The Big Picture: Je Suis Charlie

[Dollabillyall]

I disagree with the point that Bob makes here about punching up and punching down. While it is relevant to consider power and "class" in many modern day discussions, the debate around islam in the west and the charlie hebdo cartoons that are a part of that is more accurately described as a struggle of idea(L)s than a class struggle.
Fact of the matter is that in a lot of European countries the debate is not so much about socio-economic class as it is about the place of religion in society with a special focus to the generally "backwards" muslim immigrants. Many of the muslim immigrants where themselves or are the children of the least educated, least skilled and least cosmopolitan groups of people in their country of origin.
In the west they found they were not free to have six wives, force their children to marry or claim to "know truths" based on religion without their religion being called into question and/or criticized. Instead they found the freedom to be mocked, ridiculed and rejected for being "silly religious nuts". This makes it hard for them to get a slice of the economic pie and to truly be a part of the dominant culture.
In western Europe religion has a different role in society than in the islamic countries. Besides that there are strong cultural norms pertaining to intellectualism, professionalism, public behavior, responsibility and homogeneity in society. For these "backwards" islamic immigrants this is a gap that many find impossible to bridge. Western European societies will keep developing away from the "medieval" / "barbaric" / "backwards" types of world views... in exactly the opposite direction of what these muslim immigrants know and wish to keep.

tl;dr This is a struggle about world views, not class. The punching up or down part has little relevancy to the actual debate.

 

[Callate]

"This is the act of idiot extremists, and certainly not of all Muslims who live in France. It's a minority which is absolutely not represtative, which went and carried out this act of violence." -Stephane Charbonnier, editor of Charlie Hedbo, interviewed after the 2011 firebombing of the paper's offices.

You know what?

These people knew that they were in danger doing what they did, printing what they did. And they came in and did it anyway. So, yes, I do admire them, and I do think it's a free speech issue, and if they "went over the line" some times (whose line?) it doesn't and shouldn't matter. Did they get it wrong some of the time? Does any public figure, whose dogma some adherents claim as sacrosanct, not "get it wrong" some of the time?

Further, it seems clear that it wasn't the overall portrayal of Muslims that sparked the attack- it was the particular portrayal of the prophet Mohammed, and people who felt they had the right to impose the dictate forbidding his portrayal on people who didn't even follow that religion.

Part of the point of satire is encouraging people not to be afraid. It's the reason "black" humor- humor about death and injury and illness and things that seem unavoidable and terrifying- thrives across cultures and throughout time. That's valuable- far more valuable- than anyone's sense of propriety.

And to wield that satire when staring down the barrel of a gun, all the more so.

 

[Farther than stars]

I'm not a fan of people calling him "The Prophet Muhammad" Just call him Muhammad if you aren't Muslim. Otherwise its like always referring to Jesus as "Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ"

Since this happened all the news channels keep calling him "the Prophet Muhammad"

Great video btw

I think it's just a way of differentiating him from the millions of other Muhammads in the world. Jesus, as a name, doesn't have that problem so much.

Condemning South Park for "punching down" instead of "punching up" completely misses the point about the show. South Park is not about social justice and speaking truth to power, it's about confronting ugly truths and being irreverent to a fault, which has its own value.

This presupposes that the creators of South Park are capable of perfectly identifying these "ugly truths" in society, but I don't trust them to do that. I think people should always be skeptical about anyone who purports to have the right answers about everything, especially highly subjective issues like sexuality, culture or religion.
Moreover, I think common decency should be allowed to play a role to the extent that when someone goes out of their way to be offensive, it should be acceptable to criticize that person for being offensive. When someone swears at you, for instance, I don't think it should be controversial to ask that person to stop swearing at you.

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.

That's a false comparison. Note that critics of Charlie Hebdo are explicitly not victim blaming. What they're doing is criticizing the aforementioned "dodginess" of the cartoons inherently, that is: regardless of their consequences. They're saying that softcore racism and ethnic marginalization would still worthy of criticism even if the attacks hadn't been perpetrated. Contrast this with victim blaming in rape cases. Would wearing a short skirt still be criticized, even if it didn't attract rape? Feminists argue that the answer should be no, with the simple reason that people should be allowed to wear whatever they want period without having to suffer heinous crimes for their personal taste.
So while victim blaming is always bad, that doesn't mean you can't criticize the victim because of other reasons, but only if those reasons make sense on their own, separate from the crime being committed.

 

[Shamanic Rhythm]

So many people getting uppity about Charlie Hebdo's cartoons don't seem to understand that the point of a caricature is to use symbols or images with referential power and then exaggerate them. If they look stereotypical, it's because that is a form of representation that is most commonly understood. What exactly would be the point of making a joke about Islamists but using someone who doesn't immediately conjure up those images? You would then have to explain the joke to your readers, and by that point it isn't funny.

And while we're at it, Bob's tired old crusade against South Park for failing to 'check their privilege' is poorly shoehorned into this debate. Just once it would be nice to see people leave their agendas at the door in response to a tragedy.

 

[ShadowHamster]

Condemning South Park for "punching down" instead of "punching up" completely misses the point about the show. South Park is not about social justice and speaking truth to power, it's about confronting ugly truths and being irreverent to a fault, which has its own value.

Also, this:

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.

He was talking about one episode. In that episode you have a character who wants to be a dolphin so gets surgery to be a dolphin, but since he isn't and never will be a dolphin he wasn't a dolphin. It was a harsh criticism of transsexuals, and as a transsexual, it comes up in conversation...well, all the fucking time.

And it's kind of stupid. Dolphin and Human DNA has no crossover, but the genders do. Intersex is a thing where someone doesn't actually qualify as either sex physically. That people who are intersexed exist, and it may be a rare condition but transsexual individuals are in a very small minority anyway, shows crossover. You say it's about harsh truths, but I don't see the truth this justified. It was a lot of ignorance thrown out at the attempt of a joke, and the episode never struck me as funny, but just came out as a miss. Probably hit too close to home.

But what's more, when this kind of thing comes up, South Park is illogically taken as a source of knowledge on some issues even though they are comedians and cartoonists first and foremost. By their nature South Park cannot help but be controversial, but the more complicated question is does the humor work.

What your missing is when you "punch down" for humor it's too easy to come off as elitist, and serious rather than funny. Many jokes seem like someone gloating from a higher perch, and that makes the joke often not funny and angers groups that you decided to take a poke on. This seems especially true when the group in question is already bullied, beat on, and often innocent of any violence in the first place.

South Park has been in this seat a few times, and for the record, I love and continue to watch the show even after a few episodes left me with a bad taste in my mouth. I try not to blame ignorance on them, but those who would take them as a legitimate stance make it hard sometimes. I don't know what to say. You have missed the point of Bob's speech, and also the reason such humor is professionally avoided, not just from the "Politically Correct" stance.

 

[Farther than stars]

These people knew that they were in danger doing what they did, printing what they did. And they came in and did it anyway. So, yes, I do admire them, and I do think it's a free speech issue, and if they "went over the line" some times (whose line?) it doesn't and shouldn't matter. Did they get it wrong some of the time? Does any public figure, whose dogma some adherents claim as sacrosanct, not "get it wrong" some of the time?

Yes, public figures get it wrong some of the time and then we criticize them. That's a proportional response to people being wrong, because it's not healthy to blindly support a person's every action. Moreover, I don't think we'd be doing the victims of Charlie Hebdo any justice by turning them into a cult.

 

[Joseph Hutzulak]

Condemning South Park for "punching down" instead of "punching up" completely misses the point about the show. South Park is not about social justice and speaking truth to power, it's about confronting ugly truths and being irreverent to a fault, which has its own value.

Also, this:

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.

He was talking about one episode. In that episode you have a character who wants to be a dolphin so gets surgery to be a dolphin, but since he isn't and never will be a dolphin he wasn't a dolphin. It was a harsh criticism of transsexuals, and as a transsexual, it comes up in conversation...well, all the fucking time.

And it's kind of stupid. Dolphin and Human DNA has no crossover, but the genders do. Intersex is a thing where someone doesn't actually qualify as either sex physically. That people who are intersexed exist, and it may be a rare condition but transsexual individuals are in a very small minority anyway, shows crossover. You say it's about harsh truths, but I don't see the truth this justified. It was a lot of ignorance thrown out at the attempt of a joke, and the episode never struck me as funny, but just came out as a miss. Probably hit too close to home.

But what's more, when this kind of thing comes up, South Park is illogically taken as a source of knowledge on some issues even though they are comedians and cartoonists first and foremost. By their nature South Park cannot help but be controversial, but the more complicated question is does the humor work.

What your missing is when you "punch down" for humor it's too easy to come off as elitist, and serious rather than funny. Many jokes seem like someone gloating from a higher perch, and that makes the joke often not funny and angers groups that you decided to take a poke on. This seems especially true when the group in question is already bullied, beat on, and often innocent of any violence in the first place.

South Park has been in this seat a few times, and for the record, I love and continue to watch the show even after a few episodes left me with a bad taste in my mouth. I try not to blame ignorance on them, but those who would take them as a legitimate stance make it hard sometimes. I don't know what to say. You have missed the point of Bob's speech, and also the reason such humor is professionally avoided, not just from the "Politically Correct" stance.

So in the age of crusades mocking islam would have been punching up? And mocking christians would have been punching down?

Mocking Islam in Egypt and Saudia Arabia is punching up? Im sure that will get you jail time at the best.

Is mocking black people in the middle of Anacostia, punching up? Is mocking white people in Anacostia, punching down?

When South Park mocked Hippies, Emos, Goths, Mormons ( A religious minority group that was basically murdered untill they escaped to the wasteland we call Utah)?

Or are you really just coming up with an arguement to criticise other for mocking things you find important.

 

[squallina]

"My sympathy goes out the window when you make your rebuttal with bullets." - MovieBob

I'm going to be quoting this line from now on. Thanks Bob for a great episode that was rather level-headed in its approach to this topic.

 

[Wolf Hagen]

Honestly, I'd wish I could congrat Bob on the Episode, but I can't.

He clearly misses the point, that Satire has to be neutral (aka harsh towards everyone) or it becomes one sided.
This is what most of the European Satire magazines are about.
The only connection he draws is towards south park, and even then in the wrong way. >.<

Trust me, if a Satire magazine or Show over here, would only deal blows, to specific targets, it be taken off pretty soon, because of obvious propaganda, wich in case of Charlie Hebdo, is most certainly NOT the case.

 

[Chaucer345]

As a transwoman can I just say thank you for being a decent human being? After learning I wouldn't be allowed to drive in Russia I really needed the boost.

 

[Disthron]

I literally no nothing about the cartoonists or there agenda and I don't care. I don't care if they were the most unpleasant people writing the most hateful messages in the history of forever. You're still not allowed to kill them over it.

 

[Tono Makt]

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.

You don't see them committing acts of terror in North America, Europe or Australia very often. And when you do, their religion - particularly Christians - is either entirely obscured OR is mentioned in passing, discussed for a minute or two, then their political beliefs become far more investigated. Go back and look at how the North American media covered the Norway massacre. Then look at how the North American media is covering the massacre in France. Look at the shooting in Ottawa in October, and how even now the media still refers to him as a Muslim instead of saying he was a head case. If you want to get historical, look at how the IRA was handled by the media, where Protestant and Catholic were turned into Political parties rather than Religious sects - then compare it to how the battles between Shia and Sunni are handled, where the political aspects are mentioned in passing as the media moves to the narrative that Islam = Violence. Etc - the list can go on, and on, and on.

You may not see it, but a big part of the reason you don't see it is that our media actively pushes that aspect of stories away when it doesn't involve Islam. And when it does involve Islam, our media is constantly talking about it. Our media has a bias in it when it comes to Islam - whether because the media moguls have a bias against Islam (as seems to be the case with Rupert Murdoch of Fox infamy) or because the media is pandering to the audience bias against Islam is a question I don't think will ever have an answer.

And the media bias in these matters doesn't mean that there aren't non-Muslim terrorists murdering people these days. As the saying goes, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

 

[cathou]

I'm not a fan of people calling him "The Prophet Muhammad" Just call him Muhammad if you aren't Muslim. Otherwise its like always referring to Jesus as "Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ"

Since this happened all the news channels keep calling him "the Prophet Muhammad"

Great video btw

I think it's just a way of differentiating him from the millions of other Muhammads in the world. Jesus, as a name, doesn't have that problem so much.

i'm not very sure for you guys in English, but the most used islamic name in french is Mohammed, and in french the prophet is called Mahommet. it's probably not an universal law, but i think naming someone Mahommet would be an offence to muslim in french.

so are you sure that the name Muhammad is used in English for other people ?

 

[Thurston]

Thank you Bob for a reasoned and insightful look at this mess. You've articulated my vague concern as the creation of a new sacred cow. Just as questioning your government in America after 9/11 became taboo, are we going to give offensive cartoons too much leeway to slide into hate speech, for fear of "letting the terrorists win?"

 

[CpT_x_Killsteal]

I was expecting something different from what I got. I don't usually watch Bob's shows because I'm not a big movie/comic book fan, but I saw the title and thought should give it a go.

I agree with everything said, including the raised point about tragic attacks being used to reinforce certain ideals. On the "punching up or punching down thing though", I think it just comes out as "every action has an equal and opposite reaction". I wouldn't be too worried about that, since that would take people to a standstill for fear of inadvertently satirising/hurting/insulting/etc. someone they don't mean to.

 

[Farther than stars]

I'm not a fan of people calling him "The Prophet Muhammad" Just call him Muhammad if you aren't Muslim. Otherwise its like always referring to Jesus as "Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ"

Since this happened all the news channels keep calling him "the Prophet Muhammad"

Great video btw

I think it's just a way of differentiating him from the millions of other Muhammads in the world. Jesus, as a name, doesn't have that problem so much.

i'm not very sure for you guys in English, but the most used islamic name in french is Mohammed, and in french the prophet is called Mahommet. it's probably not an universal law, but i think naming someone Mahommet would be an offence to muslim in french.

so are you sure that the name Muhammad is used in English for other people ?

Yes, I am sure. They're all just variations on the same name. The British use the spelling "Muhammad", because this is the spelling used in Pakistan, Bangladesh and India (former British colonies). In most Islamic nations, the name is given to male children in reverence of the "original" Muhammad's status among Muslims as a prophet. It is estimated that 150 million men and boys are (indirectly) named after Muhammad. ([link]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_%28name%29[/link])

 

[Redd the Sock]

That whole punching up / punching down thing just reeks of rationalization. We all know the story from TV. Some practical joker it always pulling pranks but loses their sense of humor when someone pulls a joke on them. Like the joker in question, we try to somehow say that our laughing at those we deem humorous is valid, while laughing at what we personally value shouldn't be done. Satire is supposed to be about mocking cultural stupidity, and there's nothing about "unprivileged" groups that makes one exempt from stupidity. Granted, not everything someone wishes to mock actually is worth of satire, but we get rather defensive of a joke that hits a nerve in reality without stopping to think, maybe they have a point. The South Park bit was a commentary that the changes the trans community make are mostly cosmetiic than genetic and they were making an effort to lie to themselves about that. I don't recall them saying trans is a bad lifestyle, just denying that the changes made are more cosplay than true gender reassignment. We could have taken it as a bit of mockery that did teach us a bit about ourselves, or at least acted adult and said that even if they were wrong, we are at a point where it's a bit reasonable to come to that conclusion and just try and provide paitent education. Sadly, we cry the offense card because we just can't stand being the butt of the joke. Before the trans community thinks I'm singling them out, the same principle is behind most of the complaints I hear from nerds about the Big Bang Theory: please quit making us the butt of such and obvious and stereotyped joke. It's not a really funny show, but the stereotypes aren't exactly unreal, and I find it good to sometimes laugh at ourselves.

And that's the thing. Terrorists use bullets, but the attitude isn't much different than people using hashtags: if I don't want to hear it you shouldn't say it. People have the right to vocalize their offense, but seldom stop to ask if they really should. We try to hide behind the technical definition of Free Speech without realizing it's there for a reason: if we don't face unpleasant our critics, we risk becoming corrupt, complaisant shitheads trying to make the world bend to our sensitivities. An employer is within his right to fire an employee that spoke against them, but it speeks poorly to the employer if they let an employee go for speaking their mind. Religions, political groups, just about anyone that can claim marginalization, and yes, both sides of gamergate, we all are afraid of people telling us we may not be free from things others find funny. And honestly, there's 7 billion people in the world representing countless cultures, values, and beliefs, we're never all going to agree on how to view all of them. Everything needs to be open for satire, or nothing can be because under that up/down view, everyone thinks they're joking at someone that deserves it. Better to hear the joke confront how the world sees you in some way, either by acknowledging the flaws being make fun of and addressing them, or at least by not shouting "offensive" rather than address your offense with reasons.

 

[daxterx2005]

Stone and Parker aren't afraid of anything, I'm sure they have death threats thrown at them all the time.

 

[Rahkshi500]

Definitely agree with Bob on this one, though there's two things I wanna comment on. Sure, the idea of "the bodies are still warm" can easily be take advantage into pushing an agenda of making free speech immune to criticism, but it's not the same as the "think of the children" thought that some people are arguing, nor does it mean that there shouldn't be discussion about it. It means that people should at least wait until the fire dies down so that people can have the discussion instead of immediately jumping in and easily risking it turning into a shit-slinging debacle. Yeah, I know that some people can easily take advantage of that, but I would still stand by it being the better option. As for the "Punching Up/Down" argument can be a tricky argument in where it applies. Sure, it can fall into a place of marginalizing a group of people who are already marginalized, but on the other hand, this kind of argument can easily be abused and ironically fall into the same line of thought that because such groups have little power in areas of the world it means that they shouldn't be criticized or mocked for things that may or may not be questionable, problematic, or just downright ridiculous. Sure, it should go without saying that the right to free speech doesn't mean freedom from consequence, but I think that far too often the people who say these things don't realize that it applies to them as well, whether it's their beliefs, their political stances, their own movements, or even their own criticism. Sure, the likes of Je Suis Charlie or South Park in some the things they do may or may not be poor taste and may or may not be good satire, but the core principle behind them is what's important; nothing is sacred, and it should be something for everyone to keep in mind.