The Big Picture: Je Suis Charlie

[Erttheking]

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]

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 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]

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.

 

[EternallyBored]

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]

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]

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]

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?

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Toilet]

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]

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]

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]

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.