The Big Picture: Je Suis Charlie

[Farther than stars]

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.

First of all, terminology: I think you mean "anatomic" instead of "genetic", because with the current state of technology it is impossible to change one's gender genetically.
And secondly, this isn't a question of "true gender" (a vague, arbitrary and exclusionary criterion) but about how we treat people. I think people should be allowed to decide for themselves what gender they are and I think it would be cordial for the rest of society to respect that decision. That's a very small effort for something that matters a lot to someone's identity. Calling their adjustments "cosmetic" or "cosplay" is unnecessarily belittling and South Park takes away the legitimacy of certain people to decide what gender they feel themselves to be.

 

[grigjd3]

I saw three tragedies in all this. First and foremost, twelve people were killed initially and a number I am not aware of were killed in the aftermath while the French police apprehended the murderous bastards. Second, a wave of racism shot over the internet as fast as news can travel today. Third, we popularized what is effectively the most lazy and sad versions of satire I have ever seen. I have no problem poking fun at religion in general, a particular religion or even a severe minority wing of a particular religion. I have a severe problem with people doing a shitty job of it. Simply posing a major figure of a religion in sexually explicit positions (and with terrible artistry) is just plain lazy. It's obviously not a sin that should get you killed by some nut-job but it does suggest you are a tired, lazy excuse for an entertainer that has clearly given up on having any ambition of producing anything of quality. In other words, if Peter Griffin is beyond the scope of your creative capability, maybe you should simply admit you are not that creative and look for other work. Even jokes about not displaying Mohammed are more creative than simply displaying him in a sexually explicit manner.

What amazes me the most about this is how much people said this is about freedom of speech. It was a mass murder. Murder is wrong, period. Why do we even need to get down to the level of freedom of speech before we realize that murder is bad. Believe it or not, everyone who is on the "murder is bad" side, is on the same side. We don't ever need to get to the constitutional right before we realize murder is bad. I don't need to even consider how these murderers were trying to repress speech before I get to, murder is bad. I mean, the declaration of independence started with the whole "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" bit. You know what was first on that list? Life. Freedom of speech didn't make it in until a much later document and we already had murder is bad. It's not too hard for us all to agree murder is bad, right? So why are we talking about freedom of speech? This is straight forward. Some murdering asswipes should face justice. Whether you think that should be a death penalty or being locked away in a small room until the flu gets you at the age of 98, I think we can generally agree that you should not murder anyone, period. Because, if we can't agree on that, I'm starting to get a little afraid that everyone talking about the free speech issues in this don't necessarily think murder is bad - and that would really scare me.

 

[Gordon_4_v1legacy]

Most satire I'm familiar with has been for the purpose of punching up since a lot of it historically was a way for the commoners to take the piss out of the ruling powers without having their heads cut off or otherwise punished. That being said I don't think it's a requirement for satire to punch up, it can punch down too: you've just got to be much better at it.

In closing;

Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité and Vive la France.

 

[cathou]

Third, we popularized what is effectively the most lazy and sad versions of satire I have ever seen. I have no problem poking fun at religion in general, a particular religion or even a severe minority wing of a particular religion. I have a severe problem with people doing a shitty job of it. Simply posing a major figure of a religion in sexually explicit positions (and with terrible artistry) is just plain lazy. It's obviously not a sin that should get you killed by some nut-job but it does suggest you are a tired, lazy excuse for an entertainer that has clearly given up on having any ambition of producing anything of quality. In other words, if Peter Griffin is beyond the scope of your creative capability, maybe you should simply admit you are not that creative and look for other work. Even jokes about not displaying Mohammed are more creative than simply displaying him in a sexually explicit manner.

you can like them or not, but judging and 40 years old journal artistic talents over one of the thousand and thousand of drawings they've done is a bit simplistic. And judging a cartoon without it's context is flawed. the only thing i've seens that fit what you describe, was publish, not as front cover, but in a segment called "the covers you didnt saw". Back then, the very bad movie Éthe innocent of muslim" was depicting Muhammad as a pedo, sadistic, homosexual lunatic. The drawing were actually to how stupid was the movie, and how really stupid was the reaction over the movie (you might remember than an US ambassador got killed because of the protest over that movie.)

 

[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.

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.

I'm saying that humor can be a strange thing. I said that I don't blame the south park guys for idiots coming out against transsexuals with the "you'll never be real so just stop" line of conversation, which really got me because I didn't have to even say anything half the time. Someone would discover I identify as transsexual and would approach me with "didn't you watch southpark brah!?" like it made science. No, I don't blame the south park guys.

I was saying that the punch up/punch down thing isn't a hard fast rule, and that the example given is one I personally feel for. I was saying that when you are a controversial comedian sometimes you are going to hit the joke wrong, or just get unlucky and have it taken wrong thus angering the public. You may note that I said the south park guys can't avoid the controversy. I don't believe they can, eventually one of their jokes just falls wrong. I was using the episode given specifically because it was used in the episode because their are multiple episodes where the outcry afterwards felt justified.

South Park has had episodes that said don't question 9/11...I'm not a truther but still seems...off. They've attacked global warming which now over 99% of climate scientist agree it's happening. They've had episodes on all kinds of topics, and these people who say it's about harsh truths are full of shit. South Park is dark sardonic fun with potty humor to fill in the slow bits. It's an awesome show, but that's what it is, and when it sparks some heated controversy, I don't think Trey and Matt are there for that. They just make people laugh and make money doing it, and that's great. I wasn't trying to make any kind of argument.

I'm saying that the "punch up/punch down" argument isn't wrong, it's just impossible to follow. It's an easier said than done thing, but it does happen. This season of South Park returned to the Trans issue and I thought the episodes on it were amazing, plus the last message of "just fucking be yourself people!" was pretty much dead on. That is what most trans-activists want is the right to just be themselves, not to make it into some big thing.

As to your examples...good for you, your making my point. It's not always a clear picture what "punching up" or "punching down" really are sometimes, due to complex infrastructures and issues that aren't two sided on that front. Many oppressed groups get used by powerful people to push other agendas, and those agendas should often be deconstructed and mocked despite the fact it's tied up in some other issue. The whole thing is very complex, and I think that Bob was mostly saying that it's more complex than you know. Offering solidarity is fine, but don't get involved in another culture's advanced infrastructure and think you know all the angles.

 

[KissingSunlight]

It occurred to me the other day that the extreme religious conservative (ISIS for example) and the extreme liberals (PC Thought Police or what the kids like to call them today, SJW) have the same goal: Censorship. Anyone who argues that the only a government can censor people are being disingenuous. Shooting someone for something they created, because you disagree with it is censorship. Harassing people online and in real life until they get fired from their job and damage their reputations until they can't make provide a living for themselves is also censorship. 2014 had a lot of instances where campaigns were started in an effort to harassed, shame, and silence people, because of private comments were taken out of context and made public.

If anything positive comes out of the Charlie Hebdo tragedy, it's that rational, moderate people will start to take a stand against extremists regardless of which end of political/religious spectrum that they are on. We should not live in fear of well-intentioned people who believe their cause is so righteous that they can do despicable things to other people without repercussions.

 

[Jenx]

The whole Charlie thing is a damn mess, especially on the Internet (which, as we all know, is so very good at showing nuanced opinions). I think I more or less agree with Bob on this one, which is quite rare for me, to be honest.

Basically, I agree that both the nutjobs who decided to shoot a bunch of people because of some really badly made cartoons are wrong. I also think the people who defend racist cartoons as "free speech" are also wrong.

Basically, everyone in this wrong in some way. I think the only proper response to the Charlie cartoons would have been for the extremists to make and publish a whole bunch of blatantly racist drawings aimed at French people. Then they would have been just as equally offensive without anyone being harmed.

 

[Verlander]

Spot on, I agree. Feared it'd be worse, like American translations of European current events tend to be

 

[Fiairflair]

This video mirrors my sentiments precisely. I'll be sharing this with my friends.

 

[MrFalconfly]

Looking at this from a country that itself backed down from this fight that sorely needed to be fought, I can only say that I don't understand the deal people have with "Punching Up" and "Punching Down". Nor do I understand what Islam has done to make it sacred from any form of satire.

We take the piss on christians, jews, hindus, scientologists, and whatnot all the time. What makes Islam so special? The fact that they aren't afraid to blow themselves up in the attempt to get revenge? Surely that should be an even bigger reason for satire.

In any case, the murderers had guns, and the people at Charlie Hebdo had pens. Surely the people at Charlie Hebdo would be "Punching Up", especially considering they got killed over doing it.


Also, for those of you wondering what nation I mentioned before. Here are some of the things we did that got the ire of the islamists (note: Not muslims. Islamists. The utter loonatics who want to impose the Islamic version of the "Laws of Moses", which are equally insane).

Spoiler: JP 1

Spoiler: JP 2

Nothing. I repeat, nothing is sacred from ridicule. Especially not ridicule which everyone else receive on a daily basis.

 

[Nimcha]

Good piece, but I don't agree with the 'punching up/down' idea. Nothing should be free of ridicule.

 

[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.

This isn't like schoolyard bullying. Those offended people can just not read the magazine and ignore that it exists.

Terrorism is wrong, but making fun of people that clearly do not like you doing so is also wrong,

I disagree, it's a magazine they can easily avoid, no one is forcing them to listen to their insults and they are free to insult them back.

Criticism can be insulting or take the form of mockery.

Well essentially I think it is just like a schoolyard where two kids are going at eachother and none of them wants to back down or reconsider their approach because they are both convinced they are doing the right thing, because in their mind they are.

It is easy for you to say they should just ignore it, but you have to understand how hard that would be. They can ignore this just as much as you can ignore them. You can't do that because you keep hearing about them, and they can't do that because they keep hearing about you (or maybe not you personally, but the people who draws, whatever you get the point).

Think about it this way.. If you never knew these people exsisted, then one day you discover them and think "my god this is wrong! I have to stop this!" Then someone comes up to you and says "just ignore them, pritend they don't exist". Could you do that? If you can't how do you expect others to?

Part of my point here is that while you might be able to claw your way through a brick wall over time, it may not be the best way to go about it. So once you discover your fingers are gone, instead of getting another person to keep clawing away in your place, it may be an idea to back away and reconcider the approach.
Hell, there might even be a hole in the wall futher down, but you won't be able to see that unless you are able to back away from the wall for a moment and look for it.

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.

Before trying to prove the bear isn't immune to speech, be sure you are immune to its claws.

I dont want to live in society where people censor themselves to suit the whims of mad men with guns. The only 'claws' any person in a civilized society should be wary of is social and legal repercussions, anyone who takes their protests beyond that isn't worth listening to.

And I agree, which makes me think that the sleeping bear metaphor is ill suited for this case. What happens with the bear is expected (which makes you look like a dumb if you don't take precautions). What happened in Charlie Hebdo was much more unexpected.

I might be wrong here, but as far as I know they werer warned/threatened just as a bear would growl before it bites your head off, so I still feel it sort of fits.

 

[Tim Chuma]

I need to watch the Battle of Algiers in the near future
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ca3M2feqJk8

Everything in the movie was shot for the movie, it was not taken from real life but was based on real life events
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algerian_War

La Haine is another important movie set in modern France that covers issues related to race
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yk77VrkxL88

Berlin in Berlin is a Turkish film shot in Germany but does deal with the issue of migrants living in Germany
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TIlHIa4-uDM

 

[scw55]

Thoughts on the whole thing.

I am sad that 12 people are dead. They should not be dead.
I am sad for the friends and family of these 12 people. I hope they will not harbour bitterness or resentment. That they can mourn for their loved ones. That they will not hold prejudice against anyone else who "resemble" the people who took their loved ones away.
I hope other people will not judge the whole Islamic faith based on these handful of people who commit horrific and disgusting acts of murder.
I hope the murderers will see and understand what they have done. Under stand their atrocities. Understand the impacts and be able to repent.
---
Regardless of where you stand on the racist-o-meter, wishing death upon anyone is bad. Wishing death on someone who commited death is hypocritical.
Please, why do we kill each other?

 

[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.

I'm saying that humor can be a strange thing. I said that I don't blame the south park guys for idiots coming out against transsexuals with the "you'll never be real so just stop" line of conversation, which really got me because I didn't have to even say anything half the time. Someone would discover I identify as transsexual and would approach me with "didn't you watch southpark brah!?" like it made science. No, I don't blame the south park guys.

I was saying that the punch up/punch down thing isn't a hard fast rule, and that the example given is one I personally feel for. I was saying that when you are a controversial comedian sometimes you are going to hit the joke wrong, or just get unlucky and have it taken wrong thus angering the public. You may note that I said the south park guys can't avoid the controversy. I don't believe they can, eventually one of their jokes just falls wrong. I was using the episode given specifically because it was used in the episode because their are multiple episodes where the outcry afterwards felt justified.

South Park has had episodes that said don't question 9/11...I'm not a truther but still seems...off. They've attacked global warming which now over 99% of climate scientist agree it's happening. They've had episodes on all kinds of topics, and these people who say it's about harsh truths are full of shit. South Park is dark sardonic fun with potty humor to fill in the slow bits. It's an awesome show, but that's what it is, and when it sparks some heated controversy, I don't think Trey and Matt are there for that. They just make people laugh and make money doing it, and that's great. I wasn't trying to make any kind of argument.

I'm saying that the "punch up/punch down" argument isn't wrong, it's just impossible to follow. It's an easier said than done thing, but it does happen. This season of South Park returned to the Trans issue and I thought the episodes on it were amazing, plus the last message of "just fucking be yourself people!" was pretty much dead on. That is what most trans-activists want is the right to just be themselves, not to make it into some big thing.

As to your examples...good for you, your making my point. It's not always a clear picture what "punching up" or "punching down" really are sometimes, due to complex infrastructures and issues that aren't two sided on that front. Many oppressed groups get used by powerful people to push other agendas, and those agendas should often be deconstructed and mocked despite the fact it's tied up in some other issue. The whole thing is very complex, and I think that Bob was mostly saying that it's more complex than you know. Offering solidarity is fine, but don't get involved in another culture's advanced infrastructure and think you know all the angles.

Can you see how your post looks like mental gymnastics to protect issues important to you from criticism?

The argument about punching up/down is basic post-modernism 101, make an argument so nebulous that people just get tired of running up and down the field chasing goal posts that they concede out of exhaustion.

 

[Aitamen]

You've outdone yourself, Bob. Hat's off to you.