Je Suis Charlie

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT
 

Thank you. This one didn't need any words.

a

You are, indeed, Spartacus.

http://www.hoodedutilitarian.com/2015/01/in-the-wake-of-charlie-hebdo-free-speech-does-not-mean-freedom-from-criticism/

Before everyone jumps on the ol' bandwagon, I highly recommend reading some of Charlie Hebdo's cartoons and their general attitude towards Islam in general, both of which can be found in the article linked. Obviously I don't condone the shooting up of any journalists or their place of work, but that doesn't change the fact that a lot of CH's work is racist and that "solidarity" with them is not exactly what we need.

Immsys:
http://www.hoodedutilitarian.com/2015/01/in-the-wake-of-charlie-hebdo-free-speech-does-not-mean-freedom-from-criticism/

Before everyone jumps on the ol' bandwagon, I highly recommend reading some of Charlie Hebdo's cartoons and their general attitude towards Islam in general, both of which can be found in the article linked. Obviously I don't condone the shooting up of any journalists or their place of work, but that doesn't change the fact that a lot of CH's work is racist and that "solidarity" with them is not exactly what we need.

So... He's not actually any worse than Trey Parker or Matt Stone?

Immsys:
http://www.hoodedutilitarian.com/2015/01/in-the-wake-of-charlie-hebdo-free-speech-does-not-mean-freedom-from-criticism/

Before everyone jumps on the ol' bandwagon, I highly recommend reading some of Charlie Hebdo's cartoons and their general attitude towards Islam in general, both of which can be found in the article linked. Obviously I don't condone the shooting up of any journalists or their place of work, but that doesn't change the fact that a lot of CH's work is racist and that "solidarity" with them is not exactly what we need.

They weren't racist. The fact that you have only seen their work on Islam donsn't change the fact that they used the same tone when they were writing about christians and jews.
Most of the time they were trying to show that fundamentalism was the worst that could hppen to any religion.

Edited because of the tons of quotes from people who misread my post. I am not defending the terrorists, but I am also not considering the victims as martyrs. Have a fantastic day

Am I the only one seeing the danger in de-humanizing the people who performed this heinous attack? Calling their minds barren because their view of the world does not correlate with our own is the first step on the road of getting into the same mindset that these murderers no doubt had. A mindset in which the other person isn't as much a human being as I am, because they do not think like I do.

Great one, guys. I'm relieved so many people have spoken out against what happened.

If the cartoons were racist in anyway then I can understand peoples concerns but running in to an office and gunning people down CANNOT be justified.

A world were cartoons get people killed is not one I want to live in.

Immsys:
http://www.hoodedutilitarian.com/2015/01/in-the-wake-of-charlie-hebdo-free-speech-does-not-mean-freedom-from-criticism/

Before everyone jumps on the ol' bandwagon, I highly recommend reading some of Charlie Hebdo's cartoons and their general attitude towards Islam in general, both of which can be found in the article linked. Obviously I don't condone the shooting up of any journalists or their place of work, but that doesn't change the fact that a lot of CH's work is racist and that "solidarity" with them is not exactly what we need.

Grey actually posted this on his Twitter feed last night, so I think it goes without saying that its recommended that everybody take a read. I presume that its part of the reasoning why this strip merely has Erin and Suchong, no depictions of Muhammad or anybody else.

MarsAtlas:

Immsys:
http://www.hoodedutilitarian.com/2015/01/in-the-wake-of-charlie-hebdo-free-speech-does-not-mean-freedom-from-criticism/

Before everyone jumps on the ol' bandwagon, I highly recommend reading some of Charlie Hebdo's cartoons and their general attitude towards Islam in general, both of which can be found in the article linked. Obviously I don't condone the shooting up of any journalists or their place of work, but that doesn't change the fact that a lot of CH's work is racist and that "solidarity" with them is not exactly what we need.

Grey actually posted this on his Twitter feed last night, so I think it goes without saying that its recommended that everybody take a read. I presume that its part of the reasoning why this strip merely has Erin and Suchong, no depictions of Muhammad or anybody else.

I wasn't aware that he posted that to twitter, but that does make sense and good on him for doing so. I wasn't trying to presume that everyone here, especially not Grey and Cory who did the strip, was ignorant or lacking information about what Charlie Hebdo does, I was just trying to add another voice into the discussion. Sorry if it came across as callous or arrogant to anybody.

Immsys:
http://www.hoodedutilitarian.com/2015/01/in-the-wake-of-charlie-hebdo-free-speech-does-not-mean-freedom-from-criticism/

Before everyone jumps on the ol' bandwagon, I highly recommend reading some of Charlie Hebdo's cartoons and their general attitude towards Islam in general, both of which can be found in the article linked. Obviously I don't condone the shooting up of any journalists or their place of work, but that doesn't change the fact that a lot of CH's work is racist and that "solidarity" with them is not exactly what we need.

On the contrary, its EXACTLY what we need. The thing is, even if Charlie Hebdo was the most racist, xenophobic assholes on the planet...they STILL shouldnt be shot for their opinions. Thats the values of western society. This quote springs to mind: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it". Thats western society. If you dont like it...I'm tempted to quote South Park...but I'll refrain.

Gethsemani:
Am I the only one seeing the danger in de-humanizing the people who performed this heinous attack? Calling their minds barren because their view of the world does not correlate with our own is the first step on the road of getting into the same mindset that these murderers no doubt had. A mindset in which the other person isn't as much a human being as I am, because they do not think like I do.

Its not so much about being a human being, as being sane. And its not so much about being insane, as it is about being religious. There is not a single reason in the world that can justify acting like this other than religion. I wish people would wake up and smell the coffee. Religion is BAD. PERIOD. It contributes NOTHING to society. Its full of hatespewing intolerant bullshit, and even worse, its immune to criticism because some skyman laid down the rules.

The people that did this are bad. But their religion is ALSO bad. Its BAD. I wish people would get it through their heads. Thats whats so important about freedom of speech. We HAVE to be able to critique and mock this madness, how else would we be able to point out the madness of it? Rationality doesnt work on these people, and rationality even works on my dog, as long as I explain it in a language she understands. You cant argue with religion, so it should be destroyed. Slowely but surely. I dream of the day when we can finally be rid of this bullshit.

Immsys:
http://www.hoodedutilitarian.com/2015/01/in-the-wake-of-charlie-hebdo-free-speech-does-not-mean-freedom-from-criticism/

Before everyone jumps on the ol' bandwagon, I highly recommend reading some of Charlie Hebdo's cartoons and their general attitude towards Islam in general, both of which can be found in the article linked. Obviously I don't condone the shooting up of any journalists or their place of work, but that doesn't change the fact that a lot of CH's work is racist and that "solidarity" with them is not exactly what we need.

I had already read the whole article as well as all the comments trying to make my mind up, and am pretty uneasy about the approach taken.

I don't think that "racist" is an apt description. The art style is generally extremely grotesque: although the "hook/ big nose" is a fundamental part of the racist "arab" caricature, if you look at the covers NOT dealing with muslims, you will find pretty much everyone has one, regardless of race or creed. They were certainly deliberately offensive, but this was directed in every direction.

The author seems to throw quite a wide net over:
"Mocking an extremist point of view of a creed = mocking a certain creed = mocking to a certain race = racist".

Somewhere in the article or comments someone defends this connection by saying that Western culture has already racialised the Muslim religion. Which doesn't sit right with me, as it is basically saying "Oh, you started the association, now I will reinforce it and assume its existence".

I feel like the author is very much from a social liberation background (the kind of people CRUCIAL to the progress of Western society), but is discomfited by the issues arising from this incident, and can't really adjust their approach to issues to suit the situation. Hence why he claims that the staff was entirely "white men" (the proofreader who died was French-Arab), and riffs on standard "powerful white men as the primary fair play target for personal attacks" tropes as a way to avoid trying to look deeper into the issues. Which works as a discursive approach if the "white men" being discussed ARE in positions of power, and currently using it without much consideration. Not so much if they have been massacred by people with AK-47s and RPGs.

The author is fundamentally right: discussion about the correct use of free speech is paramount, and shouldn't end just because of what has happened. However, his arguments that the deceased were "racist assholes" don't hang together.

One of the commenters snarked it well:

"White male hegemony is so powerful, white men have the power to oppress even while being murdered for drawing cartoons."

Immsys:
I wasn't aware that he posted that to twitter, but that does make sense and good on him for doing so. I wasn't trying to presume that everyone here, especially not Grey and Cory who did the strip, was ignorant or lacking information about what Charlie Hebdo does, I was just trying to add another voice into the discussion. Sorry if it came across as callous or arrogant to anybody.

Yeah Grey was actually quite critical about the article, having disagreements with it, but he also called the Hebdo strips "crude", and he said that the guise of satire is "not just an excuse to be a douchebag either". In other words, shades of agreement and disagreement. Against abiding by the sensibilities of people whom you are rightfully punching at upwards, but not being a racist twat when you do so.

The response to this whole thing is irony at it's finest.

I've seen right-wing people, who in a heartbeat would restrict the freedom of speech of people they disagree with, pretend they stand up for freedom of speech. I've seen left-wing people, who go on day in day out about people victim-blaming women, start victim blaming the satirists and calling them racists. Yes... because satirizing a religion and the crazies that follow it is racism...

You all disgust me.

Immsys:
http://www.hoodedutilitarian.com/2015/01/in-the-wake-of-charlie-hebdo-free-speech-does-not-mean-freedom-from-criticism/

Before everyone jumps on the ol' bandwagon, I highly recommend reading some of Charlie Hebdo's cartoons and their general attitude towards Islam in general, both of which can be found in the article linked. Obviously I don't condone the shooting up of any journalists or their place of work, but that doesn't change the fact that a lot of CH's work is racist and that "solidarity" with them is not exactly what we need.

The point is: Racists don't deserve Jail time Until they commit a violent crime against anyone. Charlie Hebdo might have been racist, the whole staff might have been racists, but they never hurt a single person with their cartoons. They never forced any Muslim to read them, they never forced any Atheist/Christian to read them, and they never attacked anyone for being a Muslim. Meanwhile, these 3 terrorists decided to kill a bunch of cartoonists just because their precious Idol was drawn in a satirical manner, trying to silence them and anyone else from criticizing Muhammad. Also, the Cartoons might be in bad taste, but I don't think the label of "Racist" applies here.

OT: I applaud you guys for supporting Charlie Hebdo, but you know what would have been an even more powerful statement? If you had a drawing of an Arab or Muhammad with that Shirt on instead of your Original Character.

silasbufu:
Makes me wonder why the victims did not see this one coming,especially after receiving death threats for about two years ago. I understand nobody wants to be censored and has the freedom of speech, but is it limitless and without consequence? Yesterday we have been reminded that the answer is no. I am by no means condoning the actions of those insane terrorists and I hope they burn in whatever hell they believe in. I think that religion is a very sensitive subject and should be treated with more care.

I find this a little bit problematic. I understand that you are not defending the actions of the terrorists. And since you are not, this means that you consider what occurred to be unjust.

Therefore, saying "well, surely they should have thought harder about the possible injustice that could befall them due to other humans being dicks before they did what they did" doesn't really work.

To draw a couple of very current comparisons:

"Why do black people go out at night in America, knowing full well that they could be shot?"
"Why do women drink and wear clothes that show skin, knowing full well that they could be attacked"

As danielcofour says above: this is victim blaming in a very pure form.

But to actually answer your question, interviews with staff in past months showed that they were fully aware that they could be killed. They just wouldn't let that stop them. If you think that that means that they in any way "deserved" it, you are ACTUALLY defending the actions of the terrorists.

Regardless of what you think of the cartoons, their bravery was laudable, not grounds to question their intelligence.

silasbufu:
I have just read an interesting article today where the author was raising an interesting question: what would happen if someone entered some random christian church, preferably, for the sake of the argument, in a more backward region, with a t-shirt saying "jesus is a fag" (or whatever other inapropriate message), suggesting that this person would probably not get out of there on their own feet. Makes me wonder why the victims did not see this one coming,especially after receiving death threats for about two years ago. I understand nobody wants to be censored and has the freedom of speech, but is it limitless and without consequence? Yesterday we have been reminded that the answer is no. I am by no means condoning the actions of those insane terrorists and I hope they burn in whatever hell they believe in. I think that religion is a very sensitive subject and should be treated with more care.

I'm quite sure they did see the threat and chose to continue their work anyway. Journalists go into war zones aware that they're putting themselves in harm's way, but they go because they believe it's important to do so. They believe that they must. Same thing here. The people at Charlie Hebdo believed the message they were sending was an important one that needed to be sent, even though they were putting themselves in harm's way to send it.

Being a French escapist who knows well Charlie Hebdo, I can at least vouch for that : they really aren't racist, and they don't hate Arabs specifically.

They're provocative, very cynical, and use freedom of speech to the point of abuse, but their mocking have always targeted equally bigots of all religions (as well as right-wing nationalists, who, in France, are very opposed to Muslims regardless of whether they're extremists or not).

It is, however, likely that all references of them you find on the Internet will discuss their caricatures of Muslims, because this is what made the news - they were already threatened by islamists a few years ago, and a Molotov previously burned their building once. By the way, the first caricatures they published of Muhammad were merely a reprint of another drawer's work, who himself had received death threats - and to whom[1] they wanted to show support.

They knew full well that they were threatened and decided to keep publishing, because well... that would be the right thing to do. There was even permanent cop presence at their building for added safety, which, sadly, didn't help.

[1] Hum... to whom they... ? Is this grammatical ? Oh well. Pardon my frenglish.

"some idiots" what a nice way to try and play around the whole fact that they are Muslim, and that this is a Muslim thing.

silasbufu:
I have just read an interesting article today where the author was raising an interesting question: what would happen if someone entered some random christian church, preferably, for the sake of the argument, in a more backward region, with a t-shirt saying "jesus is a fag" (or whatever other inapropriate message), suggesting that this person would probably not get out of there on their own feet.

Yes, quite likely. There are nutjobs everywhere, not just in religious groups. However, I don't recall any dead cartoonists when they "stuck a condom" in the Pope's nose.

silasbufu:
Makes me wonder why the victims did not see this one coming,especially after receiving death threats for about two years ago.

They did. They had bodyguards, and a code-locked door. Unfortunately, these nutjobs were well-trained, allegedly in Iraq/Syria.

silasbufu:
I understand nobody wants to be censored and has the freedom of speech, but is it limitless and without consequence?

No. That's why civilized people have this thing called the Law. It's not perfect, otherwise we could call it Justice, but it's better than what we saw yesterday.

silasbufu:
I think that religion is a very sensitive subject and should be treated with more care.

I see. So, if one of these nutjobs threatening feminists/SJWs actually acted on it and killed one or two, we'd have to start treating them with more care?

I don't think so.

I know it's been said before, but it bears repeating ad nauseam - it doesn't matter if the folks at Charles Hebdo were the most obnoxious racist xenophobes ever to walk the Earth. Prosecute them with the Law, if necessary. There is absolutely no defense for what happened. None.

maffgibson:

silasbufu:
Makes me wonder why the victims did not see this one coming,especially after receiving death threats for about two years ago. I understand nobody wants to be censored and has the freedom of speech, but is it limitless and without consequence? Yesterday we have been reminded that the answer is no. I am by no means condoning the actions of those insane terrorists and I hope they burn in whatever hell they believe in. I think that religion is a very sensitive subject and should be treated with more care.

I find this a little bit problematic. I understand that you are not defending the actions of the terrorists. And since you are not, this means that you consider what occurred to be unjust.

Therefore, saying "well, surely they should have thought harder about the possible injustice that could befall them due to other humans being dicks before they did what they did" doesn't really work.

To draw a couple of very current comparisons:

"Why do black people go out at night in America, knowing full well that they could be shot?"
"Why do women drink and wear clothes that show skin, knowing full well that they could be attacked"

As danielcofour says above: this is victim blaming in a very pure form.

But to actually answer your question, interviews with staff in past months showed that they were fully aware that they could be killed. They just wouldn't let that stop them. If you think that that means that they in any way "deserved" it, you are ACTUALLY defending the actions of the terrorists.

Regardless of what you think of the cartoons, their bravery was laudable, not grounds to question their intelligence.

In no way did I say they deserved it, I am extremely against any form of terrorist attack. It's just that in this particular case, I can't get myself to consider the victims as martyrs.

BinaryOverride:

Immsys:
http://www.hoodedutilitarian.com/2015/01/in-the-wake-of-charlie-hebdo-free-speech-does-not-mean-freedom-from-criticism/

Before everyone jumps on the ol' bandwagon, I highly recommend reading some of Charlie Hebdo's cartoons and their general attitude towards Islam in general, both of which can be found in the article linked. Obviously I don't condone the shooting up of any journalists or their place of work, but that doesn't change the fact that a lot of CH's work is racist and that "solidarity" with them is not exactly what we need.

They weren't racist. The fact that you have only seen their work on Islam donsn't change the fact that they used the same tone when they were writing about christians and jews.
Most of the time they were trying to show that fundamentalism was the worst that could hppen to any religion.

I have seen their work on many subjects and I still believe that they are racist. They are not portraying Muslims as a religion, but as an ethnic group, as you can clearly see by the visual shorthand they employ for "Muslim" (Hook noses, beady eyes, headscarf, beard/facial hair) pretty much every picture of a Muslim that they have drawn contains this visual shorthand. If I asked you to draw a picture that represented Black men and you drew a criminal or African Tribesman or something similar, then that would be racist. Just as the fact that Charlie Hebdo chose to draw Muslims as dark skinned, beady eyed, headscarf wearing and hook nosed is racist. You cannot tell me that the picture drawn of the Boko Harram sex slaves (implying that it is a trait of Islam to mistreat women) is without racial moti. If you are still not convinced, then the book Oriantialism by Edward Said might be an interesting read.

tzimize:

On the contrary, its EXACTLY what we need. The thing is, even if Charlie Hebdo was the most racist, xenophobic assholes on the planet...they STILL shouldnt be shot for their opinions. Thats the values of western society. This quote springs to mind: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it". Thats western society. If you dont like it...I'm tempted to quote South Park...but I'll refrain.

None of the cartoonists at Charlie Hebdo deserved to die for those cartoons. However, those cartoons contributed to a society of fear and oppression for Muslims, contributed to the idea that "Muslim" means the same thing as "beady eyed, hook nosed bearded man who hates freedom and women". There is nothing inherent in being Muslim that forces you to conform to that stereotype. If you think that a drawing of Boko Haram sex slaves as "welfare queens" is a legitimate criticism, or an exercise of "free speech" rather than just the hate filled garbage that it is, then you have woefully missed the point. Its really easy as the dominant group to insist that "all satire is equal, everybody who is offended should just get over themselves!" but that's not really the point, its not really about "offense"; its about a systematic portrayal of Muslims as strawmen, not human beings. As the article I originally quoted says:

Changing your twitter avatar to a drawing of the Prophet Muhammad is a racist thing to do, even in the face of a terrorist attack. The attitude that Muslims need to be 'punished' is xenophobic and distressing. The statement, "JE SUIS CHARLIE" works to erase and ignore the magazine's history of xenophobia, racism, and homophobia. For us to truly honor the victims of a terrorist attack on free speech, we must not spread hateful racism blithely, and we should not take pride in extreme attacks on oppressed and marginalized peoples

SOME Muslims attacked Charlie Hebdo. ISLAM did not attack anyone, but it is Islam (and the Muslim minority in Europe) that are going to be punished for this attack. That sickens me.

tzimize:

Its not so much about being a human being, as being sane. And its not so much about being insane, as it is about being religious. There is not a single reason in the world that can justify acting like this other than religion. I wish people would wake up and smell the coffee. Religion is BAD. PERIOD. It contributes NOTHING to society. Its full of hatespewing intolerant bullshit, and even worse, its immune to criticism because some skyman laid down the rules.

The people that did this are bad. But their religion is ALSO bad. Its BAD. I wish people would get it through their heads. Thats whats so important about freedom of speech. We HAVE to be able to critique and mock this madness, how else would we be able to point out the madness of it? Rationality doesnt work on these people, and rationality even works on my dog, as long as I explain it in a language she understands. You cant argue with religion, so it should be destroyed. Slowely but surely. I dream of the day when we can finally be rid of this bullshit.

Just further proof of your racism. "Islam" is a collection of beliefs, as is any religion. There are not traits of Islam that ALL Muslims must follow, they choose to follow what they choose, your attempt to strawman "Islam" as bad are childish and absurd. Furthermore, your assumptions are poisonous and represent exactly what we are trying to avoid happening in this event; a backlash against Muslims. How you can unironically talk about "Reason not working on 'These' people" while having a discussion on racism is mind boggling.

tzimize:

Immsys:
snip

On the contrary, its EXACTLY what we need. The thing is, even if Charlie Hebdo was the most racist, xenophobic assholes on the planet...they STILL shouldnt be shot for their opinions. Thats the values of western society. This quote springs to mind: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it". Thats western society. If you dont like it...I'm tempted to quote South Park...but I'll refrain.

Gethsemani:
snip

Its not so much about being a human being, as being sane. And its not so much about being insane, as it is about being religious. There is not a single reason in the world that can justify acting like this other than religion. I wish people would wake up and smell the coffee. Religion is BAD. PERIOD. It contributes NOTHING to society. Its full of hatespewing intolerant bullshit, and even worse, its immune to criticism because some skyman laid down the rules.

The people that did this are bad. But their religion is ALSO bad. Its BAD. I wish people would get it through their heads. Thats whats so important about freedom of speech. We HAVE to be able to critique and mock this madness, how else would we be able to point out the madness of it? Rationality doesnt work on these people, and rationality even works on my dog, as long as I explain it in a language she understands. You cant argue with religion, so it should be destroyed. Slowely but surely. I dream of the day when we can finally be rid of this bullshit.

Aw, man, you were doing so well in the fist response and then you had to go on and ruin it. Let me point it out for you:

Its full of hatespewing intolerant bullshit ... it should be destroyed

See the hypocite you made yourself out to be? Religion is not the problem. Ignorance, hate and needless violence are the problem. You CAN argue with the religious - a lot of people converted from one religion to another. Augustinus, one of the most influential Christian thinker, actually went through many religions before settling for christianity. Who you can't argue with are the ignorant, the fantatical and those of sick mind. Following a religion implies none of it and if you belive so, you are the same as those you hate. Want to know what religion gave us? Ethics. The western culture is basically christian ethics filtered through Descartes. It also gives art, culture, sense of belonging and hope. Not for everyone, but there are those who can't get it anywhere else.

One last thing: if you think religion was the REASON for wars and without it there would be no confilct, you are sadly mistaken. Religion only ever served as a flimsy justification, because "go die so I can haz moar moniez!" is not the best of rallying calls. As long as humans are greedy, hateful, violent and suscetible to mental instability, there will be war and there will be crazed assholes with guns shooting innocent people.

Apologies for making this look like a post in RnP.

silasbufu:

maffgibson:
-snip-

In no way did I say they deserved it, I am extremely against any form of terrorist attack. It's just that in this particular case, I can't get myself to consider the victims as martyrs.

I would say them being martyrs of some kind (whether you consider the cause a positive or negative one) is pretty indisputable, by your own account.

They did something for a cause.
They were threatened in an attempt to stop them.
The continued, believing that it was important.
They were killed for the same.

Pretty much follows the pattern of Christian martyrs, that being essentially the main root of the concept in the West.

But yeah, I acknowledge that you aren't saying that they deserved it. But advocating deference to maniacs with AK-47s? I am not sure how much better that is.

silasbufu:
I have just read an interesting article today where the author was raising an interesting question: what would happen if someone entered some random christian church, preferably, for the sake of the argument, in a more backward region, with a t-shirt saying "jesus is a fag" (or whatever other inapropriate message), suggesting that this person would probably not get out of there on their own feet.

The church goers would be well within their rights to heavily criticize them, ask to leave etc. If they moved onto to physical violence, or god forbid, gun them down, that would be clearly detestable and illegal.

silasbufu:
Makes me wonder why the victims did not see this one coming,especially after receiving death threats for about two years ago. I understand nobody wants to be censored and has the freedom of speech, but is it limitless and without consequence? Yesterday we have been reminded that the answer is no. I am by no means condoning the actions of those insane terrorists and I hope they burn in whatever hell they believe in. I think that religion is a very sensitive subject and should be treated with more care.

The consequences you can get from exercising your right to free speech do not include getting gunned down. They are victims, its not their obligation to tip toe around or placate murderers, freedom of speech means they can say what they want without obstruction by the government or violence from other people.

silasbufu:
I have just read an interesting article today where the author was raising an interesting question: what would happen if someone entered some random christian church, preferably, for the sake of the argument, in a more backward region, with a t-shirt saying "jesus is a fag" (or whatever other inapropriate message), suggesting that this person would probably not get out of there on their own feet. Makes me wonder why the victims did not see this one coming,especially after receiving death threats for about two years ago. I understand nobody wants to be censored and has the freedom of speech, but is it limitless and without consequence? Yesterday we have been reminded that the answer is no. I am by no means condoning the actions of those insane terrorists and I hope they burn in whatever hell they believe in. I think that religion is a very sensitive subject and should be treated with more care.

I highly doubt that in most countries where Christianity is practiced that it would be met with lethal force if someone walked in wearing a shirt like that, but even if they did it to me at least this is a false equivalency because they didn't go into a Mosque wearing a shirt depicting those cartoons.

I do find those cartoons to be a little on the crude side of things, but that is the way most countries work anymore, there have been editorial cartoons in my local paper depicting Jesus or other Christian figures in less then ideal circumstances, but I don't see Cardinals calling for those people to die. Heck the other day I saw some jerk posting a picture of standing infront of a statue making it look like he was getting oral sex from the statue, I don't see people going out of their way to kill that man either.

The other issue I have is religion is not a race and they aren't saying that another religion is superior so calling any of these cartoons "racist" is wrong by definition.

Very nice tribute, guys.

I'm surprised at the religion-bashing in the thread, especially considering that it was a small minority or radical Islamic nutters who perpetrated this horrible crime.

We shouldn't let the actions of a rotten few ruin the reputation of the rest.

Mr.Mattress:

Immsys:
http://www.hoodedutilitarian.com/2015/01/in-the-wake-of-charlie-hebdo-free-speech-does-not-mean-freedom-from-criticism/

Before everyone jumps on the ol' bandwagon, I highly recommend reading some of Charlie Hebdo's cartoons and their general attitude towards Islam in general, both of which can be found in the article linked. Obviously I don't condone the shooting up of any journalists or their place of work, but that doesn't change the fact that a lot of CH's work is racist and that "solidarity" with them is not exactly what we need.

The point is: Racists don't deserve Jail time Until they commit a violent crime against anyone. Charlie Hebdo might have been racist, the whole staff might have been racists, but they never hurt a single person with their cartoons. They never forced any Muslim to read them, they never forced any Atheist/Christian to read them, and they never attacked anyone for being a Muslim. Meanwhile, these 3 terrorists decided to kill a bunch of cartoonists just because their precious Idol was drawn in a satirical manner, trying to silence them and anyone else from criticizing Muhammad. Also, the Cartoons might be in bad taste, but I don't think the label of "Racist" applies here.

OT: I applaud you guys for supporting Charlie Hebdo, but you know what would have been an even more powerful statement? If you had a drawing of an Arab or Muhammad with that Shirt on instead of your Original Character.

Oh really, that's the point is it? So we should all insult Islam, because 3 Muslims decided to attack some cartoonists. How progressive! Tell me, what did Islam in general do to earn this ire? Because what you've said is that these three people have done something wrong, not the entire religion of many, many people. This isn't about insults, its about the reality that Muslims in western countries face. Which thanks to Hebdo and these 3 idiots, will be made 100 times worse. Whether or not they were "cricising Islam" what Charlie Hebdo were certainly doing is portraying Muslims as caricatures and supporting the belief stereotypes that are being propagated. That's why I stand for free speech, but not in solidarity with such people. I am sorry that they died, they did not deserve it at all. But Hebdo's actions are not without criticism, so criticise I will.

Immsys:

Oh really, that's the point is it? So we should all insult Islam, because 3 Muslims decided to attack some cartoonists. How progressive! Tell me, what did Islam in general do to earn this ire? Because what you've said is that these three people have done something wrong, not the entire religion of many, many people. This isn't about insults, its about the reality that Muslims in western countries face. Which thanks to Hebdo and these 3 idiots, will be made 100 times worse. Whether or not they were "cricising Islam" what Charlie Hebdo were certainly doing is portraying Muslims as caricatures and supporting the belief stereotypes that are being propagated. That's why I stand for free speech, but not in solidarity with such people. I am sorry that they died, they did not deserve it at all. But Hebdo's actions are not without criticism, so criticise I will.

You don't seem to understand that CHarlie Hebdo was portraying everybody the same way.
Here look

http://www.lemonde.fr/societe/portfolio/2015/01/08/l-esprit-charlie-hebdo-denoncer-la-betise-en-faisant-rire_4551377_3224.html

Immsys:
snip

I do not want to enter the debate about the consequences of this for Muslims in France, which, sadly, are going to be bad. In fact, if you can catch a french news channel, you will see that they already are. Right-wing extremists who borderline on facism are already jumping on this excuse to desecrate mosques, and act like their usual hate speech is justified.

However, I feel like you lack context on the topic of CH itself. Yes, their cartoons look very aggressive, and may even seem hateful. This is true, but CH has always provided an equally aggressive treatment to each and every topic of their caricatures. They aim low and hit low on purpose, because their very "raison d'être" is to stretch the limits of the free press - a bit like the slightly more mainstream "Canard Enchaîné", but with more liberties in their tone.

A journal such Charlie Hebdo has usually been regarded as something that is on the boundaries of what you're allowed to publish. This is on purpose on their part, the editorial board has always been made of very smart people, who felt that such an organ of press was necessary to ensure that our democracy, well... stays one.

They enjoyed a reliable number of readers over time, which, I can assure you because I know a few, were *not* people who took the contents of the magazine at face value. It is what it is - a caricature of a journal, that acts like a canary in a coal mine : as long as they stand, it means that there is still free press in France. This is also true, to a large extent, of the Canard Enchaîné, but it looks like CH might not make it. Given how large a fraction of their team they have lost, it is by no means certain that they will keep going further.

Which makes me, personally, quite worried.

BinaryOverride:

Immsys:
http://www.hoodedutilitarian.com/2015/01/in-the-wake-of-charlie-hebdo-free-speech-does-not-mean-freedom-from-criticism/

Before everyone jumps on the ol' bandwagon, I highly recommend reading some of Charlie Hebdo's cartoons and their general attitude towards Islam in general, both of which can be found in the article linked. Obviously I don't condone the shooting up of any journalists or their place of work, but that doesn't change the fact that a lot of CH's work is racist and that "solidarity" with them is not exactly what we need.

They weren't racist. The fact that you have only seen their work on Islam donsn't change the fact that they used the same tone when they were writing about christians and jews.
Most of the time they were trying to show that fundamentalism was the worst that could hppen to any religion.

I have seen their work on many subjects and I still believe that they are racist. They are not portraying Muslims as a religion, but as an ethnic group, as you can clearly see by the visual shorthand they employ for "Muslim" (Hook noses, beady eyes, headscarf, beard/facial hair) pretty much every picture of a Muslim that they have drawn contains this visual shorthand. If I asked you to draw a picture that represented Black men and you drew a criminal or African Tribesman or something similar, then that would be racist. Just as the fact that Charlie Hebdo chose to draw Muslims as dark skinned, beady eyed, headscarf wearing and hook nosed is racist. You cannot tell me that the picture drawn of the Boko Harram sex slaves (implying that it is a trait of Islam to mistreat women) is without racial moti. If you are still not convinced, then the book Oriantialism by Edward Said might be an interesting read.

tzimize:

On the contrary, its EXACTLY what we need. The thing is, even if Charlie Hebdo was the most racist, xenophobic assholes on the planet...they STILL shouldnt be shot for their opinions. Thats the values of western society. This quote springs to mind: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it". Thats western society. If you dont like it...I'm tempted to quote South Park...but I'll refrain.

None of the cartoonists at Charlie Hebdo deserved to die for those cartoons. However, those cartoons contributed to a society of fear and oppression for Muslims, contributed to the idea that "Muslim" means the same thing as "beady eyed, hook nosed bearded man who hates freedom and women". There is nothing inherent in being Muslim that forces you to conform to that stereotype. If you think that a drawing of Boko Haram sex slaves as "welfare queens" is a legitimate criticism, or an exercise of "free speech" rather than just the hate filled garbage that it is, then you have woefully missed the point. Its really easy as the dominant group to insist that "all satire is equal, everybody who is offended should just get over themselves!" but that's not really the point, its not really about "offense"; its about a systematic portrayal of Muslims as strawmen, not human beings. As the article I originally quoted says:

Changing your twitter avatar to a drawing of the Prophet Muhammad is a racist thing to do, even in the face of a terrorist attack. The attitude that Muslims need to be 'punished' is xenophobic and distressing. The statement, "JE SUIS CHARLIE" works to erase and ignore the magazine's history of xenophobia, racism, and homophobia. For us to truly honor the victims of a terrorist attack on free speech, we must not spread hateful racism blithely, and we should not take pride in extreme attacks on oppressed and marginalized peoples

SOME Muslims attacked Charlie Hebdo. ISLAM did not attack anyone, but it is Islam (and the Muslim minority in Europe) that are going to be punished for this attack. That sickens me.

tzimize:

Its not so much about being a human being, as being sane. And its not so much about being insane, as it is about being religious. There is not a single reason in the world that can justify acting like this other than religion. I wish people would wake up and smell the coffee. Religion is BAD. PERIOD. It contributes NOTHING to society. Its full of hatespewing intolerant bullshit, and even worse, its immune to criticism because some skyman laid down the rules.

The people that did this are bad. But their religion is ALSO bad. Its BAD. I wish people would get it through their heads. Thats whats so important about freedom of speech. We HAVE to be able to critique and mock this madness, how else would we be able to point out the madness of it? Rationality doesnt work on these people, and rationality even works on my dog, as long as I explain it in a language she understands. You cant argue with religion, so it should be destroyed. Slowely but surely. I dream of the day when we can finally be rid of this bullshit.

Just further proof of your racism. "Islam" is a collection of beliefs, as is any religion. There are not traits of Islam that ALL Muslims must follow, they choose to follow what they choose, your attempt to strawman "Islam" as bad are childish and absurd. Furthermore, your assumptions are poisonous and represent exactly what we are trying to avoid happening in this event; a backlash against Muslims. How you can unironically talk about "Reason not working on 'These' people" while having a discussion on racism is mind boggling.

dangoball:
snip

Man, that was just really well said. Religions are a symptom of the human condition, and like every other thing ever, it can and will be used to package/justify some horrific stuff.

FogHornG36:
"some idiots" what a nice way to try and play around the whole fact that they are Muslim, and that this is a Muslim thing.

I shouldn't respond to this, but I'm going to...
They are just some idiots because no matter what their religion, they killed other human beings over a comic. Not to mention that until they are caught, we can confirm almost nothing about them.

OT: Je suis non Charlie, but I certainly understand the sentiment. Nobody deserves to die over a cartoon. Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequence, but this shouldn't ever be the consequence. Best of luck to the French authorities, and may the bereaved find solace without turning to hatred.

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here