I don't agree with some protests in defense of Charlie Hebdo

For the serious discussion of weighty matters and worldly issues. No off-topic posts allowed.

Moderators: Azrael, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
Frankenstein
Posts: 44
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2015 10:15 am UTC

I don't agree with some protests in defense of Charlie Hebdo

Postby Frankenstein » Sat Jan 10, 2015 3:51 am UTC

Hi there ladies and gentlemen.

Sorry for the bad title, I've reached the char limit.

I think you are all aware of the terrible terrorism act that happened in France. Almost immediately after that event people from all around the world began manifesting their repulsion to terrorism and their support to the newspaper and the families of the victims. Some of them are genuinely touching and ingenious, however, I don't agree with a specific view that was also very popular, specially among other cartoonists and specialized media: a lot of them depicted the 'pen' as a 'weapon', I'm pretty sure you saw those cartoons, there's even one that says 'it hurts more than guns' or something like that.

I'm here to say that I completely disagree with that view. IMO, the pen is not mightier than the sword because it 'hurts more', the pen is mightier because it makes people THINK. Weapons HURTS, pens makes people THINK. If someone is using a pen to deliberately 'hurt' someone, I don't agree with that.

I mean, in case of CH, the pen was used to critique stuff, not to 'hurt' anyone. People took offense from that because they were fanatics, and even if CH were deliberated trying to 'hurt' them, nothing justifies the terrorism acts. They could just make their own cartoon ridiculing the CH members.

That's just my opinion though.
NOTE: I'm not active in this forum any longer.

User avatar
Azrael
CATS. CATS ARE NICE.
Posts: 6491
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2007 1:16 am UTC
Location: Boston

Re: I don't agree with some protests in defense of Charlie H

Postby Azrael » Sat Jan 10, 2015 4:19 am UTC

That usage is a comment on how a free press and free speech are harmful to oppressive governments or ideologies, rather than a celebration of how the written word can be used to defame someone. While the juxtaposition is an interesting point to illuminate, it's not the message people are conveying. Sometimes nuance is lost in the course of creating a useful slogan.

User avatar
Frankenstein
Posts: 44
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2015 10:15 am UTC

Re: I don't agree with some protests in defense of Charlie H

Postby Frankenstein » Sat Jan 10, 2015 4:35 am UTC

Azrael wrote:That usage is a comment on how a free press and free speech are harmful to oppressive governments or ideologies, rather than a celebration of how the written word can be used to defame someone. While the juxtaposition is an interesting point to illuminate, it's not the message people are conveying. Sometimes nuance is lost in the course of creating a useful slogan.

I agree, and yes, to some point I think one can say it 'hurts ideologies', however, when you're making analogies with guns that just hurt people, the 'subject' is implicit imho. In any case, I don't agree that the 'pen is a weapon'. It is a tool of education, of clarification, it should be used to make people reflect about their ideologies, not to 'impose' anything, that's what I call propaganda.
I mean, that's what satires are about right? They expose thing in an 'easily digestible' way, so people can reflect about that.
NOTE: I'm not active in this forum any longer.

User avatar
Azrael
CATS. CATS ARE NICE.
Posts: 6491
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2007 1:16 am UTC
Location: Boston

Re: I don't agree with some protests in defense of Charlie H

Postby Azrael » Sat Jan 10, 2015 4:40 am UTC

Frankenstein wrote:I agree, and yes, to some point I think one can say it 'hurts ideologies', however, when you're making analogies with guns that just hurt people, the 'subject' is implicit imho. In any case, I don't agree that the 'pen is a weapon'. It is a tool of education, of clarification, it should be used to make people reflect about their ideologies, not to 'impose' anything, that's what I call propaganda.
I mean, that's what satires are about right? They expose thing in an 'easily digestible' way, so people can reflect about that.

If the goal is to overthrow, damage or discredit an ideology and the written word is effective in doing so, referring to it as a weapon in that fight is well within common usage. A similar thing could be said about education itself -- that it's a weapon in the fight against tyranny.

User avatar
Frankenstein
Posts: 44
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2015 10:15 am UTC

Re: I don't agree with some protests in defense of Charlie H

Postby Frankenstein » Sat Jan 10, 2015 5:21 am UTC

Azrael wrote:
Frankenstein wrote:I agree, and yes, to some point I think one can say it 'hurts ideologies', however, when you're making analogies with guns that just hurt people, the 'subject' is implicit imho. In any case, I don't agree that the 'pen is a weapon'. It is a tool of education, of clarification, it should be used to make people reflect about their ideologies, not to 'impose' anything, that's what I call propaganda.
I mean, that's what satires are about right? They expose thing in an 'easily digestible' way, so people can reflect about that.

If the goal is to overthrow, damage or discredit an ideology and the written word is effective in doing so, referring to it as a weapon in that fight is well within common usage. A similar thing could be said about education itself -- that it's a weapon in the fight against tyranny.

I agree completely, but I really doubt that was the point of the protests. I mean, do they really expect people to think about that in such depth? I don't think so. And there's even a protest of a Chilean cartoonist with a 'call to arms' written on top of a picture of a gun made of office stuff. It creates the impression that CH was using the pens as actual 'weapons' to deliberately offend the Islamists, but that was not the case afaik.

Yes, the pen, when used for education, is a weapon against tyranny, that's 100% perfect from my POV, however, the pen can also be used to perpetuate the tyranny, thus it's not necessarily a 'good' weapon, it can also be used for bad things, that's why people should avoid comparing it with such weapons like individual assault rifles imho, because those weapons are used for 'individual' attacks, and pens are used, in that context, as a tool of 'elucidation en masse'. I think it would be more accurate to compare it to some kind of mass destruction weapon, but that's a terrible analogy. A 'weapon of mass education' sounds terrible imho.

I don't know if you're getting my point (I must be really awful in terms of communication), what 'attacked' CH was the fanaticism (the terrorist organization that represents an ideology), the AK47s were used to murder specific persons, I think it's to some extent accurate to call that a 'personal attack that is part of a greater plan'. A soldier on the battlefield is not killing the enemy country, they are killing people that represents that enemy country, but most likely they have nothing in particular against that specific person (other than the obvious). But when I see such analogies, it's like if the whole thing was brought to the 'personal' level, what was totally not the point of the satirical newspaper.

For example, I don't think it's impossible that some people interpreted that as a call to write offensive stuff and mail it to the Islamist next door. It's like "it's wrong when they use their AKs to hurt us physically, but it's okay to use our pens to hurt them emotionally". I don't agree with that. It's only okay to use the pen to make them see what they're doing imho.

Perhaps I'm just a bit off tracks though.

NOTE: I'm not disagreeing with you in any point.

EDIT:
They 'keyword' here is 'hurt', not 'weapon':
The pen is a weapon to make people think. It 'hits' the intellect.
The AK is a weapon to hurt people. It 'hits' the physical body.

Any weapon that 'hurts' the feelings sounds bad to me.
NOTE: I'm not active in this forum any longer.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: I don't agree with some protests in defense of Charlie H

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Jan 12, 2015 6:49 pm UTC

Frankenstein wrote:
Azrael wrote:That usage is a comment on how a free press and free speech are harmful to oppressive governments or ideologies, rather than a celebration of how the written word can be used to defame someone. While the juxtaposition is an interesting point to illuminate, it's not the message people are conveying. Sometimes nuance is lost in the course of creating a useful slogan.

I agree, and yes, to some point I think one can say it 'hurts ideologies', however, when you're making analogies with guns that just hurt people, the 'subject' is implicit imho. In any case, I don't agree that the 'pen is a weapon'. It is a tool of education, of clarification, it should be used to make people reflect about their ideologies, not to 'impose' anything, that's what I call propaganda.
I mean, that's what satires are about right? They expose thing in an 'easily digestible' way, so people can reflect about that.


Sure, it's a weapon. Weapon is not a description for "things that are bad". Not all uses of weapons are equivalent. Nor are all weapons equivalent.

User avatar
Paul in Saudi
Posts: 262
Joined: Fri Sep 07, 2012 12:52 pm UTC
Location: Dammam, Saudi Arabia

Re: I don't agree with some protests in defense of Charlie H

Postby Paul in Saudi » Wed Feb 04, 2015 3:33 pm UTC

All in all, this story is an example of troublemakers making trouble. Sure the magazine has a right to publish whatever it chooses. But as The Dude would have pointed out to the editors, "You're not wrong, you're just an asshole."

Muslims in France are an impoverished, hated minority. I thought the purpose of satire was to deflate the rich and powerful. Nothing like the rich, educated white people taking time out of their day to see if they can get a rise out of the brown people.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10548
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: I don't agree with some protests in defense of Charlie H

Postby CorruptUser » Wed Feb 04, 2015 4:07 pm UTC

Paul in Saudi wrote:All in all, this story is an example of troublemakers making trouble. Sure the magazine has a right to publish whatever it chooses. But as The Dude would have pointed out to the editors, "You're not wrong, you're just an asshole."

Muslims in France are an impoverished, hated minority. I thought the purpose of satire was to deflate the rich and powerful. Nothing like the rich, educated white people taking time out of their day to see if they can get a rise out of the brown people.



Were they making fun of Moroccans in France or of Islam? Because Islam? Oppressed?

User avatar
Paul in Saudi
Posts: 262
Joined: Fri Sep 07, 2012 12:52 pm UTC
Location: Dammam, Saudi Arabia

Re: I don't agree with some protests in defense of Charlie H

Postby Paul in Saudi » Wed Feb 04, 2015 5:41 pm UTC

Had their cartoon appeared in a right-wing Nazi publication calling for an all=White France, would you feel differently? Would your opinion change? Is it OK for intellectual elites to try to provoke Muslims, but wrong for neo-Nazis to provoke Jews?

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: I don't agree with some protests in defense of Charlie H

Postby Izawwlgood » Wed Feb 04, 2015 5:45 pm UTC

Paul in Saudi wrote:Had their cartoon appeared in a right-wing Nazi publication calling for an all=White France, would you feel differently? Would your opinion change? Is it OK for intellectual elites to try to provoke Muslims, but wrong for neo-Nazis to provoke Jews?

Neither are particularly 'ok'. This point has been thrown around a lot, about how the ADL got involved with some of the Holocaust denial-esque comics. I hope everyone is capable of recognizing the difference between anti-semetism/anti-Islam comics, and comics that are promoting Holocaust denialism.

And fwiw, I don't think the ADL should have gotten involved, though, I will say it's involvement was not in the form of murder or violence.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
Paul in Saudi
Posts: 262
Joined: Fri Sep 07, 2012 12:52 pm UTC
Location: Dammam, Saudi Arabia

Re: I don't agree with some protests in defense of Charlie H

Postby Paul in Saudi » Wed Feb 04, 2015 5:59 pm UTC

I support freedom of speech with no limits. But as I said, in this case troublemakers were making trouble. They knew what they were doing and they did it on purpose.

Which brings us to Jefferson Davis, president of the Confederacy. Jeff Davis held that since secession was not illegal it must therefore be legal. An argument could be made I suppose. But Davis caused a war because gosh darn it he was right and everyone else was wrong. He let good people die to protect his right.

Here the editors were well within their rights to provoke members of an unpopular minority religion. They knew it would cause violence. But gosh darn it, they were right and that was all that mattered. Now a bunch of people are dead, and plenty more will die. But darn it, they have a right to print those cartoons and so they are going to do it. They are willing to let good people die to protect their right.

As I mentioned, they are not wrong. They are just assholes. So are the terrorists.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: I don't agree with some protests in defense of Charlie H

Postby Izawwlgood » Wed Feb 04, 2015 6:26 pm UTC

And I'm not really sure what your point is, because no one is claiming that the Hebdo comics were good examples of satire.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: I don't agree with some protests in defense of Charlie H

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Feb 04, 2015 6:33 pm UTC

Paul in Saudi wrote:I support freedom of speech with no limits. But as I said, in this case troublemakers were making trouble. They knew what they were doing and they did it on purpose.

Which brings us to Jefferson Davis, president of the Confederacy. Jeff Davis held that since secession was not illegal it must therefore be legal. An argument could be made I suppose. But Davis caused a war because gosh darn it he was right and everyone else was wrong. He let good people die to protect his right.


Legal is not the same as being right, or a good idea. The Westboro Babtists provide a number of examples of clearly legal, yet wrongheaded displays of freedom of speech.

It is perfectly reasonable for us to strongly dislike those folks, and their tactics, and to criticize them....without infringing freedom of speech. So long as you're not calling for censorship, no real problem exists. Our society deals with such exceptions in kind, via counter protests, critical articles, and such. This is a very good thing. We might not like the Westboro folks, but we're not gonna go beat them until they do what we want, or kill them, or so forth. This is the essense of civilization.

Here the editors were well within their rights to provoke members of an unpopular minority religion. They knew it would cause violence. But gosh darn it, they were right and that was all that mattered. Now a bunch of people are dead, and plenty more will die. But darn it, they have a right to print those cartoons and so they are going to do it. They are willing to let good people die to protect their right.

As I mentioned, they are not wrong. They are just assholes. So are the terrorists.


They are not assholes for the deaths. They did not cause the deaths. Those who reacted with violence caused the deaths, and bear that responsibility entirely.

Making fun of Islam was no more assholish than making fun of whatever other religion. Murdering people over a cartoon, now that's asshole behavior.

User avatar
Paul in Saudi
Posts: 262
Joined: Fri Sep 07, 2012 12:52 pm UTC
Location: Dammam, Saudi Arabia

Re: I don't agree with some protests in defense of Charlie H

Postby Paul in Saudi » Wed Feb 04, 2015 6:37 pm UTC

They knew their actions would result in violence. They did not overly care. Innocent people died. They were jerks.

I do like the comparison to Westboro Baptist Church. Few people carry signs that say "I am Westboro."

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: I don't agree with some protests in defense of Charlie H

Postby Izawwlgood » Wed Feb 04, 2015 6:40 pm UTC

Knowing that their actions would result in violence is not an argument against their creation/publication of those comics. Similarly, your equating the cartoonists as 'assholes' and the terrorists as also merely 'assholes' is highly problematic to me.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: I don't agree with some protests in defense of Charlie H

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Feb 04, 2015 6:43 pm UTC

Paul in Saudi wrote:They knew their actions would result in violence. They did not overly care. Innocent people died. They were jerks.

I do like the comparison to Westboro Baptist Church. Few people carry signs that say "I am Westboro."


I am not attempting to equate them morally with Westboro. It's simply an illustrative example for the purposes of comparing responses to freedom of speech.

Why should we accept the moral responsibility for obviously unjustified acts? If someone threatens to kick a puppy every time I post, am I now an animal abuser?

User avatar
Paul in Saudi
Posts: 262
Joined: Fri Sep 07, 2012 12:52 pm UTC
Location: Dammam, Saudi Arabia

Re: I don't agree with some protests in defense of Charlie H

Postby Paul in Saudi » Wed Feb 04, 2015 6:46 pm UTC

Well, I suppose you are right. After all considering the harm their actions would cause would be an infringement on their right to ...something something something. Now a lot of people are dead who never even saw their silly magazine. But he main thing is they didn't pull the trigger. They just provoked other people to kill, as they knew they eventually would.

Jefferson Davis never killed anyone. He just set in motion the wheels he knew would kill over half a million. But he had rights too.

User avatar
PeteP
What the peck?
Posts: 1451
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2011 4:51 pm UTC

Re: I don't agree with some protests in defense of Charlie H

Postby PeteP » Wed Feb 04, 2015 6:52 pm UTC

They knew it would cause violence? Are you saying Islamists do it everytime such comics appear somewhere? Or how exactly did they know?

Btw for clarification which deaths exactly do you ascribe to them, since you are talking about "lot of people are dead who never even saw their silly magazine"
Last edited by PeteP on Wed Feb 04, 2015 6:53 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: I don't agree with some protests in defense of Charlie H

Postby Izawwlgood » Wed Feb 04, 2015 6:53 pm UTC

I think you're making some incredibly disingenuous false equivalences here. Jefferson Davis was a political leader during time of war. That analogy is like saying Napoleon didn't kill anyone, just inspired an army to kill people. Yes, but so what?

Again, no one is saying that the Hebdo authors were doing anything in particularly good taste, nor that they should be silenced, nor that making comics in poor taste is some proud example of defiance or a moral imperitive of exercising a freedom. It's extremely odd that you compared actual factual terrorists who responded to being offended by literally murdering people to the 'assholes' that authored Hebdo.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: I don't agree with some protests in defense of Charlie H

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Feb 04, 2015 6:55 pm UTC

Paul in Saudi wrote:Well, I suppose you are right. After all considering the harm their actions would cause would be an infringement on their right to ...something something something. Now a lot of people are dead who never even saw their silly magazine. But he main thing is they didn't pull the trigger. They just provoked other people to kill, as they knew they eventually would.

Jefferson Davis never killed anyone. He just set in motion the wheels he knew would kill over half a million. But he had rights too.


Where does the lesser bounds of "provoking" someone end? Are two dudes kissing in public "provoking" that homophobic bigot to kill them?

Hell, am *I* provoking muslim terrorists by calling them names(because they kill gays)?

User avatar
Paul in Saudi
Posts: 262
Joined: Fri Sep 07, 2012 12:52 pm UTC
Location: Dammam, Saudi Arabia

Re: I don't agree with some protests in defense of Charlie H

Postby Paul in Saudi » Wed Feb 04, 2015 7:05 pm UTC

Their actions were not the direct cause of the terrorist attack. Obviously that was the terrorists rising to the bait the publishers threw out were the direct cause. The publishers were an underlying but necessary link in the causation. Their actions led to a result a blind man could see coming. Their actions were the proximate cause. They knew better. They did it anyway.

They did not cause injury unknowingly and so accidentally provoke the terrorists. They did not make a mistake. They did it on purpose.

Had these cartoons not provokes an attack they would have kept publishing more and more insults against their local minority groups, Catholics, Jews, Muslims until some darn thing happened. I am reminded of Krusty the Klown who coaxed a little girl into firing a gun setting off a chain of events. He then pointed out, "It's not my fault, I didn't do it."

Now it is up to soldiers and policemen, people like me, to defend free speech. I will do it, but I sure do wish at least sometimes I could defend Thomas Jefferson instead of a bunch of idiots.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: I don't agree with some protests in defense of Charlie H

Postby Izawwlgood » Wed Feb 04, 2015 7:11 pm UTC

Paul in Saudi wrote:They did not cause injury unknowingly and so accidentally provoke the terrorists. They did not make a mistake. They did it on purpose.
And you're right, it's an example of bullying that is pretty shitty for a few reasons, just one of which is that it's coming from 'privileged white people' and directed to 'mistreated minorities'.

I'm still uncertain what your point it. 'Doing something shitty' is not the same as 'murdering someone'. If you want to defend free speech for the right people, support and extol the many virtuous Muslims who chose to respond to Hebdo with words and intellectual criticism, and who also supported the Hebdo comic creators right to create something that was so offensive.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
Paul in Saudi
Posts: 262
Joined: Fri Sep 07, 2012 12:52 pm UTC
Location: Dammam, Saudi Arabia

Re: I don't agree with some protests in defense of Charlie H

Postby Paul in Saudi » Wed Feb 04, 2015 7:13 pm UTC

It is bedtime here. Please excuse me.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10548
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: I don't agree with some protests in defense of Charlie H

Postby CorruptUser » Wed Feb 04, 2015 7:18 pm UTC

Hebdo 'provoked' violence the way a civil rights marcher 'provoked' the Klan to murder. Sorry, you don't get to say "well the person shouldn't have been campaigning for equal rights if she didn't want murders to happen!" Because guess what? When you give up your rights because someone threatens you, the terrorists win. Literally. That's exactly what terrorism tries to do.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: I don't agree with some protests in defense of Charlie H

Postby morriswalters » Wed Feb 04, 2015 9:51 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:Hebdo 'provoked' violence the way a civil rights marcher 'provoked' the Klan to murder. Sorry, you don't get to say "well the person shouldn't have been campaigning for equal rights if she didn't want murders to happen!" Because guess what? When you give up your rights because someone threatens you, the terrorists win. Literally. That's exactly what terrorism tries to do.
What happened is wrong, simply because murder is wrong. Murderers always have some justification that they use for themselves however irrational. I really haven't thought much about this, but it has no true connection to Civil Rights. In France, Islam is a minority Religion. This was not being done by Muslims as a political statement by a minority, but as a political statement by members the dominant ethic majority against a minority.

Given the state of Muslims in France the magazines moral position seems a little dubious. Unemployment seems to be much higher for Muslims and here is some data on incarceration. From a 2008 Washington Post article.
This prison is majority Muslim -- as is virtually every house of incarceration in France. About 60 to 70 percent of all inmates in the country's prison system are Muslim, according to Muslim leaders, sociologists and researchers, though Muslims make up only about 12 percent of the country's population.

User avatar
Paul in Saudi
Posts: 262
Joined: Fri Sep 07, 2012 12:52 pm UTC
Location: Dammam, Saudi Arabia

Re: I don't agree with some protests in defense of Charlie H

Postby Paul in Saudi » Thu Feb 05, 2015 3:12 am UTC

CorruptUser wrote:Hebdo 'provoked' violence the way a civil rights marcher 'provoked' the Klan to murder. Sorry, you don't get to say "well the person shouldn't have been campaigning for equal rights if she didn't want murders to happen!" Because guess what? When you give up your rights because someone threatens you, the terrorists win. Literally. That's exactly what terrorism tries to do.



A very good point. Thank you for it.

My first thought well my first thought was "good point." My second thought is that treating people nicely, acting toward others as you would have them act toward you, is not bowing to terrorism. It is being civil and respectful.

On the other thread these is a discussion of white actors in blackface or in drag. Some argue that actors have a perfect right to do such things. Of course they do. Others say actors ought not to be insulting just to be insulting. Of course they ought not to be.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: I don't agree with some protests in defense of Charlie H

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu Feb 05, 2015 3:58 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:Hebdo 'provoked' violence the way a civil rights marcher 'provoked' the Klan to murder. Sorry, you don't get to say "well the person shouldn't have been campaigning for equal rights if she didn't want murders to happen!" Because guess what? When you give up your rights because someone threatens you, the terrorists win. Literally. That's exactly what terrorism tries to do.


Yup. If you're shifting moral responsibility to the people NOT threatening violence due to said threats, you're ceding power to whoever threatens violence. That seems a really shitty thing to do.

Paul in Saudi wrote:My first thought well my first thought was "good point." My second thought is that treating people nicely, acting toward others as you would have them act toward you, is not bowing to terrorism. It is being civil and respectful.


Yes, cartoons and comedy are sometimes impolite. No argument there. So?

There's nothing like an equality with terrorism in there. Someone telling a joke you do not enjoy is not license for you to engage in violence. It does not in any way excuse your violence, or justify it.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: I don't agree with some protests in defense of Charlie H

Postby Izawwlgood » Thu Feb 05, 2015 4:01 pm UTC

Paul in Saudi wrote:On the other thread these is a discussion of white actors in blackface or in drag. Some argue that actors have a perfect right to do such things. Of course they do. Others say actors ought not to be insulting just to be insulting. Of course they ought not to be.
So... you agree that the comic authors were doing something that was within reason, and that violence was the unreasonable action?
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
Paul in Saudi
Posts: 262
Joined: Fri Sep 07, 2012 12:52 pm UTC
Location: Dammam, Saudi Arabia

Re: I don't agree with some protests in defense of Charlie H

Postby Paul in Saudi » Thu Feb 05, 2015 4:02 pm UTC

Yep. And I am not. I am pointing out that the people making the joke are jerks. I think we all agree on this.

cphite
Posts: 1369
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 5:27 pm UTC

Re: I don't agree with some protests in defense of Charlie H

Postby cphite » Thu Feb 05, 2015 7:45 pm UTC

Paul in Saudi wrote:Their actions were not the direct cause of the terrorist attack. Obviously that was the terrorists rising to the bait the publishers threw out were the direct cause. The publishers were an underlying but necessary link in the causation. Their actions led to a result a blind man could see coming. Their actions were the proximate cause. They knew better. They did it anyway.


Much in the same way that people who suffered abuse during the Civil Rights movement brought it on themselves... they knew that demanding equal rights and basic human dignity would get them into trouble, but they went and did it anyway.

They did not cause injury unknowingly and so accidentally provoke the terrorists. They did not make a mistake. They did it on purpose.


Yes; they deliberately exercised their right to free expression, knowing full well that some people wouldn't like it.

Interestingly, the same folks who don't like the cartoons in question also do not like people who eat pork, or who keep dogs as pets. They also don't like women who go out in public uncovered, or without a male escort. There is actually a really long list of things that they don't like... are you suggesting that we surrender to all of these things, or just the cartoon thing?

To put it another way, if this same group of assholes were to shoot up a shopping mall because they didn't like the fact that women were there, faces not covered and without escorts, would you be arguing that the people who died in that attack were responsible? That their actions were the proximate cause? Or how about if they shoot up a restaurant because it serves bacon, despite knowing that it would provoke the terrorists?

Now it is up to soldiers and policemen, people like me, to defend free speech. I will do it, but I sure do wish at least sometimes I could defend Thomas Jefferson instead of a bunch of idiots.


Actually go look up what Thomas Jefferson wrote - and did - in regards to freedom of speech.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: I don't agree with some protests in defense of Charlie H

Postby morriswalters » Thu Feb 05, 2015 8:06 pm UTC

cphite wrote:Much in the same way that people who suffered abuse during the Civil Rights movement brought it on themselves... they knew that demanding equal rights and basic human dignity would get them into trouble, but they went and did it anyway.
Generally speaking what minority were they attempting to protect or free?

cphite
Posts: 1369
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 5:27 pm UTC

Re: I don't agree with some protests in defense of Charlie H

Postby cphite » Thu Feb 05, 2015 8:54 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:
cphite wrote:Much in the same way that people who suffered abuse during the Civil Rights movement brought it on themselves... they knew that demanding equal rights and basic human dignity would get them into trouble, but they went and did it anyway.
Generally speaking what minority were they attempting to protect or free?


The point is, you don't get to blame the victims of violence for the actions of the thugs who committed the violence. The argument that the people at Charlie Hebdo somehow provoked what happened to them is no different than arguing that the civil rights protesters provoked what they got, or that a rape victim was "asking for it" because she wore a certain outfit, etc.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: I don't agree with some protests in defense of Charlie H

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu Feb 05, 2015 9:01 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:
cphite wrote:Much in the same way that people who suffered abuse during the Civil Rights movement brought it on themselves... they knew that demanding equal rights and basic human dignity would get them into trouble, but they went and did it anyway.
Generally speaking what minority were they attempting to protect or free?


Who gives a shit? A minority or a majority in chains, what difference does it make?

Hell, women in some areas outnumber men, meaning that calling them a minority is...not statistically correct. That doesn't lessen their claim on rights, though. Nor should it affect the moral judgement in the slightest.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: I don't agree with some protests in defense of Charlie H

Postby morriswalters » Thu Feb 05, 2015 10:49 pm UTC

cphite wrote:
morriswalters wrote:
cphite wrote:Much in the same way that people who suffered abuse during the Civil Rights movement brought it on themselves... they knew that demanding equal rights and basic human dignity would get them into trouble, but they went and did it anyway.
Generally speaking what minority were they attempting to protect or free?


The point is, you don't get to blame the victims of violence for the actions of the thugs who committed the violence. The argument that the people at Charlie Hebdo somehow provoked what happened to them is no different than arguing that the civil rights protesters provoked what they got, or that a rape victim was "asking for it" because she wore a certain outfit, etc.
I never said otherwise. Murder is never justified. I said that this is not comparable to the civil rights movement. They were dicks. They live in a country where around 70 percent of the prison population is Muslim.
Of the 67,500 people currently behind bars in France, it is estimated that 70 per cent are Muslim – when they comprise only eight per cent of the French public. It is illegal under France’s strict laicity laws to count the number of Muslim prisoners, but experts agree that the figure is an accurate average – with some prisons, like those near Paris and Marseille, seeing an even higher percentage. In England and Wales, Muslims account for 14 per cent of the prison population, according to Home Office statistics, and five per cent of the population nationwide.
If there is any parallel to the US that suggests a high degree of racism or a high degree of crime among the Muslim population. Which would that be? Muslim unemployment is about twice what the native French population is, but it's hard to find good statistics since the stats appear to be colorblind. So kick them in the only thing they have left. I call that dickish. My sympathy meter takes a hit given those facts.

User avatar
Paul in Saudi
Posts: 262
Joined: Fri Sep 07, 2012 12:52 pm UTC
Location: Dammam, Saudi Arabia

Re: I don't agree with some protests in defense of Charlie H

Postby Paul in Saudi » Fri Feb 06, 2015 11:57 am UTC

I am not blaming the guys who published the cartoons. I am saying they were jerks for doing it. Few people need to be shot, and these people were not in that group.

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7604
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: I don't agree with some protests in defense of Charlie H

Postby Zamfir » Fri Feb 06, 2015 2:32 pm UTC

Still, why call them out as jerks at this moment, when many of them have just been killed by people who objected to their works? And why them, out of the millions of people that deserve just as much to be called out?

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10548
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: I don't agree with some protests in defense of Charlie H

Postby CorruptUser » Fri Feb 06, 2015 2:48 pm UTC

And why should Mohammed (and religion) be beyond criticism? You live in a country where atheism is a Capitol offense and bloggers get a thousand lashes for 'insulting Islam', women aren't allowed to drive and are required to burn to death rather than go outside without a scarf; is some 2 bit rag really the most pressing issue?

And why is it that in the countries demanding religion be immune from criticism, they tend to spew the most vitriol about other religions?

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: I don't agree with some protests in defense of Charlie H

Postby morriswalters » Fri Feb 06, 2015 4:16 pm UTC

Zamfir wrote:Still, why call them out as jerks at this moment, when many of them have just been killed by people who objected to their works? And why them, out of the millions of people that deserve just as much to be called out?
I'm sorry they are dead. But they don't need halos. Satire serves a purpose in my mind. At its best it pokes the majority in the eye to get them to see the injustices in life. But wielded against a marginalized population by the French majority doesn't strike me as particularly fair. And I resent comparisons made to the civil rights movement.
CorruptUser wrote:And why should Mohammed (and religion) be beyond criticism?
What is it you want to do? They already see you as hating them and wanting to kill them, with some Justification. Do you see a difference between living as an atheist in a Christian society drawing a picture of the Pope fucking a goat and then that same picture with Mohammed, also by an atheist as part of a Christian society? Do you see the imbalance of power? Who is marginalized and who is weak? Of course you have the right, but do you have the moral standing to make the point you are trying to make? Do you think they will listen? And if you can't make the point then all you are doing is shouting look what I can do.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10548
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: I don't agree with some protests in defense of Charlie H

Postby CorruptUser » Fri Feb 06, 2015 4:26 pm UTC

Can you link to the picture of Mohammed doing bestiality? Or are you making shit up?

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: I don't agree with some protests in defense of Charlie H

Postby Tyndmyr » Fri Feb 06, 2015 4:30 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:
Zamfir wrote:Still, why call them out as jerks at this moment, when many of them have just been killed by people who objected to their works? And why them, out of the millions of people that deserve just as much to be called out?
I'm sorry they are dead. But they don't need halos. Satire serves a purpose in my mind. At its best it pokes the majority in the eye to get them to see the injustices in life. But wielded against a marginalized population by the French majority doesn't strike me as particularly fair. And I resent comparisons made to the civil rights movement.


Can minorities never commit injustices?

Is it wrong to point out injustices committed by the powerful and the marginalized alike?

This IS a civil rights movement. I'm an avowed atheist. There are countries where saying that a little too loudly could get me killed. That's kind of a big deal. See also, women's rights. Gay rights. Islam has frequently weighed in on those issues, and generally not on the pro-freedom side.

In the west, civil rights battles mostly don't take the form of overt killings anymore. When it does, those things tend to attract opposition. And they SHOULD. More opposition, if anything.

CorruptUser wrote:And why should Mohammed (and religion) be beyond criticism?
What is it you want to do? They already see you as hating them and wanting to kill them, with some Justification. Do you see a difference between living as an atheist in a Christian society drawing a picture of the Pope fucking a goat and then that same picture with Mohammed, also by an atheist as part of a Christian society? Do you see the imbalance of power? Who is marginalized and who is weak? Of course you have the right, but do you have the moral standing to make the point you are trying to make? Do you think they will listen? And if you can't make the point then all you are doing is shouting look what I can do.


Uh, yeah, I see a difference. If I make some horribly offensive cartoon against Catholics, I won't get killed for it. That's an important difference.

I don't give a crap about the power levels of a religion. Shit, a cult might only be a few hundred people, and politicially irrelevant, but their bullshit can and should be called out.


Return to “Serious Business”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests