The Big Picture: Je Suis Charlie

[SouthpawFencer]

Regarding the "Punching Up/Punching Down" argument:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Olas]

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

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

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

 

[Baresark]

For instance, anything about Obamacare is essentially about punching at the current administration for not fixing healthcare and at the same time making it significantly more complicated. No one is sitting in their chairs saying, "poor people don't deserve healthcare".

Obamacare prevents insurance companies from refusing to sell people health insurance if they have pre-existing problems. So many people who oppose Obamacare are effectively saying that "poor people don't deserve healthcare".

The border stuff is punching up at legislation because it doesn't level the playing field as much as it plays favorites with people wandering over a specific border. With the citizenship stuff, they could have changed the laws so it's easier for illegal immigrants to become US citizens, but instead they want to summarily make them all citizens while leaving the same broken rules and laws in place for people coming in every other way into the country.

That's because of international laws. Basically if an immigrant is already in your country you can't simply sent them to another country. You need proof that they came from this country.

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

I am forced to sit and roll my eyes at all the headlines treating it like an insane attack on freedom of speech as if they are 100% innocent of outright offending people and that is OK. I don't want anyone to be murdered, but everyone should be culturally sensitive enough to know that as you would not like your beliefs attacked, others also do not want theirs attacked.

The response by the gunmen was disproportionate, therefore immoral. Just because the gunmen didn't like some cartoons doesn't justify murder, all it justifies is making cartoons criticising the person who's criticising your beliefs.

You mentioned a single aspect of Obamacare as if that is all there is to it. You are omitting details by design to backup a point that can't be enforced. I'm sure there are a minority of people out there who are literally saying, "fuck the poor", but that is at best a tiny percentage of Americans, where most of us would love to see everyone able to get reasonable healthcare. Also, people having existing health issues is not explicitly an attack on the poor, only those with pre-existing conditions.

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

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

That said, no one is allowed to go murdering people because they said or published something they don't like.

I never said they had the moral high ground or that the published pieces were immoral by their nature. I never stated I supported what the gunmen did, nor did I represent their actions as being proportional to the published material.

 

[RoonMian]

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

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

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

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

 

[daibakuha]

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

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

Your argument ignores a number of factors when deciding what is and isn't good satire. One of those is the source of the satire, the group of people it's aiming at, and surrounding zeitgeist. Take any example of satire away from it's cultural context and it seems fine, but when given the proper examination in full context it contributes to marginalization.

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

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

 

[JMac85]

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

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

Except this isn't about making fun of someone's haircut, this is about calling people out for revering the sacred image of some long-dead twat more than human life. And I'm not just talking about those who go out and murder people, either. Muslims consider Muhammad to be more important than life itself, and to insult or criticize him is the worst possible crime.

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

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

 

[hentropy]

*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.

The point is that these issues have little to do with religion, and everything to do with wealth and socio-political stability. The muslims looking for sharia law in other countries are almost always immigrants from these countries that haven't had a stable government and where religious leaders have taken the opportunity to gain power and influence. It's much easier to hate western decadence and wealth when your local imam is telling you that it is unholy.

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

 

[SnowWookie]

"Some people" nothing. That's Sharia Law...

It is Sharia Law, but the concept is adapted from Jewish law. Jews were the ones who established the rule of "no idols, ever", which in the old Jewish tradition is still taken seriously, along with Islam. The rule never shows up in the Koran. It's supposed to be the law in Christianity as well, but they just use the loophole of "so long as you're not worshiping the actual statues it's not idolatry", but that's not really what the Bible says or means.

Yet there aren't Christian or Jews forcing people to live by these rules. By contrast there are Muslims trying to force non-Muslims to obey sharia law.

You're joking, right? The entire history of civilisation is one of Christians trying to force people to live by their rules.

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

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

 

[itsthesheppy]

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

Your opinion.

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

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

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

 

[JennAnge]

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

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

The cartoon would feature Hollande with his dick hanging out his pants (as the Hebdo illustrated him a few months ago)and other politicos in innapropriate poses, all thinking "Bon dieu, la presse est de notre coté! Pourvus qu'ça dure!" Or something.

 

[JMac85]

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

Because I don't believe in "privilege", or at least not the way people on the internet have taken to throwing that around. Everyone is responsible for their own attitudes and actions. No one is beyond reproach. I don't give a damn about whatever arbitrary label you wish to put on someone. If they're an immigrant or not, if they're rich or not, if they're a minority or not. People are people. Y'know, the whole "equality" thing? Which is why I find the whole "social justice" thing to be a big screaming mire of hypocrisy. It's so focused on categorizing people and treating them differently, where as I'm more interested in the quality of their character.

 

[hentropy]

Yet there aren't Christian or Jews forcing people to live by these rules. By contrast there are Muslims trying to force non-Muslims to obey sharia law.

There are very few Muslims who wish to impose Sharia on non-Muslims. There are currently 6 countries (7 if you count the Islamic State) that have Sharia law as their national law. Additionally, they are relatively small countries, the biggest being Iran and Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia, in particular, has more or less outlawed other religions, so imposing it on non-Muslims is a non-issue. There are about 26 Muslim-majority countries where Sharia law is not the national law.

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

Are these Palestinian Christians also becoming suicide bombers and launching rockets at Israel. If not then they don't have Israel as much as the Palestinians Muslims do. Unsure whether the Israeli Muslims hate Israel.

There are not many Christians in Gaza, but traditionally Christians HAVE been parts of terrorist organizations such as the PLO and now part of Fatah. The terrorist attacks on the 1972 Olympics in Munich was called Operation Iqrit and Biram, those are the name of two Christian cities that were depopulated and destroyed by Israelis during the 1948 war of independence.

Good thing that in enlightened places such as Europe we won't ever have extremist parties taking control of countries and engaging in genocide. Unless of course extremism isn't based on poverty.

Actually, Europe and extremism is a great example. Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Franco's Spain, and the Soviet Union were all born out severe economic and political unrest during and following WWI and/or the Great Depression. You need to study history if you think any of these examples happened as a result of stable, wealthy countries. They were all poor and unstable before extremism took hold, it was WHY it took hold.

 

[Pizzle]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[CrazyGirl17]

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

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

 

[WhiteNachos]

I don't buy for a second that proper satire punches up at the powerful and not down at the powerless.

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

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

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