn't been perpetrated. Contrast this with victim blaming in rape cases. Would wearing a short skirt still be criticized, even if it didn't attract rape? Feminists argue that the answer should be no, with the simple reason that people should be allowed to wear whatever they want period without having to suffer heinous crimes for their personal taste.
So while victim blaming is always bad, that doesn't mean you can't criticize the victim because of other reasons, but only if those reasons make sense on their own, separate from the crime being committed.
 

Shamanic Rhythm

New member
Dec 6, 2009
1,653
0
0
So many people getting uppity about Charlie Hebdo's cartoons don't seem to understand that the point of a caricature is to use symbols or images with referential power and then exaggerate them. If they look stereotypical, it's because that is a form of representation that is most commonly understood. What exactly would be the point of making a joke about Islamists but using someone who doesn't immediately conjure up those images? You would then have to explain the joke to your readers, and by that point it isn't funny.

And while we're at it, Bob's tired old crusade against South Park for failing to 'check their privilege' is poorly shoehorned into this debate. Just once it would be nice to see people leave their agendas at the door in response to a tragedy.
 

ShadowHamster

New member
Mar 17, 2008
64
0
0
Zato-1 said:
Condemning South Park for "punching down" instead of "punching up" completely misses the point about the show. South Park is not about social justice and speaking truth to power, it's about confronting ugly truths and being irreverent to a fault, which has its own value.

Also, this:
JMac85 said:
I'm really sick of that "punching up/down" bullshit when it comes to saying what jokes you're allowed to make. If you have a point to make, it shouldn't matter how "privileged" you are compared to the person or entity you're ripping on.
He was talking about one episode. In that episode you have a character who wants to be a dolphin so gets surgery to be a dolphin, but since he isn't and never will be a dolphin he wasn't a dolphin. It was a harsh criticism of transsexuals, and as a transsexual, it comes up in conversation...well, all the fucking time.

And it's kind of stupid. Dolphin and Human DNA has no crossover, but the genders do. Intersex is a thing where someone doesn't actually qualify as either sex physically. That people who are intersexed exist, and it may be a rare condition but transsexual individuals are in a very small minority anyway, shows crossover. You say it's about harsh truths, but I don't see the truth this justified. It was a lot of ignorance thrown out at the attempt of a joke, and the episode never struck me as funny, but just came out as a miss. Probably hit too close to home.

But what's more, when this kind of thing comes up, South Park is illogically taken as a source of knowledge on some issues even though they are comedians and cartoonists first and foremost. By their nature South Park cannot help but be controversial, but the more complicated question is does the humor work.

What your missing is when you "punch down" for humor it's too easy to come off as elitist, and serious rather than funny. Many jokes seem like someone gloating from a higher perch, and that makes the joke often not funny and angers groups that you decided to take a poke on. This seems especially true when the group in question is already bullied, beat on, and often innocent of any violence in the first place.

South Park has been in this seat a few times, and for the record, I love and continue to watch the show even after a few episodes left me with a bad taste in my mouth. I try not to blame ignorance on them, but those who would take them as a legitimate stance make it hard sometimes. I don't know what to say. You have missed the point of Bob's speech, and also the reason such humor is professionally avoided, not just from the "Politically Correct" stance.
 

Farther than stars

New member
Jun 19, 2011
1,228
0
0
Callate said:
These people knew that they were in danger doing what they did, printing what they did. And they came in and did it anyway. So, yes, I do admire them, and I do think it's a free speech issue, and if they "went over the line" some times (whose line?) it doesn't and shouldn't matter. Did they get it wrong some of the time? Does any public figure, whose dogma some adherents claim as sacrosanct, not "get it wrong" some of the time?
Yes, public figures get it wrong some of the time and then we criticize them. That's a proportional response to people being wrong, because it's not healthy to blindly support a person's every action. Moreover, I don't think we'd be doing the victims of Charlie Hebdo any justice by turning them into a cult.
 

Joseph Hutzulak

New member
May 15, 2014
24
0
0
ShadowHamster said:
Zato-1 said:
Condemning South Park for "punching down" instead of "punching up" completely misses the point about the show. South Park is not about social justice and speaking truth to power, it's about confronting ugly truths and being irreverent to a fault, which has its own value.

Also, this:
JMac85 said:
I'm really sick of that "punching up/down" bullshit when it comes to saying what jokes you're allowed to make. If you have a point to make, it shouldn't matter how "privileged" you are compared to the person or entity you're ripping on.
He was talking about one episode. In that episode you have a character who wants to be a dolphin so gets surgery to be a dolphin, but since he isn't and never will be a dolphin he wasn't a dolphin. It was a harsh criticism of transsexuals, and as a transsexual, it comes up in conversation...well, all the fucking time.

And it's kind of stupid. Dolphin and Human DNA has no crossover, but the genders do. Intersex is a thing where someone doesn't actually qualify as either sex physically. That people who are intersexed exist, and it may be a rare condition but transsexual individuals are in a very small minority anyway, shows crossover. You say it's about harsh truths, but I don't see the truth this justified. It was a lot of ignorance thrown out at the attempt of a joke, and the episode never struck me as funny, but just came out as a miss. Probably hit too close to home.

But what's more, when this kind of thing comes up, South Park is illogically taken as a source of knowledge on some issues even though they are comedians and cartoonists first and foremost. By their nature South Park cannot help but be controversial, but the more complicated question is does the humor work.

What your missing is when you "punch down" for humor it's too easy to come off as elitist, and serious rather than funny. Many jokes seem like someone gloating from a higher perch, and that makes the joke often not funny and angers groups that you decided to take a poke on. This seems especially true when the group in question is already bullied, beat on, and often innocent of any violence in the first place.

South Park has been in this seat a few times, and for the record, I love and continue to watch the show even after a few episodes left me with a bad taste in my mouth. I try not to blame ignorance on them, but those who would take them as a legitimate stance make it hard sometimes. I don't know what to say. You have missed the point of Bob's speech, and also the reason such humor is professionally avoided, not just from the "Politically Correct" stance.
So in the age of crusades mocking islam would have been punching up? And mocking christians would have been punching down?

Mocking Islam in Egypt and Saudia Arabia is punching up? Im sure that will get you jail time at the best.

Is mocking black people in the middle of Anacostia, punching up? Is mocking white people in Anacostia, punching down?

When South Park mocked Hippies, Emos, Goths, Mormons ( A religious minority group that was basically murdered untill they escaped to the wasteland we call Utah)?

Or are you really just coming up with an arguement to criticise other for mocking things you find important.
 

squallina

New member
May 14, 2013
7
0
0
"My sympathy goes out the window when you make your rebuttal with bullets." - MovieBob

I'm going to be quoting this line from now on. Thanks Bob for a great episode that was rather level-headed in its approach to this topic.
 

Wolf Hagen

New member
Jul 28, 2010
161
0
0
Honestly, I'd wish I could congrat Bob on the Episode, but I can't.

He clearly misses the point, that Satire has to be neutral (aka harsh towards everyone) or it becomes one sided.
This is what most of the European Satire magazines are about.
The only connection he draws is towards south park, and even then in the wrong way. >.<

Trust me, if a Satire magazine or Show over here, would only deal blows, to specific targets, it be taken off pretty soon, because of obvious propaganda, wich in case of Charlie Hebdo, is most certainly NOT the case.
 

Chaucer345

New member
Aug 5, 2009
27
0
0
As a transwoman can I just say thank you for being a decent human being? After learning I wouldn't be allowed to drive in Russia I really needed the boost.
 

Disthron

New member
Aug 19, 2009
108
0
0
I literally no nothing about the cartoonists or there agenda and I don't care. I don't care if they were the most unpleasant people writing the most hateful messages in the history of forever. You're still not allowed to kill them over it.
 

Tono Makt

New member
Mar 24, 2012
537
0
0
JMac85 said:
JoJo said:
But anyway, if you're going to equate extremists from a war-torn third world country with over a billion people across the globe who follow that particular religion, then you should also be condemning Christians equally as there are African Christians out there lynching gay people and burning children as witches. It's not a Christian problem or a Muslim problem, it's a problem of ignorance and intolerance that's unfortunately common to every race and creed.
I'm just as critical of Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Scientology, etc. But you don't see those people committing international acts of terrorism like you do with Islam.
You don't see them committing acts of terror in North America, Europe or Australia very often. And when you do, their religion - particularly Christians - is either entirely obscured OR is mentioned in passing, discussed for a minute or two, then their political beliefs become far more investigated. Go back and look at how the North American media covered the Norway massacre. Then look at how the North American media is covering the massacre in France. Look at the shooting in Ottawa in October, and how even now the media still refers to him as a Muslim instead of saying he was a head case. If you want to get historical, look at how the IRA was handled by the media, where Protestant and Catholic were turned into Political parties rather than Religious sects - then compare it to how the battles between Shia and Sunni are handled, where the political aspects are mentioned in passing as the media moves to the narrative that Islam = Violence. Etc - the list can go on, and on, and on.

You may not see it, but a big part of the reason you don't see it is that our media actively pushes that aspect of stories away when it doesn't involve Islam. And when it does involve Islam, our media is constantly talking about it. Our media has a bias in it when it comes to Islam - whether because the media moguls have a bias against Islam (as seems to be the case with Rupert Murdoch of Fox infamy) or because the media is pandering to the audience bias against Islam is a question I don't think will ever have an answer.

And the media bias in these matters doesn't mean that there aren't non-Muslim terrorists murdering people these days. As the saying goes, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
 

cathou

Souris la vie est un fromage
Apr 6, 2009
1,163
0
0
Farther than stars said:
bobdole1979 said:
I'm not a fan of people calling him "The Prophet Muhammad" Just call him Muhammad if you aren't Muslim. Otherwise its like always referring to Jesus as "Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ"

Since this happened all the news channels keep calling him "the Prophet Muhammad"

Great video btw
I think it's just a way of differentiating him from the millions of other Muhammads in the world. Jesus, as a name, doesn't have that problem so much.
i'm not very sure for you guys in English, but the most used islamic name in french is Mohammed, and in french the prophet is called Mahommet. it's probably not an universal law, but i think naming someone Mahommet would be an offence to muslim in french.

so are you sure that the name Muhammad is used in English for other people ?
 

MovieBob

New member
Dec 31, 2008
11,495
0
0
2 things:
1. Japanese Internment was bad but it is not as clear cut as you make it. Openly nationalistic Italians and Germans were also rounded up, because they were identifiable.

The fact is that about half of those interned by the U.S. government during WWII were white (Mostly Italian-Americans and German-Americans). In Undue Process: The Untold Story of America's German Alien Internees (1997), Arnold Krammer, professor of history at Texas A&M University, describes the extensive wartime policy of interning Europeans - a policy that has disappeared from history books and that gives the lie to the orthodox view that Japanese relocation was a race-based policy. Using government documents, newspaper accounts, and interviews with former internees, Prof. Krammer has documented the officially forgotten history of the internment of whites.

The United States started to intern German and Italian merchant seamen in U.S. ports in April 1941 while the country was officially neutral - a clear violation of law. By October 1941, it had formal plans for interning Germans and Italians living in the United States, and began implementing them on December 8, 1941 - three days before the U.S. was officially at war with Germany and Italy. Some Germans who were naturalized citizens were stripped of U.S. citizenship so they could be interned legally.
The total number of enemy aliens interned by the Roosevelt Administration was 31,275. This included 10,905 Germans, 16,849 Japanese, and 3,278 Italians. The rest consisted of other Europeans from enemy nations, with whites constituting 46 percent of the total.

Not in contradiction, but most people don't know that.

2. Moreover, the idea that Muslims are disenfranchised in France or Europe at large is not wrong but it was presented dishonestly here.
The issues facing the Muslim community predominantly come from the Muslim community, from these radicals.
And it is not issues that can be solved by money.
What could solve it is deporting Muslims involved in radical activities (like the 2 shooters were) but that is deemed hateful, even though it would help the moderates live in peace.

Moreover, the level of criminality exhibited by some in these immigrant populations is utterly unacceptable. It in fact caused Norway to begin deporting for crimes.
Sargon of Akkad does a good video on Grooming Gangs in the UK. This is not limited to the UK, google can reveal similar issues in other European countries, but his video is good and shows that a politically correct orthodoxy (that Matt and Trey make fun of btw) stifles any attempt to deal with it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OB6zMIrIx-g
^ not fun stuff, involves mass rape of the underage

ATTENTION: This is not to tar all with the same brush (although I will be accused of that), it is to show that uncontrolled immigration brings distinctly bad things.


I make a point to point this out because I don't think Moviebob or his audience would know these things, just as I did not until recently. Although I was aware of grooming well before Sargon's video.


Also, the following groups do better than whites: asians, nigerians, cubans, lebanese, east indians, and jews.
So that unintended privilege jab can die in a fire. But I applaud the indirect acknowledgement of poor whites rather than treatment as a monolith.
 

Thurston

New member
Nov 1, 2007
154
0
0
Thank you Bob for a reasoned and insightful look at this mess. You've articulated my vague concern as the creation of a new sacred cow. Just as questioning your government in America after 9/11 became taboo, are we going to give offensive cartoons too much leeway to slide into hate speech, for fear of "letting the terrorists win?"
 

CpT_x_Killsteal

New member
Jun 21, 2012
1,519
0
0
I was expecting something different from what I got. I don't usually watch Bob's shows because I'm not a big movie/comic book fan, but I saw the title and thought should give it a go.

I agree with everything said, including the raised point about tragic attacks being used to reinforce certain ideals. On the "punching up or punching down thing though", I think it just comes out as "every action has an equal and opposite reaction". I wouldn't be too worried about that, since that would take people to a standstill for fear of inadvertently satirising/hurting/insulting/etc. someone they don't mean to.
 

Farther than stars

New member
Jun 19, 2011
1,228
0
0
cathou said:
Farther than stars said:
bobdole1979 said:
I'm not a fan of people calling him "The Prophet Muhammad" Just call him Muhammad if you aren't Muslim. Otherwise its like always referring to Jesus as "Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ"

Since this happened all the news channels keep calling him "the Prophet Muhammad"

Great video btw
I think it's just a way of differentiating him from the millions of other Muhammads in the world. Jesus, as a name, doesn't have that problem so much.
i'm not very sure for you guys in English, but the most used islamic name in french is Mohammed, and in french the prophet is called Mahommet. it's probably not an universal law, but i think naming someone Mahommet would be an offence to muslim in french.

so are you sure that the name Muhammad is used in English for other people ?
Yes, I am sure. They're all just variations on the same name. The British use the spelling "Muhammad", because this is the spelling used in Pakistan, Bangladesh and India (former British colonies). In most Islamic nations, the name is given to male children in reverence of the "original" Muhammad's status among Muslims as a prophet. It is estimated that 150 million men and boys are (indirectly) named after Muhammad. ([link]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_%28name%29[/link])
 

Redd the Sock

New member
Apr 14, 2010
1,088
0
0
That whole punching up / punching down thing just reeks of rationalization. We all know the story from TV. Some practical joker it always pulling pranks but loses their sense of humor when someone pulls a joke on them. Like the joker in question, we try to somehow say that our laughing at those we deem humorous is valid, while laughing at what we personally value shouldn't be done. Satire is supposed to be about mocking cultural stupidity, and there's nothing about "unprivileged" groups that makes one exempt from stupidity. Granted, not everything someone wishes to mock actually is worth of satire, but we get rather defensive of a joke that hits a nerve in reality without stopping to think, maybe they have a point. The South Park bit was a commentary that the changes the trans community make are mostly cosmetiic than genetic and they were making an effort to lie to themselves about that. I don't recall them saying trans is a bad lifestyle, just denying that the changes made are more cosplay than true gender reassignment. We could have taken it as a bit of mockery that did teach us a bit about ourselves, or at least acted adult and said that even if they were wrong, we are at a point where it's a bit reasonable to come to that conclusion and just try and provide paitent education. Sadly, we cry the offense card because we just can't stand being the butt of the joke. Before the trans community thinks I'm singling them out, the same principle is behind most of the complaints I hear from nerds about the Big Bang Theory: please quit making us the butt of such and obvious and stereotyped joke. It's not a really funny show, but the stereotypes aren't exactly unreal, and I find it good to sometimes laugh at ourselves.

And that's the thing. Terrorists use bullets, but the attitude isn't much different than people using hashtags: if I don't want to hear it you shouldn't say it. People have the right to vocalize their offense, but seldom stop to ask if they really should. We try to hide behind the technical definition of Free Speech without realizing it's there for a reason: if we don't face unpleasant our critics, we risk becoming corrupt, complaisant shitheads trying to make the world bend to our sensitivities. An employer is within his right to fire an employee that spoke against them, but it speeks poorly to the employer if they let an employee go for speaking their mind. Religions, political groups, just about anyone that can claim marginalization, and yes, both sides of gamergate, we all are afraid of people telling us we may not be free from things others find funny. And honestly, there's 7 billion people in the world representing countless cultures, values, and beliefs, we're never all going to agree on how to view all of them. Everything needs to be open for satire, or nothing can be because under that up/down view, everyone thinks they're joking at someone that deserves it. Better to hear the joke confront how the world sees you in some way, either by acknowledging the flaws being make fun of and addressing them, or at least by not shouting "offensive" rather than address your offense with reasons.
 

daxterx2005

New member
Dec 19, 2009
1,615
0
0
Stone and Parker aren't afraid of anything, I'm sure they have death threats thrown at them all the time.
 

Rahkshi500

New member
May 25, 2014
190
0
0
Definitely agree with Bob on this one, though there's two things I wanna comment on. Sure, the idea of "the bodies are still warm" can easily be take advantage into pushing an agenda of making free speech immune to criticism, but it's not the same as the "think of the children" thought that some people are arguing, nor does it mean that there shouldn't be discussion about it. It means that people should at least wait until the fire dies down so that people can have the discussion instead of immediately jumping in and easily risking it turning into a shit-slinging debacle. Yeah, I know that some people can easily take advantage of that, but I would still stand by it being the better option. As for the "Punching Up/Down" argument can be a tricky argument in where it applies. Sure, it can fall into a place of marginalizing a group of people who are already marginalized, but on the other hand, this kind of argument can easily be abused and ironically fall into the same line of thought that because such groups have little power in areas of the world it means that they shouldn't be criticized or mocked for things that may or may not be questionable, problematic, or just downright ridiculous. Sure, it should go without saying that the right to free speech doesn't mean freedom from consequence, but I think that far too often the people who say these things don't realize that it applies to them as well, whether it's their beliefs, their political stances, their own movements, or even their own criticism. Sure, the likes of Je Suis Charlie or South Park in some the things they do may or may not be poor taste and may or may not be good satire, but the core principle behind them is what's important; nothing is sacred, and it should be something for everyone to keep in mind.
 

Farther than stars

New member
Jun 19, 2011
1,228
0
0
Redd the Sock said:
The South Park bit was a commentary that the changes the trans community make are mostly cosmetiic than genetic and they were making an effort to lie to themselves about that. I don't recall them saying trans is a bad lifestyle, just denying that the changes made are more cosplay than true gender reassignment.
First of all, terminology: I think you mean "anatomic" instead of "genetic", because with the current state of technology it is impossible to change one's gender genetically.
And secondly, this isn't a question of "true gender" (a vague, arbitrary and exclusionary criterion) but about how we treat people. I think people should be allowed to decide for themselves what gender they are and I think it would be cordial for the rest of society to respect that decision. That's a very small effort for something that matters a lot to someone's identity. Calling their adjustments "cosmetic" or "cosplay" is unnecessarily belittling and South Park takes away the legitimacy of certain people to decide what gender they feel themselves to be.
 

grigjd3

New member
Mar 4, 2011
541
0
0
I saw three tragedies in all this. First and foremost, twelve people were killed initially and a number I am not aware of were killed in the aftermath while the French police apprehended the murderous bastards. Second, a wave of racism shot over the internet as fast as news can travel today. Third, we popularized what is effectively the most lazy and sad versions of satire I have ever seen. I have no problem poking fun at religion in general, a particular religion or even a severe minority wing of a particular religion. I have a severe problem with people doing a shitty job of it. Simply posing a major figure of a religion in sexually explicit positions (and with terrible artistry) is just plain lazy. It's obviously not a sin that should get you killed by some nut-job but it does suggest you are a tired, lazy excuse for an entertainer that has clearly given up on having any ambition of producing anything of quality. In other words, if Peter Griffin is beyond the scope of your creative capability, maybe you should simply admit you are not that creative and look for other work. Even jokes about not displaying Mohammed are more creative than simply displaying him in a sexually explicit manner.

What amazes me the most about this is how much people said this is about freedom of speech. It was a mass murder. Murder is wrong, period. Why do we even need to get down to the level of freedom of speech before we realize that murder is bad. Believe it or not, everyone who is on the "murder is bad" side, is on the same side. We don't ever need to get to the constitutional right before we realize murder is bad. I don't need to even consider how these murderers were trying to repress speech before I get to, murder is bad. I mean, the declaration of independence started with the whole "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" bit. You know what was first on that list? Life. Freedom of speech didn't make it in until a much later document and we already had murder is bad. It's not too hard for us all to agree murder is bad, right? So why are we talking about freedom of speech? This is straight forward. Some murdering asswipes should face justice. Whether you think that should be a death penalty or being locked away in a small room until the flu gets you at the age of 98, I think we can generally agree that you should not murder anyone, period. Because, if we can't agree on that, I'm starting to get a little afraid that everyone talking about the free speech issues in this don't necessarily think murder is bad - and that would really scare me.
 

Gordon_4_v1legacy

New member
Aug 22, 2010
2,578
0
0
Most satire I'm familiar with has been for the purpose of punching up since a lot of it historically was a way for the commoners to take the piss out of the ruling powers without having their heads cut off or otherwise punished. That being said I don't think it's a requirement for satire to punch up, it can punch down too: you've just got to be much better at it.

In closing;

Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité and Vive la France.
 

cathou

Souris la vie est un fromage
Apr 6, 2009
1,163
0
0
grigjd3 said:
Third, we popularized what is effectively the most lazy and sad versions of satire I have ever seen. I have no problem poking fun at religion in general, a particular religion or even a severe minority wing of a particular religion. I have a severe problem with people doing a shitty job of it. Simply posing a major figure of a religion in sexually explicit positions (and with terrible artistry) is just plain lazy. It's obviously not a sin that should get you killed by some nut-job but it does suggest you are a tired, lazy excuse for an entertainer that has clearly given up on having any ambition of producing anything of quality. In other words, if Peter Griffin is beyond the scope of your creative capability, maybe you should simply admit you are not that creative and look for other work. Even jokes about not displaying Mohammed are more creative than simply displaying him in a sexually explicit manner.
you can like them or not, but judging and 40 years old journal artistic talents over one of the thousand and thousand of drawings they've done is a bit simplistic. And judging a cartoon without it's context is flawed. the only thing i've seens that fit what you describe, was publish, not as front cover, but in a segment called "the covers you didnt saw". Back then, the very bad movie Éthe innocent of muslim" was depicting Muhammad as a pedo, sadistic, homosexual lunatic. The drawing were actually to how stupid was the movie, and how really stupid was the reaction over the movie (you might remember than an US ambassador got killed because of the protest over that movie.)
 

ShadowHamster

New member
Mar 17, 2008
64
0
0
Joseph Hutzulak said:
ShadowHamster said:
Zato-1 said:
Condemning South Park for "punching down" instead of "punching up" completely misses the point about the show. South Park is not about social justice and speaking truth to power, it's about confronting ugly truths and being irreverent to a fault, which has its own value.

Also, this:
JMac85 said:
I'm really sick of that "punching up/down" bullshit when it comes to saying what jokes you're allowed to make. If you have a point to make, it shouldn't matter how "privileged" you are compared to the person or entity you're ripping on.
He was talking about one episode. In that episode you have a character who wants to be a dolphin so gets surgery to be a dolphin, but since he isn't and never will be a dolphin he wasn't a dolphin. It was a harsh criticism of transsexuals, and as a transsexual, it comes up in conversation...well, all the fucking time.

And it's kind of stupid. Dolphin and Human DNA has no crossover, but the genders do. Intersex is a thing where someone doesn't actually qualify as either sex physically. That people who are intersexed exist, and it may be a rare condition but transsexual individuals are in a very small minority anyway, shows crossover. You say it's about harsh truths, but I don't see the truth this justified. It was a lot of ignorance thrown out at the attempt of a joke, and the episode never struck me as funny, but just came out as a miss. Probably hit too close to home.

But what's more, when this kind of thing comes up, South Park is illogically taken as a source of knowledge on some issues even though they are comedians and cartoonists first and foremost. By their nature South Park cannot help but be controversial, but the more complicated question is does the humor work.

What your missing is when you "punch down" for humor it's too easy to come off as elitist, and serious rather than funny. Many jokes seem like someone gloating from a higher perch, and that makes the joke often not funny and angers groups that you decided to take a poke on. This seems especially true when the group in question is already bullied, beat on, and often innocent of any violence in the first place.

South Park has been in this seat a few times, and for the record, I love and continue to watch the show even after a few episodes left me with a bad taste in my mouth. I try not to blame ignorance on them, but those who would take them as a legitimate stance make it hard sometimes. I don't know what to say. You have missed the point of Bob's speech, and also the reason such humor is professionally avoided, not just from the "Politically Correct" stance.
So in the age of crusades mocking islam would have been punching up? And mocking christians would have been punching down?

Mocking Islam in Egypt and Saudia Arabia is punching up? Im sure that will get you jail time at the best.

Is mocking black people in the middle of Anacostia, punching up? Is mocking white people in Anacostia, punching down?

When South Park mocked Hippies, Emos, Goths, Mormons ( A religious minority group that was basically murdered untill they escaped to the wasteland we call Utah)?

Or are you really just coming up with an arguement to criticise other for mocking things you find important.
I'm saying that humor can be a strange thing. I said that I don't blame the south park guys for idiots coming out against transsexuals with the "you'll never be real so just stop" line of conversation, which really got me because I didn't have to even say anything half the time. Someone would discover I identify as transsexual and would approach me with "didn't you watch southpark brah!?" like it made science. No, I don't blame the south park guys.

I was saying that the punch up/punch down thing isn't a hard fast rule, and that the example given is one I personally feel for. I was saying that when you are a controversial comedian sometimes you are going to hit the joke wrong, or just get unlucky and have it taken wrong thus angering the public. You may note that I said the south park guys can't avoid the controversy. I don't believe they can, eventually one of their jokes just falls wrong. I was using the episode given specifically because it was used in the episode because their are multiple episodes where the outcry afterwards felt justified.

South Park has had episodes that said don't question 9/11...I'm not a truther but still seems...off. They've attacked global warming which now over 99% of climate scientist agree it's happening. They've had episodes on all kinds of topics, and these people who say it's about harsh truths are full of shit. South Park is dark sardonic fun with potty humor to fill in the slow bits. It's an awesome show, but that's what it is, and when it sparks some heated controversy, I don't think Trey and Matt are there for that. They just make people laugh and make money doing it, and that's great. I wasn't trying to make any kind of argument.

I'm saying that the "punch up/punch down" argument isn't wrong, it's just impossible to follow. It's an easier said than done thing, but it does happen. This season of South Park returned to the Trans issue and I thought the episodes on it were amazing, plus the last message of "just fucking be yourself people!" was pretty much dead on. That is what most trans-activists want is the right to just be themselves, not to make it into some big thing.

As to your examples...good for you, your making my point. It's not always a clear picture what "punching up" or "punching down" really are sometimes, due to complex infrastructures and issues that aren't two sided on that front. Many oppressed groups get used by powerful people to push other agendas, and those agendas should often be deconstructed and mocked despite the fact it's tied up in some other issue. The whole thing is very complex, and I think that Bob was mostly saying that it's more complex than you know. Offering solidarity is fine, but don't get involved in another culture's advanced infrastructure and think you know all the angles.
 

MovieBob

New member
Dec 31, 2008
11,495
0
0
Punching up and punching down is the stupidest concept, a very worthless lens to view these things with.

Punching is punching. Goliath may have been undefeated, but so was David. His aim may have been very good. And can we really call someone with a projectile weapon in a fight as punching down?

Moviebob himself shows this with numerous examples. When are you really punching up or down?

What if the strength is distributed at 49% vs 51%, one person gets to to punch and the other doesn't? Would that really be a fair fight?

The conclusion is inevitable. The concept of punching up or down is a very stupid one.

You're bob and this was a very tiny picture.

The thing left outside the view is how this affects other publications. The fear effects. The thing that lead from one south park episode being able to show muhammed and then a later future episode not being allowed to show it.

The free speech has been on a backward slide in the west for a while. And that is the big fucking picture. I'm frustrated with sophistry that minimizes this.
 

KissingSunlight

Molotov Cocktails, Anyone?
Jul 3, 2013
1,237
0
0
It occurred to me the other day that the extreme religious conservative (ISIS for example) and the extreme liberals (PC Thought Police or what the kids like to call them today, SJW) have the same goal: Censorship. Anyone who argues that the only a government can censor people are being disingenuous. Shooting someone for something they created, because you disagree with it is censorship. Harassing people online and in real life until they get fired from their job and damage their reputations until they can't make provide a living for themselves is also censorship. 2014 had a lot of instances where campaigns were started in an effort to harassed, shame, and silence people, because of private comments were taken out of context and made public.

If anything positive comes out of the Charlie Hebdo tragedy, it's that rational, moderate people will start to take a stand against extremists regardless of which end of political/religious spectrum that they are on. We should not live in fear of well-intentioned people who believe their cause is so righteous that they can do despicable things to other people without repercussions.
 

MovieBob

New member
Dec 31, 2008
11,495
0
0
Fuck.

Whenever I try to speak about this I just choke up. I just can't figure it out.

Because hey, did I have a problem with these guys attacking all forms of religion? Nope. Did I have a problem with their Christian criticism being class based while their criticism of Islam was racially charged? Yep. Do I think they intended it? Nope, by all indications they have denounced racism by default forever. Is there a colonial whiff to all of the above? Hell yeah, it's France.

Do I think this discussion is in any way productive or appropriate? Not at all. It's been what? A week? Imagine people discussing this stuff a week after 9/11. They'd have been crucified. This deserves the same respect.

Do I think arguing about political correctness is even the right point? You know what? No. I think Charlie Hebdo actually nailed the point in their return issue much closer than the US liberals commentating about it. The problem is the exact same as 9/11: politicians are already gearing up to fast track liberty-restraining, outright illegal legal changes to reinforce internal and external borders and racially profile people even though the terrorists in question were actually French, and this was by all accounts an act of domestic terror (because in European tradition Islam was domestic even before we went all colonial and brought it over again).

Now, you want a big picture? THAT is a big picture. How terrorist attacks by desperate lone wolves that can't be reasonably controlled in their acts of weaponized anger and desperation serve as a justification for power to overstep their boundaries, and gleefully so. In this case the excuse being free expression adds a layer of irony to the proceedings.

So the tragedy of Charlie is not just the killings, it's the paradox of a hard-left satirical magazine being attacked physically by religious extremists and then have the attack serve as an excuse for the establishment they routinely condemn to reinforce themselves. If you read what they put out today, this contradiction doesn't escape them, and that's devastating.

So the question is not if I'm Charlie or if I want to be Charlie. I don't really matter in this. The question is, does Charlie really want all the people claiming to be them to get to do that? Does everybody get to be Charlie? The answer is more important than we are making it out to be and has global ramifications.
 

MovieBob

New member
Dec 31, 2008
11,495
0
0
Noelveiga said:
Do I think arguing about political correctness is even the right point? You know what? No. I think Charlie Hebdo actually nailed the point in their return issue much closer than the US liberals commentating about it. The problem is the exact same as 9/11: politicians are already gearing up to fast track liberty-restraining, outright illegal legal changes to reinforce internal and external borders and racially profile people even though the terrorists in question were actually French, and this was by all accounts an act of domestic terror (because in European tradition Islam was domestic even before we went all colonial and brought it over again).
Did you even watch the video?

Because everything you just said was pretty much Bob's point.
 

Jenx

New member
Dec 5, 2007
160
0
0
The whole Charlie thing is a damn mess, especially on the Internet (which, as we all know, is so very good at showing nuanced opinions). I think I more or less agree with Bob on this one, which is quite rare for me, to be honest.

Basically, I agree that both the nutjobs who decided to shoot a bunch of people because of some really badly made cartoons are wrong. I also think the people who defend racist cartoons as "free speech" are also wrong.

Basically, everyone in this wrong in some way. I think the only proper response to the Charlie cartoons would have been for the extremists to make and publish a whole bunch of blatantly racist drawings aimed at French people. Then they would have been just as equally offensive without anyone being harmed.
 

Verlander

New member
Apr 22, 2010
2,449
0
0
Spot on, I agree. Feared it'd be worse, like American translations of European current events tend to be
 

MrFalconfly

New member
Sep 5, 2011
913
0
0
Looking at this from a country that itself backed down from this fight that sorely needed to be fought, I can only say that I don't understand the deal people have with "Punching Up" and "Punching Down". Nor do I understand what Islam has done to make it sacred from any form of satire.

We take the piss on christians, jews, hindus, scientologists, and whatnot all the time. What makes Islam so special? The fact that they aren't afraid to blow themselves up in the attempt to get revenge? Surely that should be an even bigger reason for satire.

In any case, the murderers had guns, and the people at Charlie Hebdo had pens. Surely the people at Charlie Hebdo would be "Punching Up", especially considering they got killed over doing it.


Also, for those of you wondering what nation I mentioned before. Here are some of the things we did that got the ire of the islamists (note: Not muslims. Islamists. The utter loonatics who want to impose the Islamic version of the "Laws of Moses", which are equally insane).



Nothing. I repeat, nothing is sacred from ridicule. Especially not ridicule which everyone else receive on a daily basis.
 

Nimcha

New member
Dec 6, 2010
2,383
0
0
Good piece, but I don't agree with the 'punching up/down' idea. Nothing should be free of ridicule.
 

Rattja

New member
Dec 4, 2012
452
0
0
WhiteNachos said:
Rattja said:
To be honest, the more I hear about this the more it just sounds like a fight small children would have, only that there is no adult that can just grab them and pull them apart and talk some sense to them.
One keeps calling the other names, the other one hates it and gets violent. But instead of punishing them both, the one calling the other names is cheered on by everyone and actually asked to keep doing so. Do something like that in school and that is straight up bullying.
This isn't like schoolyard bullying. Those offended people can just not read the magazine and ignore that it exists.

Rattja said:
Terrorism is wrong, but making fun of people that clearly do not like you doing so is also wrong,
I disagree, it's a magazine they can easily avoid, no one is forcing them to listen to their insults and they are free to insult them back.

Criticism can be insulting or take the form of mockery.
Well essentially I think it is just like a schoolyard where two kids are going at eachother and none of them wants to back down or reconsider their approach because they are both convinced they are doing the right thing, because in their mind they are.

It is easy for you to say they should just ignore it, but you have to understand how hard that would be. They can ignore this just as much as you can ignore them. You can't do that because you keep hearing about them, and they can't do that because they keep hearing about you (or maybe not you personally, but the people who draws, whatever you get the point).

Think about it this way.. If you never knew these people exsisted, then one day you discover them and think "my god this is wrong! I have to stop this!" Then someone comes up to you and says "just ignore them, pritend they don't exist". Could you do that? If you can't how do you expect others to?

Part of my point here is that while you might be able to claw your way through a brick wall over time, it may not be the best way to go about it. So once you discover your fingers are gone, instead of getting another person to keep clawing away in your place, it may be an idea to back away and reconcider the approach.
Hell, there might even be a hole in the wall futher down, but you won't be able to see that unless you are able to back away from the wall for a moment and look for it.



CaitSeith said:
The Bucket said:
CaitSeith said:
Rabidkitten said:
Rattja said:
Just to be clear here, no I do not support the terrorist, but I don't care much for people poking the bear either.
But you should poke the bear, you should scream in its ear to waken it from its slumber. No one should be immune to speech, not even the bear, ever.
Before trying to prove the bear isn't immune to speech, be sure you are immune to its claws.
I dont want to live in society where people censor themselves to suit the whims of mad men with guns. The only 'claws' any person in a civilized society should be wary of is social and legal repercussions, anyone who takes their protests beyond that isn't worth listening to.
And I agree, which makes me think that the sleeping bear metaphor is ill suited for this case. What happens with the bear is expected (which makes you look like a dumb if you don't take precautions). What happened in Charlie Hebdo was much more unexpected.
I might be wrong here, but as far as I know they werer warned/threatened just as a bear would growl before it bites your head off, so I still feel it sort of fits.
 

Tim Chuma

New member
Jul 9, 2010
236
0
0
I need to watch the Battle of Algiers in the near future
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ca3M2feqJk8

Everything in the movie was shot for the movie, it was not taken from real life but was based on real life events
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algerian_War

La Haine is another important movie set in modern France that covers issues related to race
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yk77VrkxL88

Berlin in Berlin is a Turkish film shot in Germany but does deal with the issue of migrants living in Germany
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TIlHIa4-uDM
 

scw55

New member
Nov 18, 2009
1,185
0
0
Thoughts on the whole thing.

I am sad that 12 people are dead. They should not be dead.
I am sad for the friends and family of these 12 people. I hope they will not harbour bitterness or resentment. That they can mourn for their loved ones. That they will not hold prejudice against anyone else who "resemble" the people who took their loved ones away.
I hope other people will not judge the whole Islamic faith based on these handful of people who commit horrific and disgusting acts of murder.
I hope the murderers will see and understand what they have done. Under stand their atrocities. Understand the impacts and be able to repent.
---
Regardless of where you stand on the racist-o-meter, wishing death upon anyone is bad. Wishing death on someone who commited death is hypocritical.
Please, why do we kill each other?
 

MovieBob

New member
Dec 31, 2008
11,495
0
0
Thanks for this video, Bob. It was good to get perspective on a violent totalitarian movement that seeks to limit speech from someone who is part of a non violent totalitarian movement that seeks to limit free speech like yourself.

You did not disappoint. The argument that criticizing Islam is "punching down," is an awesome example of the twisted worldview of you and people like you.
 

Joseph Hutzulak

New member
May 15, 2014
24
0
0
ShadowHamster said:
Joseph Hutzulak said:
ShadowHamster said:
Zato-1 said:
Condemning South Park for "punching down" instead of "punching up" completely misses the point about the show. South Park is not about social justice and speaking truth to power, it's about confronting ugly truths and being irreverent to a fault, which has its own value.

Also, this:
JMac85 said:
I'm really sick of that "punching up/down" bullshit when it comes to saying what jokes you're allowed to make. If you have a point to make, it shouldn't matter how "privileged" you are compared to the person or entity you're ripping on.
He was talking about one episode. In that episode you have a character who wants to be a dolphin so gets surgery to be a dolphin, but since he isn't and never will be a dolphin he wasn't a dolphin. It was a harsh criticism of transsexuals, and as a transsexual, it comes up in conversation...well, all the fucking time.

And it's kind of stupid. Dolphin and Human DNA has no crossover, but the genders do. Intersex is a thing where someone doesn't actually qualify as either sex physically. That people who are intersexed exist, and it may be a rare condition but transsexual individuals are in a very small minority anyway, shows crossover. You say it's about harsh truths, but I don't see the truth this justified. It was a lot of ignorance thrown out at the attempt of a joke, and the episode never struck me as funny, but just came out as a miss. Probably hit too close to home.

But what's more, when this kind of thing comes up, South Park is illogically taken as a source of knowledge on some issues even though they are comedians and cartoonists first and foremost. By their nature South Park cannot help but be controversial, but the more complicated question is does the humor work.

What your missing is when you "punch down" for humor it's too easy to come off as elitist, and serious rather than funny. Many jokes seem like someone gloating from a higher perch, and that makes the joke often not funny and angers groups that you decided to take a poke on. This seems especially true when the group in question is already bullied, beat on, and often innocent of any violence in the first place.

South Park has been in this seat a few times, and for the record, I love and continue to watch the show even after a few episodes left me with a bad taste in my mouth. I try not to blame ignorance on them, but those who would take them as a legitimate stance make it hard sometimes. I don't know what to say. You have missed the point of Bob's speech, and also the reason such humor is professionally avoided, not just from the "Politically Correct" stance.
So in the age of crusades mocking islam would have been punching up? And mocking christians would have been punching down?

Mocking Islam in Egypt and Saudia Arabia is punching up? Im sure that will get you jail time at the best.

Is mocking black people in the middle of Anacostia, punching up? Is mocking white people in Anacostia, punching down?

When South Park mocked Hippies, Emos, Goths, Mormons ( A religious minority group that was basically murdered untill they escaped to the wasteland we call Utah)?

Or are you really just coming up with an arguement to criticise other for mocking things you find important.
I'm saying that humor can be a strange thing. I said that I don't blame the south park guys for idiots coming out against transsexuals with the "you'll never be real so just stop" line of conversation, which really got me because I didn't have to even say anything half the time. Someone would discover I identify as transsexual and would approach me with "didn't you watch southpark brah!?" like it made science. No, I don't blame the south park guys.

I was saying that the punch up/punch down thing isn't a hard fast rule, and that the example given is one I personally feel for. I was saying that when you are a controversial comedian sometimes you are going to hit the joke wrong, or just get unlucky and have it taken wrong thus angering the public. You may note that I said the south park guys can't avoid the controversy. I don't believe they can, eventually one of their jokes just falls wrong. I was using the episode given specifically because it was used in the episode because their are multiple episodes where the outcry afterwards felt justified.

South Park has had episodes that said don't question 9/11...I'm not a truther but still seems...off. They've attacked global warming which now over 99% of climate scientist agree it's happening. They've had episodes on all kinds of topics, and these people who say it's about harsh truths are full of shit. South Park is dark sardonic fun with potty humor to fill in the slow bits. It's an awesome show, but that's what it is, and when it sparks some heated controversy, I don't think Trey and Matt are there for that. They just make people laugh and make money doing it, and that's great. I wasn't trying to make any kind of argument.

I'm saying that the "punch up/punch down" argument isn't wrong, it's just impossible to follow. It's an easier said than done thing, but it does happen. This season of South Park returned to the Trans issue and I thought the episodes on it were amazing, plus the last message of "just fucking be yourself people!" was pretty much dead on. That is what most trans-activists want is the right to just be themselves, not to make it into some big thing.

As to your examples...good for you, your making my point. It's not always a clear picture what "punching up" or "punching down" really are sometimes, due to complex infrastructures and issues that aren't two sided on that front. Many oppressed groups get used by powerful people to push other agendas, and those agendas should often be deconstructed and mocked despite the fact it's tied up in some other issue. The whole thing is very complex, and I think that Bob was mostly saying that it's more complex than you know. Offering solidarity is fine, but don't get involved in another culture's advanced infrastructure and think you know all the angles.
Can you see how your post looks like mental gymnastics to protect issues important to you from criticism?

The argument about punching up/down is basic post-modernism 101, make an argument so nebulous that people just get tired of running up and down the field chasing goal posts that they concede out of exhaustion.
 

rofltehcat

New member
Jul 24, 2009
635
0
0
Charlie Hebdo had a circulation of ~45k. That is tiny compared to many other publications. Anyone really thinking that a publication of that size can spread massive anti-immigrant sentiments is not really considering the publication's context: Charlie Hebdo is situated very far on the left side of the political spectrum. The same left that is also pro-immigration. The magazine contained many articles that were for the legalization of immigrants.

Yet the people criticizing it now seem to focus on the anti-religion cartoons. Judaism, Christianity and other religions were criticized as well by the magazine. It is against all established religions yet only in the name of one people saw fit to firebomb their offices and now shoot the place down.

And yes, I realize that only religious extremists did that and their actions were not supported by most French Muslims. Now here is the thing: When you are trying to be considerate of extremists and give in to their demands they will not stop. People making a living on outrage and being offended will always find a reason to be offended or to foster outrage and they will only be happy when they rule you.
After all, they are extremists and are thus defined by their stances that deviate extremely from what most people would consider "normal" or "average". They will either pull you towards them until all of their positions are 100% met or they will just continue. It does not matter if those extremists are of a certain religion, like Islam or Christianity (see influence US education system), or for a certain political cause.
Them having those stances is not the problem. They are welcome to be part of the democratic process and if they truly partake in it some of their ideas will after a while find partial acceptance and understanding among the grater populace. However, if they truly partake in it this also means that either their positions will shift towards the "normal" during the process or that more and more of their followers will drift away from them. And no extremist wants that, thus extreme measures will be taken by them.

Now, I don't even believe for a moment that the attacks by these extremists were found to be something positive by any of the more moderate French Muslims. Rather, the attacks were caused by the increasing desperation among extremists. Let me tell you about the Turks who immigrated into Germany in the 50s and 60s: Many of them were pretty devout when they first arrived. However, with the 2 generations since, the average German of Turkish descent got less and less religious. This is truly what angers the extremists: Their influence is dwindling and they can do nothing against it.

By the way, I also file the comments of certain anti-immigrant extremists (several politicians and right-wing media) as well as the comments of some anti-free speech extremists (political correctness and social justice activists, the reaction to whose comments you mentioned in your video) under the same category: They are just extremists and they can't even wait for the bodies to cool, trying to pull outraged people towards their extreme stances.

Let's get back to Charlie Hebdo: You might say "what does that have to do with anything? The shootings were wrong but they should not have punched down!" False! There should be no "but".
Multiculturalism means that the average person moves towards a mix of values as the culture evolves through the exchange of ideas and values. This works in both ways. But it also means that people have to act accordingly to what is "normal" in that culture. "Punching down" is an acceptable form of criticism. Murder is now.
Normally, problems in our civilization are not solved by force. And in case they need force to be solved (e.g. against crime) the state has the monopoly on force. No private person may take matters into their own hands.
This applies to bullshit like calling the today popular defamation and calling of employers committed by "internet activists" as well as heinous acts like the shootings.
To achieve justice people have to go through the channels set out by the civilization they are living in: Courts and law. If they find courts and law to be lacking, they have to go through politics to change the courts and laws. But this is, again, not what extremists truly want.

Freedom of speech is one of the highest values in Western Society and taking force into your own hands is one of the worst affronts to Western Society possible. Acts outside of civilization are *gasp* uncivilized and should be condemned wholeheartedly. Afterwards you can try to change the system's rules (by going through the system) if our current definition of free speech isn't to your liking.
 

WhiteNachos

New member
Jul 25, 2014
647
0
0
V4Viewtiful said:
WhiteNachos said:
Wait a second did you just imply that cartoon might be punching up at the privileged ethnic majority?

So racism can be OK and classified as 'punching up' if it's against the race that's in the majority? I think I might be interpreting this wrong, but is that what you were trying to argue?
To a degree it's true.
It's true that racist insults/mockery can be OK when it's directed at white people? That's just racist bullshit.

V4Viewtiful said:
It's about the perception of power
You ever see American Christians who have convinced themselves that Christians are oppressed in the US? If it's all about perceived power then they couldn't be punching down for mocking other religions.


V4Viewtiful said:
most of the time you can only gain power if someone loses it.
What that has to do with race? Well, well you could look at the way American slavery ended.
A bunch of white guys who wanted slavery to end fought a bunch of other white guys.

V4Viewtiful said:
White power needed to be taken away before it was "given" during the whole civil rights movement, during slavery all those anti-slave cartoons could be considered racist to white people
Not all white people were slave owners, in fact lots of white people were abolitionists.

V4Viewtiful said:
Again this is and over simplification. but the point is it forces the majority to actually take a good look at themselves if this is how they are seen. Whether it's right or wrong? Circumstantial at least.
I'd argue that if "punching down" makes people take a good look at themselves, then it's equally as valid as "punching up".
 

Scorpid

New member
Jul 24, 2011
814
0
0
I feel bad for the muslims of europe. What worries me is that france had mobilized their national guard and all that I was thinking "Against what? Crazy lone gunmen?" The truth is they probably mobilized them to look like they were doing something which inflamed an already scared populace against muslims that were in turn already being looked at as suspicious at best. And now the anti muslim groups around Europe have even more poltical capital to rally support for their ass backwards cause and the muslim extremists are happy because they want just that. They want Europe and the US to be viewed as anti islam by all muslims so this works to their advantage as well. I hope the moderates manage to convince everyone that Muslims are not the enemy no matter what these "totally not nazi's" say.
 

TheRealCJ

New member
Mar 28, 2009
1,831
0
0
bobdole1979 said:
I'm not a fan of people calling him "The Prophet Muhammad" Just call him Muhammad if you aren't Muslim. Otherwise its like always referring to Jesus as "Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ"

Since this happened all the news channels keep calling him "the Prophet Muhammad"

Great video btw
Using the phrase "The Prophet Muhammad" isn't like calling Jesus "our lord and savior." It's more akin to something like "Saint Paul." Basically, it's an honorific used to help identify whom you're talking about to those without context.

Hell, it's EXACTLY like saying "Jesus Christ," "Christ" being the translation from Hebrew for "Messiah"
 

TheRealCJ

New member
Mar 28, 2009
1,831
0
0
JMac85 said:
I'm really sick of that "punching up/down" bullshit when it comes to saying what jokes you're allowed to make. If you have a point to make, it shouldn't matter how "privileged" you are compared to the person or entity you're ripping on.
The term "Punching up/down" is somewhat hard to explain in specific context. But the real issue is that if someone really is absolutely without power, making things worse is just a dick move. Think about it like this: If someone is so powerless that nothing they do matters, it making fun of them going to change anything? Satire is supposed to sway people, convince them that they should change their opinions on specific subjects. You're not really supposed to preach to the choir.

Imagine somebody made a satirical cartoon about how dirty and useless, say, the Palestinians are. They're as low a people as they could possibly be without being totally wiped out, and if someone is sympathetic towards them, you're not going to make them suddenly say "Wow, I guess I really SHOULD hate them and wish them all dead." If they AREN'T sympathetic to them, you're just going to make them think "Yeah, this is how I feel exactly, and therefore my bias is confirmed."

It's not about where the CARTOONIST is in terms of social power, it's about where society is as a whole. Making fun of Mitt Romney for being obscenely wealthy is much more powerful than making fun of a homeless person for being obscenely poor.
 

rofltehcat

New member
Jul 24, 2009
635
0
0
Scorpid said:
I feel bad for the muslims of europe. What worries me is that france had mobilized their national guard and all that I was thinking "Against what? Crazy lone gunmen?" The truth is they probably mobilized them to look like they were doing something which inflamed an already scared populace against muslims that were in turn already being looked at as suspicious at best. And now the anti muslim groups around Europe have even more poltical capital to rally support for their ass backwards cause and the muslim extremists are happy because they want just that. They want Europe and the US to be viewed as anti islam by all muslims so this works to their advantage as well. I hope the moderates manage to convince everyone that Muslims are not the enemy no matter what these "totally not nazi's" say.
I really dislike groups like PEGIDA that are demonstrating against Muslims and Muslim influence. But as long as they stay within the confines of the law I have to accept their demonstrations. I can still go to counter-demonstrations (usually much larger than the demonstrations against Muslims) and signal my disagreement with their rabble-rousing. I really dislike that they may be able to use this tragedy to gain more followers.

But I disagree with you on the mobilization of the national guard and police: Had the politicians not shown a presence of security personnel it could as well have been understood as a sign of lacking response by these anti-Muslim groups. This way there was a response that politicians can point towards as "see? we're not ignoring any issues" while not really doing anything. It is also a question of public safety: Demonstrations need to be guarded by security personnel or else the people demonstrating might partake in illegal activities or might start a fight with groups demonstrating for opposing goals. I'd have preferred it if they had stuck to just using the police but I think they may not have had the amount of personnel required to do it.
 

Akjosch

New member
Sep 12, 2014
155
0
0
Rattja said:
It is easy for you to say they should just ignore it, but you have to understand how hard that would be. They can ignore this just as much as you can ignore them. You can't do that because you keep hearing about them, and they can't do that because they keep hearing about you (or maybe not you personally, but the people who draws, whatever you get the point).
I'm not WhiteNachos, but I actually quite like the idea of mutual ignoring each other.

I can ignore them and do whatever the hell I want, for example mock all the religions in the world, including Islam.

They can in turn ignore me, and do whatever the hell they want, including mocking all the religions in the world, including Christianity.

I don't care what they do. They don't care what I do. Everybody wins.
 

TheRealCJ

New member
Mar 28, 2009
1,831
0
0
JMac85 said:
Boris Goodenough said:
The name Muhammed is very common among Muslims, Jesus is not common among Christians (save for Spanish speaking countries/communities).
And yet if you name a teddy bear Muhammad, you're arrested and possibly whipped. Also, a mob of 10,000 people will demand your blood.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudanese_teddy_bear_blasphemy_case

But no, this is a culture we should totally respect.
Islam is not a "culture" any more than global Christianity (including all sub sects like Catholicism and Mormonism) are a "culture."

Sudan is firmly a Third-world country, and when an uninformed people turn to religion, it usually gets taking much more literally, or they take to heart what fire-and-brimstone preachers tell them. In Sudan, Nigera, and Uganda; Their mostly CHRISTIAN people still beat and kill gay people in the street, and worse, lock them up or punish them to death.

Did you know that in Britain, people were being jailed for "blasphemy" (against Christianity, natch) as late as the 1970s? Just because places like Afghanistan and Third-World Africa haven't caught up, doesn't mean that the religion itself is the main problem. People have ALWAYS used various religions for an excuse to dominate others. Claiming that one religion inherently evil at its core is simply ignorance.
 

TheRealCJ

New member
Mar 28, 2009
1,831
0
0
Akjosch said:
Rattja said:
It is easy for you to say they should just ignore it, but you have to understand how hard that would be. They can ignore this just as much as you can ignore them. You can't do that because you keep hearing about them, and they can't do that because they keep hearing about you (or maybe not you personally, but the people who draws, whatever you get the point).
I'm not WhiteNachos, but I actually quite like the idea of mutual ignoring each other.

I can ignore them and do whatever the hell I want, for example mock all the religions in the world, including Islam.

They can in turn ignore me, and do whatever the hell they want, including mocking all the religions in the world, including Christianity.

I don't care what they do. They don't care what I do. Everybody wins.
While I agree with that, I think a BIG chunk of the problem is that the "west" was based almost entirely on Christianity and Christian values. With Christianity being the most powerful across the globe, they had the power and 'right' to say and do and kill who they wanted. Did you know that the ban against depicting Muhammad was borne from centuries of Christian mockery? in the 1600s, there was a LOT of religious texts both Judaic and Muslim that had art of Muhummad... Then for about 300 years, Christian artists in Europe started depicting him as a hapless fool. There is a running them among Renaissance art that showed Muhummad being trampled and stood upon by angels or tortured in hell: http://www.zombietime.com/mohammed_image_archive/euro_medi_ren/ After centuries of that, one tends to develop an inferiority complex. and after a Century of THAT inferiority complex (not to mention all the slicing up of the middle east after the two world wars) it's mutated into outright hatred.

The way I see the current Islamic "terrorism" situation is that (when not motivated by political reasons, but rather religious) is them basically fighting back after centuries of being shat on by the entire western world (Like the aforementioned World Wars, and many instances of being manipulated by western governments).

They are George McFly punching Biff Tannen out.

And like most schoolyard fights, once someone fights back against the bigger bully, usually they are the ones being for being violent bullies. For fighting back.

please keep in mind this is an extreme over-simplification, and global geo-politics is a lot more complicated than this. also keep in mind that this is not justification for the murder of innocent people, just a simple explanation of the situation and possibly why "ISLAM" is seen to be so terrible
 

TheRealCJ

New member
Mar 28, 2009
1,831
0
0
uanime5er said:
I though the South Park episode was about the dangers of extreme plastic surgery, mainly because I'd previously watched programmes about a man who had plastic surgery to become more like a cat and another man who wanted to be a lizard.
No, I'm gonna say it is specifically about Transgender people. The whole crux of the story was Mister Garrison becoming MRS Garrison, and the big "Today I learned" speech is from Her(/him) saying "I'm not really a woman, I'm just a man with an inside-out Penis"

Is it offensive? Yes. am I offended? No. But I can sympathise with those who would be. I wouldn't necessarily agree that South Park is explicitly anti-Trans, because they are basically anti-everything. They make fun of stuff I love all the time. But my personal feeling are kinda moot, since I'm not a Transvestite. It's like when they made fun of WoW, I heard a LOT of people complaining about how south park stereotyped WoW players into fat, unhygienic no-lives.
 

WhiteNachos

New member
Jul 25, 2014
647
0
0
Rattja said:
WhiteNachos said:
Rattja said:
To be honest, the more I hear about this the more it just sounds like a fight small children would have, only that there is no adult that can just grab them and pull them apart and talk some sense to them.
One keeps calling the other names, the other one hates it and gets violent. But instead of punishing them both, the one calling the other names is cheered on by everyone and actually asked to keep doing so. Do something like that in school and that is straight up bullying.
This isn't like schoolyard bullying. Those offended people can just not read the magazine and ignore that it exists.

Rattja said:
Terrorism is wrong, but making fun of people that clearly do not like you doing so is also wrong,
I disagree, it's a magazine they can easily avoid, no one is forcing them to listen to their insults and they are free to insult them back.

Criticism can be insulting or take the form of mockery.
Well essentially I think it is just like a schoolyard where two kids are going at eachother and none of them wants to back down or reconsider their approach because they are both convinced they are doing the right thing, because in their mind they are.

It is easy for you to say they should just ignore it, but you have to understand how hard that would be.
They are adults. They are not children, they are not wild animals, expecting them to deal with people saying bad things about them without violence should be part of being an adult.

But if they really don't want to ignore them, they have options. Free speech means they also have the right to call the magazine a shitty tabloid staffed by assholes or whatever. Murder is way the hell disproportionate retribution. So they are clearly in the wrong here, full stop. Even if it was just assault they'd still be in the wrong.

Rattja said:
They can ignore this just as much as you can ignore them.
It's impossible to ignore being shot. Ignoring a magazine nobody is forcing you to read is a whole different matter.

Rattja said:
You can't do that because you keep hearing about them, and they can't do that because they keep hearing about you (or maybe not you personally, but the people who draws, whatever you get the point).
I hear about Frozen a lot but I've never seen it, or heard Let it Go.
 

TheRealCJ

New member
Mar 28, 2009
1,831
0
0
Nods Respectfully Towards You said:
hentropy said:
Regardless of what Jewish law says you don't see it being practiced in any western nations while Sharia law on the other hand is considered the law of the land in many countries and some Muslims that could be considered 'moderate' are trying to push for it to be allowed to be used in Europe and the US. Religious text can say whatever they want but as soon as someone tries to actually practice it that's when the law might take issue.
Sorry, but muslims trying to push "Sharia" is no different than Christians trying to push for "Christian Values" in the legal system.

Actually, I lie. There is one big difference: The Muslims trying to push for Sharia law don't have dozens of members in high-government pushing on their behalf. An imam trying to install Sharia Law is at best laughed off as a crazy, at worst investigated for "Ties to Terrorism" and/or claimed as a radical. Meanwhile in California Proposition 8 is not only taken seriously, but makes it far as a state-wide vote. Not to mention that other states are enacting laws against abortion and gay marriage on 100% religious grounds. Not to mention either so-called "Blue Laws" across the country that ban the sale of Alcohol, and sometimes even ban any trading at all.
 

Mcupobob

New member
Jun 29, 2009
3,449
0
0
I was so angry at the Charlie Hedbo attacks, I kept thinking about how much blood I wanted out of those damn religious extremist. I didn't even bother thinking about all the different angles. I don't often %100 agree with you bob, but I do here. Its hard during the age of the 24/hour news cycle that's looking for a boobgyman that you don't stop and think "Is this right?".

There's a lot more to consider than just Muslims=bad. That kind of absolute thinking has proven to be awful.
 

TheRealCJ

New member
Mar 28, 2009
1,831
0
0
uanime5er said:
hentropy said:
JMac85 said:
"Some people" nothing. That's Sharia Law...

Yet there aren't Christian or Jews forcing people to live by these rules. By contrast there are Muslims trying to force non-Muslims to obey sharia law.
See what I wrote above; There are laws ALREADY in place based on "Christian values." Christians in the west ABSOLUTELY demand you obey their religion's laws.
 

TheRealCJ

New member
Mar 28, 2009
1,831
0
0
Mcupobob said:
I was so angry at the Charlie Hedbo attacks, I kept thinking about how much blood I wanted out of those damn religious extremist. I didn't even bother thinking about all the different angles. I don't often %100 agree with you bob, but I do here. Its hard during the age of the 24/hour news cycle that's looking for a boobgyman that you don't stop and think "Is this right?".
I felt the same way when I saw the thousands dead in Palestine. But apparently if I voice the opinion that Israel are basically attempting to wipe out an entire people via landgrabs and literal genocide, I'm being "anti-semetic" and "Pro-terrorist."