https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Hebdo_shooting
This is a sensitive topic for some people, so please do your best to have civil discussions. Let’s do better than the average social media.
Satire should be staunchly defended. Some people may find it offensive and they can go fuck themselves.
Satirical publications are often the last free press able to publish in authoritarian governments and have often played a critical role in communication to weaken oppressive regimes.
We can all occasionally suffer jokes in bad taste in exchange for freedom of the press.
While I agree with Satire should be staunchly defended, I can’t see a way for that to happen when you hit a nerve with a greathammer repeatedly.
So as a society we can show our full stance besides satire, but showing a stance, even with millions of people, could stop them getting killed by a two radicals? It appears not.
So what should we do, put State Police in front of their door? I think police standing in front of every satire outlet would be a satire itself.
It was depressing that every newspaper in the developed world didn’t print the cartoon :(
They sold millions of them here in France though but yeah you’re right. Especially the Danes who backed down then and again.
Yes, collective punishment is always a good response that has never backfired.
That has nothing to do with collective punishment
Sorry, I thought you meant as a response to the murder of the Hebdo staff by the two brothers and their accomplice.
How did you mean it?
In respect to their Muslim readers. Whatever you think, for Muslims, including me, it’s profane to picture Mohammad, as much it’s profane to picture Jesus fucking Peter in the ass.
Even if there’s no reasoning behind it, respecting 1.8 billion people’s sensibilities should be the niceness I’d like to see in the world.
Should homosexuality be banned, to respect 1.8 billion people’s sensibilities?
It’s always someone comes to build a strawman whenever one mentions Muslims could have some sensibilities.
Funny, you just did the same thing with your argument about Gaza. So when somebody else uses the same approach, it’s a strawman?
Ah yes. A strawman. 🤔
[…], as much it’s profane to picture Jesus fucking Peter in the ass.
Christians were upset and made a lot of noise about it, but didn’t kill or even beat up anyone:
No.
In respect to my functioning brain it is profane to cater to babies who cry about pictures of their child rapist prophet.
Everything is and should be allowed in comedy. Religion is no exception.
I think Charlie Hebdo comics are often in bad taste and more shock value than critic, but that’s no legitimate reason to massacre people.
More than the attack on Charlie Hebdo itself, which I can “understand” in the twisted sense of a religious fanatic, it was the overall ruthlessness of the attackers that shocked me. I remember vividly seeing a video of one of the attackers walking up to a wounded police officer and executing him at point-blank range.
Doesn’t make sense to me that religious people get violent because of something you say or draw.
If it would be wrong god will punish people who do it. If god doesn’t it is not wrong. And if god doesn’t but religious people do, that is them acting against god and thinking they know better then god. That is blasphemy and will make their god hate them.
What’s this image supposed to be? All I see is CENSORED.
It’s religion, it doesn’t need to be logical. Au contraire.
As in everything in life, your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins.
If you don’t like the satire of Charlie Hebdo, your right is to not read it. If you don’t like a comedian who makes pedo jokes, your right is to not buy their tickets. If you don’t like a TV show that shows drug use, your right is to not watch it.
That’s it. That’s the end of your personal rights on that issue. You do NOT have the right to tell other people what they personally view, watch, read, etc…
If enough people share your view, that publication/comedian/show will either change or go out of business naturally because of lack of subscribers. That’s how it works.
I personally find Charlie Hebdo to be racist twits. But that doesn’t give me any right to kill them. I have the right to just ignore them.
What makes you think Charlie Hebdo is racist?
“Racist” is probably too strong a word, you’re right.
I think “Tasteless” is more fitting. Racist would imply that they “satirise” some groups while protecting others, while Charlie Hebdo paints everyone with the same tasteless brush.
“Islamists” are politically far-right - paleoconservatives, theocrats, fascists.
It says a lot that there’s only one religion that I’m scared to criticize.
12 people were killed for publishing a cartoon of Muhammad.
A teacher was beheaded for showing a drawing of Muhammad.
Cartoonist drew Muhammad, leading to Danish embassies being attacked and riots broke out and people died. Later, people broke into his house to try to kill him.
Cartoonist had to live under police protection because of threats.
Creators of South Park were threatened for including Muhammad in an episode of the show.
These were just a few from the FIRST PAGE of a search engine, AND outside of Muslim majority countries.
This is before even considering every other ‘provocation’, leading to incidences like:
Salman Rushdie being stabbed on stage
A teacher forced into hiding for showing a picture of mahammad
Removed by mod
We pull back too much because Islamic nutjobs will get violent because you dared draw a picture that resembled their stupid prophet. By doing that, we are giving them what they want and telling other religious groups that if they get violent enough, we’ll stop to appease them too.
You can mock Jesus, Moses, Krishna and any other religious figure because their followers, at worse, are going to verbally protest, if they do anything at all. But draw fucking Muhammad and people will tell you to knock it off because we don’t want to upset the assholes who will riot and kill people because they can’t handle someone having a differing opinion. Society bends over backwards to not offend Islam out of fear.
In response, we should have doubled down. Make more cartoons, get more vulgar with it…go all in, not stopped to appease them. Some people did for a while immediately after the attack, but not enough and not long enough, imo.
Would your response be the same if an outright racist or transphobic comic was murdered? Would you spread racist and transphobic content to assert your free speech?
Society bends over backwards to not offend Islam out of fear.
Not drawing cartoons is not bending over backwards. If they were trying to get women being veiled, or ban abortions or homosexuality then yeah we should tell them to fuck off. But if they’re just asking to not say a word or draw something that isn’t necessary to political dialog then it’s fair for society to respect that. It should be enforced by being ostracized not killed though.
People shouldn’t be shot for saying the n word but if someone did get shot for saying it we shouldn’t all go around saying the n word because being intentionally offensive is still a dick move. Again not one that should be punished with death.
Would your response be the same if an outright racist or transphobic comic was murdered? Would you spread racist and transphobic content to assert your free speech?
Sure, why not? I feel that way about Dave Chappelle and the crap he got for making jokes about “the t” in LGBT. We can make jokes about everyone else but as soon as it comes to transgender people, that’s off limits? No. Don’t think so. Carry on, Dave. He did exactly what I recommended here by doubling down when people made a big deal over it.
But if they’re just asking to not say a word or draw something that isn’t necessary to political dialog then it’s fair for society to respect that. It should be enforced by being ostracized not killed though.
There are Christians who ask for this and it is absolutely not respected. There were protests for things like “The Last Temptation of Christ” and many other media since and instead society continues to poke fun at Jesus.
So why is it respected when it comes to Muhammad but not for Jesus despite a portion of the population asking for him to not be satirized? Is it because they’re not vocal enough? Or is it because people fear for their lives because psychos murder over a cartoon?
Murdering humans over a drawing is a sensitive topic for me. Please do not expect civility when discussing ancient barbaric pre-scientific belief systems.
By that same thought process, don’t expect civility when you’re making fun of and disparaging people’s religions.
🤷🏼♂️
Just saying, you might want to think about what your advocating for and the hypocrisy behind it.
Adults who are afraid of sky Grandpa are never civil. I think your statement is intended as a roundabout threat.
There is no hypocrisy. Murdering in the name of god is not the same as being critical of religion.
A week ago I was in line to check out and there was a young woman in a hijab. When she turned to help me I saw her entire face and hands (all I could see really) had acid burns all over.
The paradox of tolerance will never be something I struggle with once The Fall happens. Regardless for whichever religion seeks to lynch me.
How did you know they were acid burns as opposed to the many other things that could burn someone?
The “Paradox of Tolerance” is only a paradox if one starts with the ridiculous assertion that tolerance is a universal good.
Honestly? That I would rather have Meta (and a bunch of Western countries, while we’re at it) lift restrictions on that front first before they go against LGBT people.
I’m not on board with the idea that edgy or offensive humor is valuable in itself, but I absolutely abhor the scenario where offended conservative and traditionalist views are treated in their own terms while marginalized groups are considered needy or nagging if they ask for the same treatment.
Also not on board with comedians assuming that noting their ignorance or bigotry is the same as not having a sense of humor, incidentally. Everybody sucks, is my point.
Satire’s dead, but I’d love to see a revival of both it and serious human existence within my lifetime c:
Satire may have been instrumental in its own demise.
People see satire and are either smart enough to understand it - maybe even find it funny, or are offended by it. Those who are offended generally become more entrenched in their beliefs and those who aren’t either don’t see the satire for the warning it is, or do, but mostly choose not to do something about the subject.
And since people have seen what the satirised subject could be like, and they didn’t take action, the subject might take the opportunity to move a little closer to the form it took in satire.
Given this and enough time, satire and reality can become indistinguishable.
And here we are.
Obviously it’s horrible to kill people over speech. Cartoons do not justify violence or terrorism.
But we also shouldn’t pretend like speech is necessary or valuable just because it’s offensive or that offending people to the point of violence is noble.
If someone was killed for saying the n word that would be a tragedy and should be condemned. But we shouldn’t all go around yelling the n word just to assert our free speech or pretend like the guy saying the n word was a hero for doing it.
Charlie mostly draws satire of people in power or with influence. Do you think they only do that to be offensive?
No, speaking truth to power is an important part of satire and political discourse in general. I haven’t seen the original cartoon but if that’s what it was then I’m all for it, though Muslims are very marginal in France and don’t hold much power.
This was in response to all the people, including a lot in this thread, that also probably haven’t seen the cartoon but want it published everywhere and for us to show more pictures of Muhammed. In that case people are valuing something not because of its message but because it offends and “triggers” people, which is the same rational for some of the worst right wing “comedy”.
Offensiveness can be a means to an end, such as showing the corruption of the powerful, but when it becomes an end unto itself it simply becomes cruelty.
Indeed, that’s why those cartoons don’t target Muslims but the islamists or politicians (Islamism is a political ideology) who try to influence others.
I think what they do is really different from the people in this thread posting offensive cartoons for the sake of freedom to do so. In fact, freedom of expression is much more regulated in France than in the USA. If you post racist content with no indication that it is a satire or some other good intention, you can get condemned for racism. The former leader of the far right party Le Pen who just died yesterday have been convicted multiple times for his racism in the media.
Satire should be free. Hate speech should not. People shouldn’t be killed for either. I don’t particularly cry when bigots die though.
All that said, there’s reasons some jokes just aren’t worth telling. There’s times and spaces, and for some jokes there’s neither and that’s ok.
Is making fun of a religion hate speech? Like religion is a choice to embrace so its kind of weird that it’s a protected class, despite the pilgrims fleeing it.
It depends. If they have blatant hypocrisy and hatred towards others or they’re manipulating laws based on their weird beliefs, or using their religion as an excuse to abuse people then yeah, it’s open season on that. If you’re just making fun of someone because of their funny looking hat, then you’re just being an AH.
Removed by mod
As in most things: it depends. Your question is too broad for an answer lacking nuance. But why did you ask?
Ohh was just musing on it from a legal perspective. It’s the one thing I can think of that’s a decision driven protected class.
It is funny how attacks on the protected classes seem to rhyme. Homosexuality is presented as being a decision to try attack it. Gender identity is presented as being a choice to try and discredit it.
Now I’ll agree that religion is a class someone can move through, from Christian to muslim, to atheist and finally Buddhist for example. But I don’t think that particularly matters. Someone can realise their sexual identity later in life, then realise they are wrong and it was something else. I don’t think that’s them making decisions, so much as learning more about themselves and the world. So how someone can move around a religious space doesn’t really interest me in terms of what it means as a protected class.
Muse away, transphobes have trodden a lot of ground if you want a head start.
Don’t really understand your last sentence there. Seems inflammatory though. Religion is something you are not born with that’s my point. It’s akin to your favorite sports team as far as I’m concerned.
“There is no gay gene, people arent born gay” it rhymes. Lately it’s being used to question trans-rights to suggest they aren’t born that way either.
All moot though, born that way, not born that way, doesn’t matter at all. It’s a way of making one protected class feel lesser than another in order to discredit them.
This was my “are we the baddies” moment, some 15 years ago btw. Someone pointed out that my anti-thiest rhetoric and the “just asking questions” I was asking were incredibly reminiscent of the other bigots. Of course, in the moment “they were wrong”, “I was right”, “yada yada yada”. But, later when I had time for some introspection, I asked myself why do anti-thiests quack like the other bigots, and more importantly why was I quacking too.
Well I’d say being anti religion is not the same. For one it’s punching up at the moment. I don’t care what you practice with yourself but growing up in a system that uses Christianity as a cudgle has really pissed me off. I also don’t agree with those morons saying homosexuality is a choice, that’s categorically false imo. To be honest I don’t feel that religion should be a protected class when I see it solely used to hurt others. I think you’re also just trying to associate me with those bigots for some weird reason and honestly I don’t appreciate it.
