The Big Picture: Je Suis Charlie

[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."

Yeah, those poor Palestinians that use people as human shields after preforming bombings and mostly support a confirmed terrorist organization like Hamas. Or how about every time Israel tried to actually allow Palestine exist Palestine almost immediately attacked them? Now I don't always agree with Israel but Palestinians are far from the innocent oppressed victims so many people make them out to be.

Oh that's right, because if a small number is like that, all of them are like that. Every child is destined to become a suicide bomber and every adult is simply biding their time.

Rules of engagement 101, sunshine: if your enemy is using human Shields, you stop shooting at that enemy.

 

[The Deadpool]

I was on my way to posting "oh yay, I agree with Bob again" but then he went on this long speech about punching up/punching down and stopped short of the obvious conclusion: It's a bullshit notion.

Morality is defined by ACTS, not perpetrators. A moral person is one who commits moral ACTS, not the other way around. The act defines the person, not the person defining the act.

A joke is either morally acceptable or it isn't based on its own merits. It has NOTHING to do with who makes it and who the target is.

People seem to have a real hard time with this concept...

 

[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.

Are you really going to compare banning of gay marriage to fucking executing homosexuals outright? Or how about blue laws that completely ban the sale of alcohol outright rather than just on Sundays? Hell, the worst you can face for leaving Christianity by becoming an atheist or practicing some other religion is that you could become a social pariah among devout peers, in Sharia law however it's actually a serious fucking crime not to mention they treat non-Muslim people that want to live in countries that practice it as second class citizens. Christian fundamentalists aren't quite right either but I'd gladly take them over Muslim extremists since they're statistically far less likely to kill me and rarely control government enough to institute laws that hamper basic human rights. It's like comparing a thief to a serial killer, they're both bad but one is far worse than the other.

Okay, let's use your thief/serial killer analogy and apply it to the situation in the US.

Right now, the serial killer is waving his empty hands and telling everybody he is totally going to do it no really any day now. Look, another serial killer did it on the other side of the world, so I will too. No really. How will I do it? Well, I'll do it with this knife that I don't have.

Meanwhile, the thief has already robbed you blind and is coming back tomorrow. Which one would you be more concerned about.

 

[Farther than stars]

But the problem exists because xenophobic messages don't distinguish between being Muslim/Arab/etc. and being an extremist. This makes it a lot harder to non-extremist Muslims/ethnic groups to have a decent living in society. And we're not talking about "some individuals", we're talking about the majority of the group, who suffer under a stereotype.
Besides, why do you think ridicule is a good thing? It's not that I believe the Earth is flat or that the sky is make of a rug, but I do believe that the right of religious freedom requires a certain degree of respect for people with other beliefs. So why do you think that ridicule is a good thing?

Call it the "laws of Jante".

Ridicule is good, for all of us, because it makes sure we don't go "holier than thou".

"No your particular social club (religion) is NOT more important than the other guy's social club. They're equally stupid. One believes that Snakes and Donkeys can talk, and that the entire population of the Earth is the result of MASSIVE inbreeding, and the other believes the ravings of some illiterate who married a 9-year-old plus most of what the other guy believes".

Year sure. I'll respect religions equally (because I don't respect them at all. I see religions as a tool of a despot wanting to keep power).

Alright, so far I buy it. So do you think atheists should be ridiculed as well?

Sure, but not necessarily for their "non-faith" (since their stance of "I haven't seen anything that convinces me of the existence of any particular deity" is a rather logical and truthful one), but rather their aggressive stance perhaps.

I mean when I describe myself with my multitude of self-imposed labels (gamer, petrol-head, plane-nut, military nut, atheist, Dane, European), I always do it with a self aware (at least I hope) presence of "yes I know, I'm geeky, I can recite every variant of F-16 Fighting Falcon, and I have a collection of eclectic videogames, and I can recognise a car going by simply by the exhaust note, not to mention the fact that I come from a country where kids start drinking alcohol at age 13".

EDIT:

Again, regarding the atheism bit. I know I can be aggressive, and I have no issues with being mocked, or ridiculed for that. But being ridiculed for simply being honest? You know, whatever. I can't conceive of a way to do it, but I'm ready to be surprised.

OK, fair enough. But I also think we're both fairly privileged people in the sense that we've developed a thick skin against criticism, but I do think we should still take into account the feelings of people who don't have a similarly thick skin. Saying that you're willing to be stabbed simply isn't enough of a moral justification for stabbing other people.
But I do like your argument of using ridicule to stop people becoming haughty. And I think to that end it could be useful against atheism as well. As a matter of fact, I don't think that your stance is as logical and truthful as you claim. That in itself is a zealous statement (in the same vein as calling something the "one true faith"), because it assumes that rejecting a belief due to lack of evidence is the correct stance by default. That becomes problematic when you realize that evidence itself is based on axioms (basic beliefs), namely the axioms that evidence can be gathered and is correct. If those axioms are valid in your logic, then what makes the axiom of God invalid?
But even if I accepted that rejecting a belief due to lack of evidence is correct, then the lack of evidence regarding the non-existence of God would make that belief irrational as well. Then the question would arise why you are an atheist, instead of an agnostic.
I do not intend to convert you from being an atheist to being an agnostic, but I do think that atheism is a belief like any other. Also, here is a monologue by Louis CK ridiculing both Christians and atheists, from about 4:05 minutes:[link]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YYfajPXdvSM[/link]

 

[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."

Yeah, those poor Palestinians that use people as human shields after preforming bombings and mostly support a confirmed terrorist organization like Hamas. Or how about every time Israel tried to actually allow Palestine exist Palestine almost immediately attacked them? Now I don't always agree with Israel but Palestinians are far from the innocent oppressed victims so many people make them out to be.

Oh that's right, because if a small number is like that, all of them are like that. Every child is destined to become a suicide bomber and every adult is simply biding their time.

Rules of engagement 101, sunshine: if your enemy is using human Shields, you stop shooting at that enemy.

When the organization largely in charge of the effort to reinstate Palestine is a terrorist organization, it makes me a tad less sympathetic for their cause. Also, what the fuck do you expect Israel to do? Just let terrorists shoot bombs at them with no attempt to stop them whatsoever? Every time they retaliate they warn everyone in the vicinity to get the fuck out of the way. It's not their fault Palestine does the exact opposite and tells citizens to go in the areas Israel is returning fire so they can make them martyrs or attacking them from schools or hospitals in order to make Israel look like the instigators. Until Hamas is taken out of the equation, relations between Palestine and Israel will never be stable.

Israel has THE most effective missile defense system on the planet. The casualty rate is so asymmetrical it stopped being a war a decade ago. The fact of the matter is that even as Palestine attempts to join the UN and ICC, Israel is opposing all diplomatic attempts at peace. The government of Israel is growing steadily more right-wing, and it's in their best political interests to prolong the war as long as they can.

But why am I bothering? The Israelis can do no wrong, because something something Holocaust.

 

[MrFalconfly]

OK, fair enough. But I also think we're both fairly privileged people in the sense that we've developed a thick skin against criticism, but I do think we should still take into account the feelings of people who don't have a similarly thick skin.

Mate, I'll be the first to admit that I might be privileged for living in Denmark. I mean as far as I know, no other country has a "State Educational Grant and Loan Scheme" which means that I get roughly $1000 per month for pursuing a higher education.

Saying that you're willing to be stabbed simply isn't enough of a moral justification for stabbing other people.

Gonna have to stop you there mate.

How, in any way, is stabbing comparable with drawing a cartoon? I mean, I've heard of slippery slopes, but don't you think this is a bit much?

Well just to be absolutely certain. I don't think that's a valid argument, simply because stabbing actually hurts you, while a cartoon don't have any pathological effect save for maybe causing a bit of anger.

But I do like your argument of using ridicule to stop people becoming haughty. And I think to that end it could be useful against atheism as well. As a matter of fact, I don't think that your stance is as logical and truthful as you claim. That in itself is a zealous statement (in the same vein as calling something the "one true faith"), because it assumes that rejecting a belief due to lack of evidence is the correct stance by default.

Is it not? I'd assume that "suspending judgement until further data presents itself" would be fairly logical. I mean currently I don't believe in any deity, because I haven't seen anything to support it. If you show me any kind of data that suggest that some form of deity exists, then I'll gladly take my position up for reconsideration.

That becomes problematic when you realize that evidence itself is based on axioms (basic beliefs), namely the axioms that evidence can be gathered and is correct. If those axioms are valid in your logic, then what makes the axiom of God invalid?

Oh bugger. I suddenly remember why I found Philosophy class so tedious. Sorry mate, nothing against you. I just find these kinds of "logical arguments" a bit annoying.

But in this case, the reason I reject "God" is simply because I see him/her as an unneeded variable in the "equation of the universe" (very simplified, it's like saying (A*B)+C=(D/E)+C. It's clear that C is just an unneeded variable in that equation, given that the value C can be litterally anything, without affecting the rest of the equation)

But even if I accepted that rejecting a belief due to lack of evidence is correct, then the lack of evidence regarding the non-existence of God would make that belief irrational as well. Then the question would arise why you are an atheist, instead of an agnostic.

You are asking me to prove a negative. Something that is impossible in science. Indeed that is counter to the very mechanism of science. Science works by testing falsifiable hypothesis, and if there isn't even a mechanism by which something can be falsified the next-best thing I can do is falsify all the periphral bullshit in the holy texts.

Like the Flood of Noah. I live in Denmark. A land whose geology consists of a loose collection of chalk, stones and gravel. If the Flood of Noah actually happened, it would be very clear not only in the geological strata, but the fact that Denmark wouldn't exist.

Or the Dead-Row chronology of the Bible (which suggest an age of the Earth of roughly 10,000 years give and take a few thousands). Sorry, but we have actual data that suggests the Earth are orders of magnetude older than a mere 10,000 yeas, and the universe around it even older than that.

And basically, the reason I label myself an Atheist, rather than an Agnostic, is simply because I live under the assumption that everything in the universe can be understood to some extend. Agnosticism posits that some things simply can't be answered, and I'm simply not satisfied with that. I live for seeking answers to the unknown. And you telling me something CAN'T be known, is counter to the very reason why I think it's awesome to live.

I do not intend to convert you from being an atheist to being an agnostic, but I do think that atheism is a belief like any other. Also, here is a monologue by Louis CK ridiculing both Christians and atheists, from about 4:05 minutes:[link]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YYfajPXdvSM[/link]

Sorry about the video, but it isn't available in my country.

Bugger that region-coding.

 

[TERRORADE]

Laws against assault would prohibit punching them. It's also a grossly disproportionate response.

Also violence isn't a valid criticism, it's more like censorship.

You are absolutely right. And with only the exception of the law part, I said as much.

But what you're proposing isn't free speech. It's not free speech unless you can say it without fear of disproportionate reprisals.

There are a number of ways I can respond to this. First, Charlie Hebdo didn't innocently post these toons, unaware of how their opposition would receive it. They knew full well the responses they would engender, and who they would be agitating. They fully intended to offend, and remain steadfast in their intentions to continue so, to show the world and most especially their enemies that they are not afraid. That's as free as free speech gets.

But secondly, in a greater sense, it begs the question - is there really such a thing as "free"? Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. That's just a simple law of the universe we exist in. We can claim that it's free all we want, but that doesn't stop the universe from applying its cost. Elevating the the speech to be nigh untouchable, also elevates the efforts of it's opponents to negate it. Attempts to deny the equation from either side will only lead to an endless cycle of mutually assured destruction (terrorism on their end; war, and all the baggage that comes with it, on ours). Of course, we could always preempt their response by silencing them entirely. But like I say in my response to your later quote, in keeping with the arithmetic, we'll prove ourselves to be no better than they.

You can jump into a fire to prove a point, but your belief in the point won't cool the burns.
You can dive into the ocean to prove a point, but your belief in the point won't keep you dry.
You can kick a beehive to prove a point, but your belief in the point wont stop the stings.

Your meaning is somewhat lost when the 'criticism' was mass murder.

I addressed that in the very first sentence of my response (not counting the intro paragraph). But what I'm referring to in that final statement is the sudden rush by so many figures to lionize ALL of Charlie's works as some sacred and untouchable, and infallible idol to be worshipped and knelt before in the name of "free speech". The ideology behind that is a reflection of the very same mentality that keeps violent extremists clinging so tightly to the infallibility of Muhammad and his image. Without reason and moderation - or at the very least, self awareness - one risks becoming the very same thing he/she claims to be fighting against. I'll say it again, murder is NOT criticism. The folks at Charlie Hebdo have every right to express themselves, and we (the people) have the equal right voice our opinions on it - whether it be pleasure or distaste. You can't stop them from saying/drawing it, but you're under no obligation to elevate their platform.

I'm not justifying what happened - there's really no way to. I'm just saying I'm not surprised.

 

[teamcharlie]

Murder: was illegal, still is illegal.
Free speech: all good, not threatened.
Drawing Muhammad (Naked? Really?) and publishing it: not a joke. Not satire. Not funny. Definitely racist.
Terrorists who murder employees at a racist newspaper: assholes. Definitely people who deserve to be put in jail/prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

Seriously though, siding with free speech is great. But even when hate speech is legally protected, it's still a stupid idea.

[Also, no. I'm not team Charlie Hedbo. I just think Twilight is hilarious.]

 

[MrFalconfly]

Drawing Muhammad (Naked? Really?) and publishing it: not a joke. Not satire. Not funny. Definitely racist.

One question mate.

How is taking the piss on religion in any way "racist"?

EDIT:

And if you think it is, would this picture also be racist then?

Spoiler: Warning! May cause certain mentally unstable people to grab for Kalashnikov rifles and try to execute you

 

[vallorn]

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.

The way I see it. People demanding my respect generally don't deserve it. Respect must be earned, it is not a given right for someone to respect someone else or their actions. Merely to tolerate them if they are not illegal. It's why as a gay guy I don't go to gay pride stuff. I'm happy with just letting people know on a need to know basis and I'm not gonna yell it out to the rooftops... Well maybe if my boyfriend proposed but I'm pretty sure that's understandable.

Anyway. Yes back on topic, respect has to be earned and it can be lost, it cannot be demanded for that is the cry of insecurity or egomania rather than respectable, civil conduct.

EDIT:

Murder: was illegal, still is illegal.
Free speech: all good, not threatened.
Drawing Muhammad (Naked? Really?) and publishing it: not a joke. Not satire. Not funny. Definitely racist.
Terrorists who murder employees at a racist newspaper: assholes. Definitely people who deserve to be put in jail/prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

Seriously though, siding with free speech is great. But even when hate speech is legally protected, it's still a stupid idea.

[Also, no. I'm not team Charlie Hedbo. I just think Twilight is hilarious.]

I don't think you understand what racism is. Islam is a religion not a race. What you are trying to justify is not anti racism but a set of blasphemy laws like europe had long ago where one could be put to death for satirizing Christ or the Pope (Or, at a stretch, Royalty through the whole Divine Right Of Kings bollocks.)

All religion can be mocked and mocking it in that way? Well, you could write letters or not buy it if you find it so offensive. But being offended by something is not a reason to demand it's removal. Criticize it yes by all means, but nothing should be off limits in speech either in the saying of or the criticizing of what is said.

 

[teamcharlie]

Drawing Muhammad (Naked? Really?) and publishing it: not a joke. Not satire. Not funny. Definitely racist.

One question mate.

How is taking the piss on religion in any way "racist"?

EDIT:

And if you think it is, would this picture also be racist then?

(Sa-nip)

Yep. Much in the same way that doing something unkind to a picture of the pope and then publishing the results would be offensive to Catholics, except with the added bonus (sarcasm!) that the common conception of Muslim people is (generally dark-skinned) Arab, and that thereby publishing an image designed to offend Muslim people is also by implication an attempt to offend brown people (whether or not most Muslim people are actually of relatively darker skin tone).

So no, depicting Muhammad is not taking the piss on religion in this case. It's saying something designed to shock and offend historically oppressed people and pretending that that's a joke.

 

[V4Viewtiful]

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.

true but they had the same rights as those slave owners and had prospects to become so, in order to give black people freedom they had to take THAT power away from themselves and those that used it. That's all I meant.

 

[Farther than stars]

You can safely assume that anything I haven't responded to, I accept.

Saying that you're willing to be stabbed simply isn't enough of a moral justification for stabbing other people.

Gonna have to stop you there mate.

How, in any way, is stabbing comparable with drawing a cartoon? I mean, I've heard of slippery slopes, but don't you think this is a bit much?

Well just to be absolutely certain. I don't think that's a valid argument, simply because stabbing actually hurts you, while a cartoon don't have any pathological effect save for maybe causing a bit of anger.

That was an exaggeration, to illustrate my analysis, because it applies the same to the act of insulting people. Just because anger and sorrow aren't physical wounds doesn't mean that it's fine to recklessly make statements that harm other people on an emotional level. I think calling it "a bit of anger" is just belittling to the offended party.

But I do like your argument of using ridicule to stop people becoming haughty. And I think to that end it could be useful against atheism as well. As a matter of fact, I don't think that your stance is as logical and truthful as you claim. That in itself is a zealous statement (in the same vein as calling something the "one true faith"), because it assumes that rejecting a belief due to lack of evidence is the correct stance by default.

Is it not? I'd assume that "suspending judgement until further data presents itself" would be fairly logical.

But that's my point. That's just an assumption. All I'm asking is for an explanation as to why that assumption is more valid than the assumption that God exists.

That becomes problematic when you realize that evidence itself is based on axioms (basic beliefs), namely the axioms that evidence can be gathered and is correct. If those axioms are valid in your logic, then what makes the axiom of God invalid?

Oh bugger. I suddenly remember why I found Philosophy class so tedious. Sorry mate, nothing against you. I just find these kinds of "logical arguments" a bit annoying.

But in this case, the reason I reject "God" is simply because I see him/her as an unneeded variable in the "equation of the universe" (very simplified, it's like saying (A*B)+C=(D/E)+C. It's clear that C is just an unneeded variable in that equation, given that the value C can be litterally anything, without affecting the rest of the equation)

Just because something is unnecessary doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

You are asking me to prove a negative. Something that is impossible in science. Indeed that is counter to the very mechanism of science. Science works by testing falsifiable hypothesis, and if there isn't even a mechanism by which something can be falsified the next-best thing I can do is falsify all the periphral bullshit in the holy texts.

Here's the important part: linguistically you are correct, but if we are going to tackle the question of whether or not God exists scientifically, then the concepts of existence and non-existence can be used interchangeably, the reason being that existence/nonexistence are conclusions from (non-)falsification of the hypothesis "God exists". But the problem is that if you take "God exists" as your hypothesis, then you cannot falsify it. This means that you cannot make any scientific statements about whether or not God exists, because it's not a falsifiable hypothesis (this is the same conclusion made by the philosopher who pioneered the falsification method, Karl Popper). For this, it is irrelevant whether you can technically test your hypothesis. The fact that string theory cannot be falsified due to our (current) state of technology means that we cannot know whether it exists or not, regardless of whether or not it objectively exists.
Given such a lack of technical ability to test your hypothesis, all you can do (scientifically) is table the hypothesis and let it be, but it is incredibly unscientific to prove a related hypothesis and then assume your original hypothesis to be true as well (as you are doing by disproving religious texts). For instance, a duck is an animal, like a dog. I want to prove the hypothesis "ducks lay eggs". It is then not sufficient for me to falsify the hypothesis "dogs lay eggs" and therefor assume that ducks don't lay eggs either.
The result is that awareness of God no longer becomes a question of scientific knowledge but belief, my original argument. It therefor becomes a personal matter of whether or not you believe in God, with neither side being able to disprove (falsify) the other side's belief. And because it's a matter of belief, two principles - (1) the right to religious freedom and (2) a respect for other religions/beliefs - become essential.

And basically, the reason I label myself an Atheist, rather than an Agnostic, is simply because I live under the assumption that everything in the universe can be understood to some extend. Agnosticism posits that some things simply can't be answered, and I'm simply not satisfied with that. I live for seeking answers to the unknown. And you telling me something CAN'T be known, is counter to the very reason why I think it's awesome to live.

This is also a belief, the same comforting feeling that religious people use to justify their own beliefs. That doesn't make it illegitimate, but it also doesn't make it superior to other beliefs.

 

[smowton]

*applauds

Precisely the nuance that needs drawing out here; great episode, Bob.

 

[cathou]

I see no reason for why one particular religion get's special rights that no other religion has (and to hell with punching up or down. The murderers had guns, so the cartoonists were definitely "Punching Up" on that one).

The problem with xenophobia in France is that it doesn't discriminate very well between various Muslims/Arabs/Persians/North Africans. The criticism against the cartoons isn't that they're punching up at extremists, but that they're painting in such large brushstrokes that innocent people are ridiculed and marginalized as a result, strengthening the xenophobia. And it's not just about foreigners and French Muslims. Gay people and the labour class also routinely feel marginalized by Charlie Hebdo.

wait, what ? charlie hebdo is many things. some people like what there were doing, some people dont. sometimes they trash so hard that they get sued. they go after establishement, religion, and human stupidity. You can like them or not. But, they are NOT racist, or homophobic in anyway. i dont recall any outcry from te french gay community against charlie hebdo. what they would ? charlie was defending them !

i've found the perfect site. just what people especially on the net need. i was preparing a very long post, but this explain it all


http://www.understandingcharliehebdo.com/

 

[Callate]

Well, being uncontroversial is in itself not enough to justify an action, if that action is inherently harmful. If we let society dictate what actions, beliefs and statements are just/correct based on what it finds controversial, then we (in the West) would still be living in a totalitarian society, rife with homophobia, accepting of slavery, where zealots burn people at the stake for believing the sun goes around the earth (to name just a few consequences of deficient criticism).
If the drawings created for Charlie Hebdo are harmful to social justice, then this shouldn't be emulated or encouraged, no matter how horrific the deaths of its artists.

But "harmful to social justice" is a very vague accusation on which to condemn an action, and one that can be viewed very differently by different parties. Does making fun of the prophet Mohammed encourage violence and discrimination against Muslims? Or does it encourage people to be find humor in groups the local news often suggests they should be find terrifying, humorless, and dangerous?

What about editorials about police violence? Rallying a long-persecuted group in solidarity towards reform of law enforcement? Or encouraging violence against hard-working public servants?

Until a strong consensus, preferably backed by hard evidence, can make a case that genuine harm has been done- as is the case in matters like totalitarianism and slavery- it is important that discussion continues, even if some of the tools of that discussion offend some parties. Like satirical cartoons.

 

[Farther than stars]

I see no reason for why one particular religion get's special rights that no other religion has (and to hell with punching up or down. The murderers had guns, so the cartoonists were definitely "Punching Up" on that one).

The problem with xenophobia in France is that it doesn't discriminate very well between various Muslims/Arabs/Persians/North Africans. The criticism against the cartoons isn't that they're punching up at extremists, but that they're painting in such large brushstrokes that innocent people are ridiculed and marginalized as a result, strengthening the xenophobia. And it's not just about foreigners and French Muslims. Gay people and the labour class also routinely feel marginalized by Charlie Hebdo.

wait, what ? charlie hebdo is many things. some people like what there were doing, some people dont. sometimes they trash so hard that they get sued. they go after establishement, religion, and human stupidity. You can like them or not. But, they are NOT racist, or homophobic in anyway. i dont recall any outcry from te french gay community against charlie hebdo. what they would ? charlie was defending them !

i've found the perfect site. just what people especially on the net need. i was preparing a very long post, but this explain it all


http://www.understandingcharliehebdo.com/

I suppose the general problem here is what happened during the third wave of feminism: some people within the movement are going to disagree with other people within the movement about the movement's goals and methods. Is Miley Cyrus's twerking debasement for the satisfaction of male viewers or is it a public demonstration of (female) sexual liberty? And I have to admit, the magazine has both supporters and critics from inside the gay community.
Personally, however, I feel its brand of satire is too opaque to be defending gay rights. To dig deeper for further messages that might support gay rights is possible, but those are often so far fetched as to be lost on most readers. It boils down to the argument surrounding GTA V that it's not simply enough to copy offensive stereotypes to be a satirist (hey! I briefly made it about gaming again). The depictions of Dieudonné and Jesus Christ with the Roman Soldier are a couple of perfect examples, in which the act of anal penetration is shown in a negative light. The whole depiction of a gay act being used as a punishment is perverse and juvenile, generating the subliminal suggestion that homosexuality is something to be feared. It's not even a necessary image, because it doesn't contribute to the political point being made. And very often when the magazine does defend gay rights, it's only used as a tool to take a stab at religious institutions.
Am I suggesting that any of this homophobia and racism is deliberate and malicious? No. But I do think Charlie Hebdo could be more considerate in their handling with such sensitive issues.

Well, being uncontroversial is in itself not enough to justify an action, if that action is inherently harmful. If we let society dictate what actions, beliefs and statements are just/correct based on what it finds controversial, then we (in the West) would still be living in a totalitarian society, rife with homophobia, accepting of slavery, where zealots burn people at the stake for believing the sun goes around the earth (to name just a few consequences of deficient criticism).
If the drawings created for Charlie Hebdo are harmful to social justice, then this shouldn't be emulated or encouraged, no matter how horrific the deaths of its artists.

But "harmful to social justice" is a very vague accusation on which to condemn an action, and one that can be viewed very differently by different parties. Does making fun of the prophet Mohammed encourage violence and discrimination against Muslims? Or does it encourage people to be find humor in groups the local news often suggests they should be find terrifying, humorless, and dangerous?

What about editorials about police violence? Rallying a long-persecuted group in solidarity towards reform of law enforcement? Or encouraging violence against hard-working public servants?

Until a strong consensus, preferably backed by hard evidence, can make a case that genuine harm has been done- as is the case in matters like totalitarianism and slavery- it is important that discussion continues, even if some of the tools of that discussion offend some parties. Like satirical cartoons.

I agree that "harmful to social justice" is a vague criterion and that's why I'm not arguing for a ban of Charlie Hebdo. But just because I grant someone the right to free speech that doesn't mean that they need to exercise their free speech or that it's ethical for them to do so. And I don't need to be backed by a strong consensus and/or hard evidence to be able to voice criticism about their methods of satire, because when it comes to highly subjective issues like social justice, hard evidence is difficult to obtain and therefor an unfair barrier of entry to the discussion. Do you, for instance, have any hard evidence that Charlie Hebdo has made a beneficial contribution to society? Should voters only be allowed to vote if they can justify their opinions with hard evidence?

 

[kevingarcia]

Je Suis Charlie

Super-serious episode time.

Watch Video

Is there a way to get a transcript of this episode? I really want to use it as a teaching tool in my high school class (having them identify rhetorical devices and such).

 

[MCerberus]

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?

Well the reason GG has been a joke for a long while is that they're trying to claim it's about ethics after a massive amount of bullying and intimidation trying to silence people going back to the "Five Guys Saga". Hell they even pulled a double-false flag, which was just plain stupid.