The Big Picture: Je Suis Charlie

CaitSeith

Formely Gone Gonzo
Legacy
Jun 30, 2014
5,343
358
88
The Bucket said:
CaitSeith said:
Rabidkitten said:
Rattja said:
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.
 

Joseph Hutzulak

New member
May 15, 2014
24
0
0
Basically what I expected, "Its wrong to inject personal politics and agendas into such a tragedy, but let me just inject my politics into it"

Regardless, since Movie Bob obviously thinks so highly of himself and his ideas, Id love to see him debate someone because his idols seem to be so shy of actually putting their beliefs to the test.
 

V4Viewtiful

New member
Feb 12, 2014
721
0
0
WhiteNachos said:
Wait a second did you just imply that cartoon might be punching up at the privileged ethnic majority?

So racism can be OK and classified as 'punching up' if it's against the race that's in the majority? I think I might be interpreting this wrong, but is that what you were trying to argue?
To a degree it's true. It's about the perception of power, most of the time you can only gain power if someone loses it.
What that has to do with race? Well, well you could look at the way American slavery ended. White power needed to be taken away before it was "given" during the whole civil rights movement, during slavery all those anti-slave cartoons could be considered racist to white people (because the sad fact is Black people did the same things to there own as well, just watch Django).

Again this is and over simplification. but the point is it forces the majority to actually take a good look at themselves if this is how they are seen. Whether it's right or wrong? Circumstantial at least.
 

ANTIcarrot

New member
Jan 3, 2011
12
0
0
"After all the philosophy behind laws protecting free speech is protecting it from suppression from government, not by other citizens."

And you were doing so well...

For one thing, THIS IS NOT THE TIME OR PLACE to soap box about your political views on an unrelated subject.

But since you brought it up... Your views that companies cannot comit acts of censorship is the diametric opposite of everyone who stood up in favour of Net Neutrality. Even if you want to quibble over dictionary meanings, every single person who was involved with or supported that back lash knew that your key driving point was not only hilariously wrong, but counter factual to a long history of companies, and groups of companies, restricting (EG censoring) what customers could or could not buy.

Stop beating that dead horse.
 

Therumancer

Citation Needed
Nov 28, 2007
9,909
0
0
An important mistake is being made here. Free Speech is intended to be an unassailable right, NOT simply protection against the government. The right was simply created at a time when the realities of modern communications technology had not even been conceived up, nor had media corporations, or how the media and politicians would engage in a directly incestuous relationship where political and historical re-inventionism and controlling the message directed at the youth to condition them to think like you combined with Omni-present media saturation would become a routinely employed strategy. The idea that a revolution not only against government but oppression by the so called "peerage" and wealthy with their own interests influencing the government intended for individual citizens and merchant-lords to wield more control over the average person than rightfully elected representatives is ridiculous. Such logic is the refuge of the modern liberal who wants to be seen as opposing censorship, and supporting free speech, but encouraging it through back door means.

Right now with PACs (political action commitees) and similar groups so cozy with the government one cannot argue for the right of individuals to limit or suppress the speech of others through any means and be taken seriously as any kind of believer in of freedom and liberty. After all a big part of the problem with government is the deals cut between private citizens and politicians. Meaning you see deals with media companies about what they will promote for political support and vice versa, not to mention all kinds of other deals out there. Someone in the media refusing others a platform or directing attacks and such being done by a private citizen is a technicality when he's working closely with the government to begin with and probably getting various benefits by doing what his (or her) patrons want. The problem of course being compounded by media powerhouses like Ted Turner who also have a clearly stated political agenda. Indeed 'ol Ted at one point had an attempted monopoly broken up by the government in part because of his political plans. Of course that largely failed because while broken up a lot of the big wigs were supporters of his anyway and while they competed they largely held to the same ideologies. When you start looking at various conspiracy theories about the media Ted Turner's name comes up a lot, and getting past a lot of the craziness, you'll be surprised how many big shots out there especially in the media have direct ties to him, including people who will surprise you. One of the big reasons why his attempted monopoly and government action was a big deal (and largely forgotten about today). Cases can be made for the Turners being among the most powerful people in the world despite how it looks on paper, before you even get into psychotic Illuminati/Freemason stuff, or the idea of the whole "Club 33" thing with him, Walt Disney, and The Devil being a sort of trinity, and that upon his passing The Devil will manifest as the Anti-Christ in the world the other two prepared (as I said, utterly insane).


At any rate, all ranting to make this more entertaining I think a lot of what Bob is saying is fundamentally flawed. The idea of free speech is that everyone is supposed to be able to speak evenly. If you don't like what someone else does with their pen, you have the right to use yours back, and just as much of a right to representation in the eyes of society.... that includes the right to a platform, but that was never specified because the current kinds of situations were never conceived of at the time. After all if someone can deny you a platform you might as well not have free speech, especially when the lines between public and private power can be easily blurred. That said as I have posted links to in the past, Muslims produce plenty of anti-western, anti-Jewish, stuff on their own, this is hardly one sided and honestly as "offensive" as some people argue Charlie might have been, The Muslim World is worse, I mean they have children's TV shows telling them to kill Jews and Westerners, and the leaders of oountries like Iran refuse to call the USA by it's name and refer to it as "Great Satan" in televised/reported meetings and stuff.

I think people might need to realize this attack in France was a wild success, it was NOT an attack on free speech, what was said by Charlie just made him a noticeable public person. The point of this attack was to both spread fear, AND to show Muslims that if "Martyrs" are willing to strike it doesn't matter who they kill, there will be no substantial retaliation. Something a lot of opponents of the civilized world are doing. Kim Jong Un stepping over lines set by The President, attacks by ISIS, incursions by China into Japanese and Filipino territory, the invasion of Crimea/Ukraine. None of which have lead to major reprisals by the civilized world, the water is being tested so to speak. The fact that people are actually trying to defend Muslims in France after this and even promote them to an extent based on the actions of a few, never mind engaging in the kind of crack down a lot of Muslims still fear is sort of the point, the fact that a public person/office was killed/wiped out by those willing to die for the cause, doing more damage in the big picture than the loss of the scant handful of martyrs, and nothing happened in retaliation, is going to encourage more of this. Not what a lot of people want to hear though, while we go back and forth about free speech and the barbarity of violence, and actually speak out against large scale reprisals, we're pretty much leaving ourselves open to a bigger attack. Within the next year or so I can virtually guarantee we're going to see another strike somewhere within the west at least as big as this, if not larger, as a result. Remember we're dealing with terrorists, not a few protestors who went too far, on his own this guy wasn't a worthwhile target, you need to look at the big picture.
 

Canadamus Prime

Robot in Disguise
Jun 17, 2009
14,334
0
0
I think "Freedom of Speech" is another one of those words or phrases that people like to banter around without actually understanding what they mean. In the words of Inigo Montoya "You keep using that (term), I don't think it means what you think it means."
 

MCerberus

New member
Jun 26, 2013
1,168
0
0
canadamus_prime said:
I think "Freedom of Speech" is another one of those words or phrases that people like to banter around without actually understanding what they mean. In the words of Inigo Montoya "You keep using that (term), I don't think it means what you think it means."
The most common one is that I'm free to tell you to shut the hell up.
I'm also free to tell you to go away.

The people that are countering the "we shouldn't lionize Charlie" crowd generally (subjective, personal exposure) confuse disagreement with oppression. It also shows up a lot with the recent gaming diversity arguments ("leave my games alone this argument is suppressing expression").
 

JMac85

New member
Nov 1, 2007
89
0
0
MCerberus said:
The most common one is that I'm free to tell you to shut the hell up.
I'm also free to tell you to go away.

The people that are countering the "we shouldn't lionize Charlie" crowd generally (subjective, personal exposure) confuse disagreement with oppression. It also shows up a lot with the recent gaming diversity arguments ("leave my games alone this argument is suppressing expression").
Doesn't that work both ways, though? You're lambasting gamers who are objecting to demands that games change to accommodate everyone, but shouldn't they too be able to tell them to shut up and go away?
 

Gizen

New member
Nov 17, 2009
279
0
0
JMac85 said:
GamemasterAnthony said:
...THAT is definitely not cool. Especially since it sort of borders on punishing the innocent along with the guilty. In this case, attacking Muslims in general for the acts of the extremists. This also happened as a result of 9/11 when American Muslims were vilified for the attacks DESPITE those very same American Muslims speaking out against what Bin Laden did.
It's not attacking Muslims, it's attacking a stupid belief they have.
And I'd say that believing one has the right to be a jerkass without fear of reprisal is a pretty stupid belief to have. Likely even moreso.
 

JMac85

New member
Nov 1, 2007
89
0
0
Gizen said:
And I'd say that believing one has the right to be a jerkass without fear of reprisal is a pretty stupid belief to have. Likely even moreso.
Good for you. But one does indeed have the right to express an opinion, however controversial, without the fear of being attacked for it. That's the law, buddy.

Unless you meant "reprisal" as "being criticized back". Then I must ask just who do you think is expressing such a sentiment? I'm sure not. If you want to make your own political cartoons making fun of people who draw Muhammad cartoons, be my guest. Then we'll have a rousing debate on the subject. Like on just what makes someone a "jerkass". How exactly is one a jerkass for criticizing religious beliefs? One would certainly be a jerkass for advocating a systematic persecution of those who hold such beliefs, you'll get no argument from me there. But why is it ok to make fun of Christianity, but not Islam? And don't give me that "punching down" bullshit. Punches are punches, there are no directions. If one can punch me, I can punch them back.
 

cathou

Souris la vie est un fromage
Apr 6, 2009
1,163
0
0
One of the thing i realised, is that most critism against Charlie Hebdo on the internet come from people who didnt know the magazine existed a week ago. they look up a montage of 6-7 cover pages that happen to be controversial and say : oh, look how come we defend a journal that was racist, homophobic, xenophobe and that taunt constantly the extremist islamist.

just to help people to forge their own opinion on the real source material, here's all the cover from Charlie hebdo since 2008 or so...

http://stripsjournal.canalblog.com/tag/Les%20Unes%20de%20Charlie%20Hebdo.


of course they are in french and some of them really d to be put in context to be understood
 

Joseph Hutzulak

New member
May 15, 2014
24
0
0
JMac85 said:
Gizen said:
And I'd say that believing one has the right to be a jerkass without fear of reprisal is a pretty stupid belief to have. Likely even moreso.
Good for you. But one does indeed have the right to express an opinion, however controversial, without the fear of being attacked for it. That's the law, buddy.

Unless you meant "reprisal" as "being criticized back". Then I must ask just who do you think is expressing such a sentiment? I'm sure not. If you want to make your own political cartoons making fun of people who draw Muhammad cartoons, be my guest. Then we'll have a rousing debate on the subject. Like on just what makes someone a "jerkass". How exactly is one a jerkass for criticizing religious beliefs? One would certainly be a jerkass for advocating a systematic persecution of those who hold such beliefs, you'll get no argument from me there. But why is it ok to make fun of Christianity, but not Islam? And don't give me that "punching down" bullshit. Punches are punches, there are no directions. If one can punch me, I can punch them back.
Punching up/down is just post modernist doublespeak to say its okay to make fun of people I dont like but its wrong to make fun of things I like.

Remember all animals are equal, some animals are more equal then others.
 

Ih8makingUsernames

New member
Dec 9, 2014
5
0
0
Joseph Hutzulak said:
Basically what I expected, "Its wrong to inject personal politics and agendas into such a tragedy, but let me just inject my politics into it"

Regardless, since Movie Bob obviously thinks so highly of himself and his ideas, Id love to see him debate someone because his idols seem to be so shy of actually putting their beliefs to the test.
I think you and I watched completely different episodes.

All that he talked about was how the incident doesn't mean that the victims were noble heroes - they made a few things that could be labeled as racist. That is not grounds for the death penalty, and speech should not be considered grounds for that. And then he mentioned the idea of how satire works, and the duality of satire.

I also wonder why you would waste your time watching an opinion show from someones opinion you appear to have contempt for. Although based off your arguments, I don't think that needs asking - you clearly didn't.
 

Joseph Hutzulak

New member
May 15, 2014
24
0
0
Ih8makingUsernames said:
Joseph Hutzulak said:
Basically what I expected, "Its wrong to inject personal politics and agendas into such a tragedy, but let me just inject my politics into it"

Regardless, since Movie Bob obviously thinks so highly of himself and his ideas, Id love to see him debate someone because his idols seem to be so shy of actually putting their beliefs to the test.
I think you and I watched completely different episodes.

All that he talked about was how the incident doesn't mean that the victims were noble heroes - they made a few things that could be labeled as racist. That is not grounds for the death penalty, and speech should not be considered grounds for that. And then he mentioned the idea of how satire works, and the duality of satire.

I also wonder why you would waste your time watching an opinion show from someones opinion you appear to have contempt for. Although based off your arguments, I don't think that needs asking - you clearly didn't.
01:58 onward: if I can soap box for a moment

So the majority of the video is political opinion.

I watch Movie Bob for the same reason I watch actual high level leftist commentators like Rachel Maddow ,Steven Colbert and John Stewart, its why I listen to NPR and read Al-Jazeera,BBC and even the Huffington Post because Im not afraid to hear criticism of my own ideas. If I say I am against censorship, how can I censor my own mind?
 

dragonswarrior

Also a Social Justice Warrior
Feb 13, 2012
434
0
0
JMac85 said:
By main gripe is with social media slacktavists like that schmuck Jonathan McIntosh, the "brains" behind Feminist Frequency. The guy is as tactful as Fred Phelps and as misguided as jack Thompson. And he too is hopping on the "criticizing Islam is racist!" bandwagon.
Friend, you are letting one person dictate how you feel about a whole philosophy/group of people?

Islamaphobia is not automatically racist, but racism is INCREDIBLY tied up in discrimination against Islam. This is why you won't ever find a white Muslim portrayed in any of these political cartoons that are against Islam (or if you do, it will be once in a blue moon). You won't even see black Muslims. Just middle eastern, frequently bearded, almost always wearing turbans. And that biggest problem is that that's how an enormous section of the worlds population sees the ENTIRETY of the Muslim population. As brown, bearded, turban wearing nutcases.

And that's just not true. And then that becomes racist. When you get white people calling Obama a Muslim because of his name, that's racist.

Now, that being said, criticism of Islam and Islamic States are not automatically racist. Let's be real, several of those places are oppressive as fuck. If one is truly an advocate for social justice, one recognizes the multiple levels and subtleties of such a complex subject. Which I try to, and I know all of my friends (who are all raging SJW's that like to game) do as well.

I also want to add that I'm not trying to defend Jonathan McIntosh. I have no idea what that guy is saying. And I honestly don't really care. Feminist Frequency is kind of "Babies first steps in feminism!" to me, which makes me kinda meh to the whole creative team. He might be a raging idiot, or he might be bang on the nose. I honestly have no clue.

Also, you should watch this video. It's very informative, and only about ten minutes. An interview on CNN. Enjoy!

 

maninahat

New member
Nov 8, 2007
4,397
0
0
Nods Respectfully Towards You said:
JMac85 said:
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.
Indeed. When the fuck did satire become about how privileged the person you are mocking is? In my opinion, there should be no sacred cows when it comes to satire. As long as your point is valid, it doesn't matter just how 'marginalized' the subject is. I swear, this 'check your privilege' shit is seeping everywhere nowadays.
It's been around for as long as there has been satire. Some cleverer person than me said: "In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal loaves of bread...". They recognised that society isn't equal, so "equal treatment" is often anything but. Satire and humour runs into the same conundrum. Even if you claim to "jab at everyone in equal measure", the effects of those jabs differ depending on the target.

That's why racist jokes have fallen out of favour, but anti-establishment jokes stay popular. It occurs to the onlookers that laughing at people who are already getting the shit end of the stick isn't all that funny, whereas those in a position of relative power can afford to be taken down a peg. That's also why black comedians can usually get away with telling the same kind of jokes that would be declared racist coming from a white comedian; in terms of relative power, the black comedian is on the same level as the people he is making fun of.
 

JMac85

New member
Nov 1, 2007
89
0
0
Ih8makingUsernames said:
I also wonder why you would waste your time watching an opinion show from someones opinion you appear to have contempt for. Although based off your arguments, I don't think that needs asking - you clearly didn't.
So as to not get yourself caught up in a confirmation bias? Echo chambers are poison to honest debate, it's important to actually expose yourself to things you don't agree with. Otherwise you become so sensitive to dissent you end up like those people who go around demanding trigger warnings for every little thing they don't like, and categorically block people for disagreeing you even once for whatever reason.

dragonswarrior said:
Friend, you are letting one person dictate how you feel about a whole philosophy/group of people?
Not at all, I was just citing an example.

As for characterizing Muslims as Middle Eastern, well, their holy land is in the Middle East, and the countries where Sharia Law is the law of the land are in the Middle East. So it stands to reason if you wish to portray a Muslim it'd make the most sense to make them Middle Eastern.
 

dragonswarrior

Also a Social Justice Warrior
Feb 13, 2012
434
0
0
JMac85 said:
Not at all, I was just citing an example.
Fair enough. I do however think you're focusing on a rather narrow and narrow minded group. Most of the folks I know involved in social justice work have much more complex views on Islam and racism.

As for characterizing Muslims as Middle Eastern, well, their holy land is in the Middle East, and the countries where Sharia Law is the law of the land are in the Middle East. So it stands to reason if you wish to portray a Muslim it'd make the most sense to make them Middle Eastern.
Uhm... But the Jewish and Christian holy lands are in the Middle East too. So that argument makes no sense.

You could try that most Muslims live in the Middle East. Except that while that may be true, a helluva lot of Muslims live in other places too.

http://www.pewforum.org/2009/10/07/mapping-the-global-muslim-population/

Significant Muslim populations can be found in Africa, while the countries with the largest populations are in Southern Asia and the Pacific Islands.

Then when you tie this into the fact that hey, you know, a good portion of Islamaphobia is racist... For example, in 2012 there was a Sikh temple shooting in Wisconsin, in which a white supremacist, who incorrectly believed he was attacking Muslims, murdered six Sikhs and was shot by police before killing himself.

Because all Arabs are Muslims, obviously.

Source (and a good read):http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2014/07/american-muslims-ongoing-civil-rights-fight-2014713883896279.html
 

Joseph Hutzulak

New member
May 15, 2014
24
0
0
dragonswarrior said:
JMac85 said:
Not at all, I was just citing an example.
Fair enough. I do however think you're focusing on a rather narrow and narrow minded group. Most of the folks I know involved in social justice work have much more complex views on Islam and racism.

As for characterizing Muslims as Middle Eastern, well, their holy land is in the Middle East, and the countries where Sharia Law is the law of the land are in the Middle East. So it stands to reason if you wish to portray a Muslim it'd make the most sense to make them Middle Eastern.
Uhm... But the Jewish and Christian holy lands are in the Middle East too. So that argument makes no sense.

You could try that most Muslims live in the Middle East. Except that while that may be true, a helluva lot of Muslims live in other places too.

http://www.pewforum.org/2009/10/07/mapping-the-global-muslim-population/

Significant Muslim populations can be found in Africa, while the countries with the largest populations are in Southern Asia and the Pacific Islands.

Then when you tie this into the fact that hey, you know, a good portion of Islamaphobia is racist... For example, in 2012 there was a Sikh temple shooting in Wisconsin, in which a white supremacist, who incorrectly believed he was attacking Muslims, murdered six Sikhs and was shot by police before killing himself.

Because all Arabs are Muslims, obviously.

Source (and a good read):http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2014/07/american-muslims-ongoing-civil-rights-fight-2014713883896279.html
Your being a bit silly here, Islam and the Middle East are tied together historically.

When one thinks of India, Jains and Buddhists arent what comes to mind. Or even Muslims since the Mughal Empire ruled the area for a long time.

When one thinks of Christianity, one thinks of Europe, not Eithopia, Turkey (Anatolia), Egypt or Persia(Iran) (Ironically the Nestorian and Copptic Faiths pre-date Christianization of a lot Europe.)

Also in your eyes how can someone be truely critical of islam and not be islamaphobic?

The articles is interesting and brings up problems in the U.S.......that are peanuts compared to the institutionalized discrimination that goes on in every muslim majority country outside of Albania.

Also Sikhs are mostly from the Punjab region of India, blame Johnny Quest for having a sikh named Hadji.
 

cathou

Souris la vie est un fromage
Apr 6, 2009
1,163
0
0
dragonswarrior said:
Islamaphobia is not automatically racist, but racism is INCREDIBLY tied up in discrimination against Islam. This is why you won't ever find a white Muslim portrayed in any of these political cartoons that are against Islam (or if you do, it will be once in a blue moon). You won't even see black Muslims. Just middle eastern, frequently bearded, almost always wearing turbans. And that biggest problem is that that's how an enormous section of the worlds population sees the ENTIRETY of the Muslim population. As brown, bearded, turban wearing nutcases.
true, that depicting a muslim as a turban wearer long beard and such is using a stereotype, but also, in one image without text, people have to understand that the caracter is muslim. i think it's not racism but rather just an easier way to pass the message in a single image