The Big Picture: Je Suis Charlie

[Tinybear]

Damn this was a dumb video. I'm sorry, but Charlie Hebdo has been about one thing, and one thing only: To provoke. Their previous incarnation GOT BANNED because they picked at Charles de Gaulle after his death. Their motivation has been to refuse to let anyone set any code for what is allowed under free speech. Moviebob just trampled all over this. Charlie Hebdo was the kinda tone-deaf guy who gets up and sings a stupidly hard song on Karaoke, being so bad it's funny, so that the others dare to try as well. Criticizing the content of Charlie Hebdo is just missing the point so hard you probably landed on another planet.

And the whole "satire should punch up" argument, WRONG. Satire is making a point by exaggerating it (or an aspect of it) to a point where it gets ridiculous. Satire has no inherent alignment or goal.

I guess this was the last straw. I'm done with this website.

 

[Joseph Hutzulak]

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.

Need to read up on your history if you think Muslims were historically opressed.

 

[MrFalconfly]

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

Which we've already established is fine and dandy. No religion is sacred from ridicule.

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).

Look at the picture one more time. The only two things that seem "muslim" on the guy in the cartoon is the traditional desert hat (some might call it a turban), and a bushy beard. Taking the piss on the "must not make depictions" rule is not in any way racist.

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.

Mate, we're talking about people getting pissed that I might draw a stick-fig and call him "The prophet Muhammad". A fucking stick-fig. Sorry, but I don't think those kind of people are worthy of anything else than ridicule.

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.

Fair enough. I can only say that I disagree, and that I don't think those cases are equatable.

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.

Well in that case I cannot give you one. I don't have the philosophical training to go through it. It is only my personal belief that maintaining scepticism until data is provided is a good approach

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.

Maybe, but it does mean that I don't have to account for it. If it has no effect on my life, or anybody elses life, or indeed the workings of the universe, I might as well save myself some trouble and erase an unneeded variable from the "equation"

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.

Fair enough. Again I can only say that I disagree, but such is life.

Regarding your two principles.

I don't believe that I should respect religious beliefs. Sure I'll respect the person based on his/her merits, and I wont haunt him about any religious ideas (that's none of my business, unless he/she might try to "convert me"). But I don't think a religion has earned my respect, simply for being a large social club. But that's simply my take on it.

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.

Yes I agree, it is a belief that there's an answer, or at least a somewhat understandable explanation for anything. But it is a belief that's independent from me being atheist. I'd still hold this particular belief even if I should one day become Christian, or Muslim.

 

[greatcheezer2021]

i think if you're going to punch the hornets nest that you've allowed to take root in your own home, you better be ready for a response.



obviously people on both sides of the party did not think it thru before executing a few decisions.

usually this culminates into "what were you thinking" and such as "they got what was coming".

 

[AgedGrunt]

i think if you're going to punch the hornets nest that you've allowed to take root in your own home, you better be ready for a response.



obviously people on both sides of the party did not think it thru before executing a few decisions.

usually this culminates into "what were you thinking" and such as "they got what was coming".

"She was asking for it" is apparently a valid defense of Islam, and by extension its regard for free speech and women.

Also ITT: people bending their morals/principles in ways they never would for any other religion, and side-stepping hypocrisy charges by labeling it hate speech and racism. Hilarity would ensue if people got their way and established precedent of protecting religion as Christian and Jewish lawsuits would come like a flood.

Everyone should be careful what they wish for about free speech rules.

 

[Nixou]

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.

Unless said human shields are your actual targets.
Role 101 of colonial powers: the civilian population is the enemy.

***

Israel has THE most effective missile defense system on the planet.

Actually their missile defense system sucks [http://www.voanews.com/content/is-israels-iron-dome-all-its-cracked-up-to-be/1958793.html]: it's just another taxpayers-money-sucking con invented by yet another parasitic military-industrial welfare queen.
Luckily for israeli civilians, their country hasn't been at war against a real modern army since... well, it's never been at war against a modern military: they fought ragtag armies equipped with hand-me-down outdated equipment then against local uprisings, so they never had to see their neighborhoods being grinded into powder by an actual heavy bombardment.
Unfortunately for everyone living in the region, this situation has led many israeli voters to delude themselves into believing that their government's bullying policies are efficient, which translates in more support for violent repression of the country's plebeian arabic majority in the short term and make Israel's downfall and the forced exile of its middle-and-working class jewish citizens a near certainty in the long term.

***

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?

A comparison could be drawn if said cartoon was drawn to adorn eliminationist rhetoric. Since Charlie Hebdo's employees never expressed anything but contempt toward the apostles of eliminationism, such a comparison is, at in most cases, not pertinent.

***

Islam is a religion not a race

I'm getting increasingly annoyed by this cowardly cop-out: when most immigrants in France where Poles and Italians, catholic french bitched about the immigrants' catholicism: most french Muslims are working-class immigrants: the same cause is producing the same effect: they are the most visible sub-group of plebeian, and are seen as unwanted competition by the local Whites, a sentiment which is then used by demagogues whose goal is to make sure that the white-skinned and brown-skinned plebs remain divided an don't threaten the owner class' livelihood.

Eventually, social mobility and intermarriage will lead to a point where a sizable chunk of the muslim communities in France, Germany, Britain, etc... are white skinned bourgeois indistinguishable from their christian, jewish and atheist middle-upper-class peers, and I'm willing to bet one eye and two balls that when this happens, 95% of the anti-islam rhetoric will vanish, while the self-proclaimed defenders of freethinking go after another group of poor newcomers.

***

A bunch of white guys who wanted slavery to end fought a bunch of other white guys.

And of course, the 200.000 black men who served under the Union flag, as well as the countless black spies and saboteurs who undermined the confederacy do not count at all.

 

[DerangedHobo]

It's always comforting to know that when people get murdered because some fucking yokels with guns didn't like their comics that everyone's response is to draw the same offensive comics because that is truly the embodiment of free speech. "Hey guys, fuck the billion plus people who follow this religion, let's draw mocking imagery of it in the name of free speech! That'll really get the yahoos who killed 12 people!"


To quote everyone's favourite dictator "Decided instead to join the other monkeys and start throwing his shit around". Mob mentality is a fickle and scary thing.

Not that I'm against throwing my shit around but the willingness to fear and blame the fringe extremists as the threat to our freedom instead of our *democratically* elected officials is disconcerting.

 

[Korolev]

I think the deceased artists at Charlie Hebdo would agree with anyone's right to criticize them as harshly as they want. They never shot anyone.

 

[LetalisK]

"There is a rule of thumb that says that proper satire punches up at the powerful rather than down at the powerless." That has literally never been a rule of thumb. Chris Rock made that comment about comedy a few years ago in a round table discussion about comedy with comedians who had made their buckets of money doing the exact opposite. Then internet activists took that comment and have been fucking it into the ground ever since as if it were holy law handed down by God 2000 years ago while comedians and satirists alike continue to ignore it.

 

[Callate]

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?

I think we basically agree on the major points.

I would argue that if all Charlie Hebdo has done is make people aware of how vigilant we need to be in protecting the right to speak up, even in "free", democratic societies, that's worthwhile; also that many of the cartoons I've seen, however irreverant, have thematically been unified under the notion that love is stronger than hate, and that Charbonnier's words which I quoted above suggest that hatred of the greater Muslim community, however perceived, was not the paper's aim.

But I'm also aware that none of that constitutes "hard evidence".

Just as I feel the right of a paper like Charlie Hebdo to publish those cartoons deserves protection, I feel that the right to criticize Charlie Hebdo for publishing those cartoons deserves protection.

But I wish critics would self-moderate when they get to the point of suggesting legal intervention to prevent those cartoons from being published in the first place, and be aware that the timing of such criticism itself makes a statement. I also wish many critics, in general, took a more constructive view in their criticism, asking how particular sentiments could be expressed in a way that they would not find offensive.

(And such criticism of criticism is also worth defending.)

 

[maximara]

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.

I agree and the ironic thing is it can have the exact opposite results.

Just look at the piece USAToday had as their opposing view under the title "People know the consequences".

The piece said that to a member of the Muslims faith defending the honor of the Prophet Muhammad is considered an obligation and then says "This is because the Messenger Muhammad said, "Whoever insults a Prophet kill him.""

To anyone whose knowledge of Islam consists of going to wikipedia is going to be scared of their mind because that sentence says A prophet not THE prophet. That means per wikipedia that sentence is saying whoever insults (and what is the criteria for that?) Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus, as well as Muhammad or whoever else is consider a prophet in Islam can be marked for death by a Muslim.

In trying to do victim blaming the writer has just portrayed Muslim as a whole as a bunch of ultra extremists. Not the image they wanted but because they try to justify this horrid action that is the result.

The reality is no religion is a monolith. There are gradations in ALL beliefs and to claim that Muslims as a whole believe something regarding their prophets is as arrogant as saying Roman Catholics or Protestants as a whole believe something about Jesus. And just as wrong.

 

[cathou]

I think the deceased artists at Charlie Hebdo would agree with anyone's right to criticize them as harshly as they want. They never shot anyone.

totally true. one of the cartoon of this week edition actually talk about that.

i finally got my hands on a copy of Charlie to read it. what i think is breathtaking, is that most of the news i've read about it only talk of the cover. but some of the texts are quite sad to read. you really feel that they are very sad but that they still try to laugh and make jokes anyway...

 

[Mason Callaway]

The reason free speech is important and rightly protected by civilized societies is that freedom from criticism is extremely powerful. I don't want to be hyperbolic and say it is the most powerful thing a government can possess, but there is a reason the classical liberalism of the founding fathers put freedom of the press immediately after the freedom of religion. Their vision of government was designed to be limited in power (relative to monarchies) and they specifically and wisely denied their new government certain powers which they deemed too powerful, or at least ones too prone to abuse.

But any group which can free itself from criticism can radically abuse that freedom. More importantly, they generally do abuse that freedom from criticism. Take the Catholic Church for instance and the sex abuse scandal. What makes the scandal so horrible is not that sexual abuse happened but that it was ignored by the powers that be. As near as I can tell it was ignored because of clericalism, specifically that the idea of the Church was considered so important that it could not be implicitly criticized by revealing the crimes of predatory priests.

Now, the Catholic Church is a very powerful organization, even without all the conspiracy theories, but, and this is vital, it is not only entities which have power which can benefit from the power of freedom from criticism. This is why classical liberals, such as myself, consider PC speak to be so dangerous. Because anytime there are things you can't say you are granting some group freedom from criticism. Consider the Rotherham case a few months ago. 1400 girls raped, in part because authorities were too afraid of racially profiling the perpetrators. (This accusation comes from that conservative rag, The New York Times, so I understand if you feel they are biased. You can find the link below).

And this is why "Punching up/punching down" language doesn't make any sense to me. No one should be free of criticism. Not Christians, not politicians, not transgendered people, not Muslims, not cartoonists. You might say lampooning (some group) might cause someone to harm them. True, but if harm is the measure then we cannot free (some group) from criticism because that too will, invariably, result in harm to someone because freedom from criticism is a power which invariably leads to abuse.

The focus then should not be policing who is "punching down" instead of "punching up," but rather on pointing out who, according to our opinion, is making a true criticism vs. who is making a false criticism. This points the focus on the content itself, not the groups producing the content or the group they are targeting. This places the dialog back in the realm of reason.

The alternative is nothing but endless ad hominem attacks, which ignore content in favor of what group is punching who.


http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/27/world/europe/children-in-rotherham-england-were-sexually-abused-report-says.html?_r=0

 

[Mangue Surfer]

I think the deceased artists at Charlie Hebdo would agree with anyone's right to criticize them as harshly as they want. They never shot anyone.

Because this never was about freedom of speech, is about war on terror.

 

[Sofox]

Bob makes an interesting point about punching up vs punching down, but something occurs to me. Let's say that it's established, beyond all shadow of a doubt, that some satire is "punching down", what happens? Or more to the point, what should happen? If freedom of speech isn't freedom of consequences, then what should the consequences be?

We've already established that murder of the satirists is out of the question, but where does that leave us? Are we saying they should be harrassed? Humiliated? Told to be wrong? Arrested? Beat up? Exactly what?

Whether they're punching up or punching down, they're being legal, exercising freedom of speech, so why draw the line between the two unless we're going to be clear about what happens as a result of this in the real world?

 

[chikusho]

I think it's wrong to presume the intended meaning of those cartoons when we exist way, waay outside of the cultural context that spawned them. There are plenty of things that might seem highly offensive to someone that are in done in support to the very person who was offended.