The Big Picture: Je Suis Charlie

[rofltehcat]

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]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[TheRealCJ]

Double post, sorry.

 

[rofltehcat]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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.

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]

*snip*

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]

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]

"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]

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."

 

[WhiteNachos]

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.

There's a difference between being against free speech and criticizing speech for dumb and/or hypocritical reasons.

He said free speech (as in the legal right to say things) should be near absolute.

 

[Joseph Hutzulak]

"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.

Albania is the one muslim majority country were religious minorities dont face institutionalized discrimination.

 

[WhiteNachos]

I know I've made a couple posts slamming the whole punch up/punch down bit but there's something else that's bugged me that I couldn't put my finger on until just now.

This rule basically means that you're allowed to punch up but they're not allowed to retaliate because that would be 'punching down'.

So if you still believe in this rule you should realize that to some of us it looks like a set of rules designed as a way to avoid criticism/backlash while allowing the person to dish it out as much as they want.

 

[TheRealCJ]

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.

Exactly. If you make fun of a well-off hipster for eating bad cheap food, that's mocking a decision they have made; they have every opportunity to eat better but they choose to eat badly. Meanwhile, if you make the EXACT same joke about a poor person living in government housing eating the same bad cheap food, it's not making fun of a lifestyle they have chosen, it's mocking them for something they have no choice over.

Like I have said to Gamergaters and Feminists alike: You CANNOT apply one rule to fit all. That's simply not how society works. There has to be context and understanding.