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.
I think most people would agree with the following: even if you feel the cartoon was in poor taste or was “punching down,” the shooting was a terrorist act that just served to reinforce the worst stereotypes about Muslims and—ironically—the offending cartoon itself.
Opinions can vary about the cartoon, but that’s the point of defending satire and free speech; what’s completely indefensible is violence that clearly isn’t in the service of self-defense. People who quibble about the definition of self-defense and even skirt the idea that the terrorists in this incident had a right to do what they did, in my opinion, are likely either sophomoric contrarians or bad faith actors intentionally trying to muddy the waters, akin to some far-right militia members on conservative subreddits.
According to collectivistic ideology, anything can be a provocation and you are always a victim.
If so, anything anyone did is justifiable to make you angry or have any other negative emotional response, because as a victim, you are powerless.
Not only that, you, as a person, are indistinguishable from an animal as, like them, you are utterly incapable of controlling your thoughts, feelings and impulses. In essence, you have no control over your life.
Ergo it follows you are absolutely allowed to do anything in your power to stop the thing that makes you have a negative emotional response to stop existing.
You are, erm, justified.
But just you, not the others, those are assholes
I am legally obligated not to have an opinion
I’m all for satire, but I also think this was kind of bullying in that they did something that was offensive specifically to a particular marginalized minority group.
So it’s not something that should be illegal or warrant a shooting, but I’m not exactly surprised. Just as if they published a story like “Fuck this one guy’s mother” showing a drawing of some random guy’s mother being fucked.* That guy doesn’t then have a right to shoot them and should go straight to prison if he does - but I wouldn’t be surprised and I don’t think we all need to identify with the paper or anything because they were being total pricks.
*And I know the response will be along the lines of “You can’t compare that drawing with a mere drawing of mohammed”. But that betrays a failure to take another perspective. Who’s to say that in a society even more liberal than our own, “fuck your mother” might be seen as not particularly insulting? After all, take away expectations of women being pure and you basically have “fuck your dad” which really doesn’t seem too insulting, it’s like sure if that’s what you’re into weirdo, but let me check with my dad first.
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
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?
once The Fall happens
What’s that?
One of the four seasons
I don’t have any issue or opinion or dog in the race with the prophet Muhammed, but those idiots made it important to say “muhammed the prophet is a giant cunt who should be laughed at and get a pie in the face” every now and then just to remind everybody how getting to talk works.
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.
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.
I always thought that the reason that religious extremists are so obsessed with concepts like blasphemy and hatred for other sects and religions is because their very existence plants seeds of doubt in their minds. “If my beliefs are self evident and absolutely true then how can any other beliefs possibly exist?” They may turn it around and pose it as an attack on them “They are trying to make me doubt my beliefs.”
Once I saw this guy on a bridge about to jump. I said, “Don’t do it!” He said, “Nobody loves me.” I said, “God loves you. Do you believe in God?”
He said, “Yes.” I said, “Are you a Christian or a Jew?” He said, “A Christian.” I said, “Me, too! Protestant or Catholic?” He said, “Protestant.” I said, “Me, too! What franchise?” He said, “Baptist.” I said, “Me, too! Northern Baptist or Southern Baptist?” He said, “Northern Baptist.” I said, “Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist or Northern Liberal Baptist?”
He said, “Northern Conservative Baptist.” I said, “Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region, or Northern Conservative Baptist Eastern Region?” He said, “Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region.” I said, “Me, too!”
Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879, or Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912?" He said, “Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912.” I said, “Die, heretic!” And I pushed him over
What
I said
Once I saw this guy on a bridge about to jump. I said, “Don’t do it!” He said, “Nobody loves me.” I said, “God loves you. Do you believe in God?”
He said, “Yes.” I said, “Are you a Christian or a Jew?” He said, “A Christian.” I said, “Me, too! Protestant or Catholic?” He said, “Protestant.” I said, “Me, too! What franchise?” He said, “Baptist.” I said, “Me, too! Northern Baptist or Southern Baptist?” He said, “Northern Baptist.” I said, “Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist or Northern Liberal Baptist?”
He said, “Northern Conservative Baptist.” I said, “Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region, or Northern Conservative Baptist Eastern Region?” He said, “Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region.” I said, “Me, too!”
Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879, or Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912?" He said, “Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912.” I said, “Die, heretic!” And I pushed him over
It’s like all this Tate sigma male influencer horseshit. If you have to say it, you ain’t it.
I find it weird when religious people don’t see this. I was proselytized to not long ago by a Muslim dude from Egypt out of the blue. He tried to dismiss Christianity because there are many denominations and when I pointed out the various Muslim denominations he just said they’re wrong by default because they are. Like, ok, I see your brain is forced to turn off with this topic.
Completely agree.
It isn’t just religious people
It’s religion, it doesn’t need to be logical. Au contraire.
People can behave in a way that makes sense to an outside observer without actually making any fucking lick of sense themselves.
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.
I agree with intentionally provocational speech hiding behind the ‘free speech’ disguise being stupid, but I think its also important to see a difference between racial slurs and discrimination based on things that people can’t change, versus legitimate criticism of religion - which, although not always easy to get out of (I.e. cults, trapped family members, cultural norms) I see as still a fundamentally voluntary behaviour that you can to an extent opt out of as a belief system, as opposed to discrimination on race, sex, disability, nationality, etc.
Now of course that doesnt mean I will go into religious buildings and shout obscenities or try to have edgy atheist rants at inoffensive elderly worshippers - but the saying that “your freedom ends where mine begins” holds true for me, and I won’t tolerate outward discrimination on religious grounds, the forcing of those belief systems inside secular systems like schools or courts or governments, and I think I’m well within my rights to criticise harmful and unacceptable behaviour undertaken for ‘religious’ grounds, which would otherwise be crimes or offences. (I.e. animal torture/sacrifice, child marriage, slavery etc.)
This view is ostensibly reasonable (I’ve been tempted by it myself). The problem is the slippery slope. As soon as someone declares, “I’m offended so pleased don’t say that”, you begin to get de-facto limits about what (perfectly legal) things may be said. In the case of religious offense it’s doubly dangerous because religion always gets a free pass when it comes to offense.
Next thing you know, only a few very brave people are willing to say whatever (perfectly legal) thing has been established as verboten. And then they become easy pickings for extremists. This is exactly what has happened with innocuous, legal, Mohammed cartoons, among other things. It’s called the assassin’s veto and personally I find it much more offensive than any cartoon.
It’s not a slippery slope, it’s an ambiguous gray area which a lot of moral rational debates like this don’t do well with. For example I think we can agree that white people shouldn’t call black people n*gger, but what about negro? There are some people who will do the victim hood Olympics and say calling people black is bad too.
If we follow the free speech absolutist line then we get a bunch of white men demeaning every marginal group with horrific slurs. If we follow the no offense at all costs line then we’re walking around a term for Mexican food because someone said that it’s racist. We need to find some sort of middle ground and that ground is going to be very blurry, socially determined and subjective, and it won’t have any easy hard rules that people desperately search for in stuff like this.
The punishment for leaving this area should just be social ostracization though, not violence or death. There shouldn’t be an assassin’s veto but there also shouldn’t be an asshole get out of jail free card.
This all wasn’t my argument though, I was arguing against the people in this thread saying we should’ve doubled down, published the cartoon in all major publications and done more Mohammad drawings simply to assert free speech. That’s saying that speech is valuable and should be spread simply because its offensive and caused an overreaction which is the same logic as those annoying right wing assholes who say horrible shit to “trigger the libs”. Offensiveness can be a means to an end but when it becomes an end unto itself then it just becomes cruelty.
This leans heavily on two very modern, and US-centric, ideas:
- to insult a group is the worst possible form of speech infringement
- that non-physical abuse can constitute “cruelty” (you didn’t use the word “harm” but it’s right there)
Personally I dispute these premises. I think it would be better if we stuck to something close to free-speech absolutism: easier to police; no perverse incentives to victimhood; resilience is an underrated virtue, etc.
Technically I belong to one of your “marginalized groups” but I don’t see myself as a victim. My answer to insults is usually to roll my eyes rather than to break down in tears and call for Daddy to step in.
Anyway, I think this is really about the cultural zeitgeist. My ideas are going out of fashion and yours are coming into fashion. Better hope this experiment goes well.
I agree with your sentiment although the n word wouldn’t have been my choice for that analogy.
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.
Reminds me of something my coworker was telling me about Leah Michele from the show Glee. A black cast mate accused her of being racist and the the rest of the cast essentially said “nah, she’s a total bitch to pretty much everyone”
Aka, the South Park defense.
This cover
This is a satire of right wing politics (which Charlie notably opposed) claiming that poor people make more babies to get more social welfare, with denounciation of islamist organization Boko Haram using women as sex slaves, both mixed to create absurd comedy.
Explain what you find racist about this.Not sure what it says, but as Charlie Hebdo makes fun of everyone, and usually for a good reason, what is the problem?
I was curious too:
Boko Haram sex slaves angry
Do not touch our allowances!
In the words of Sam Harris: “People were murdered over cartoons. End of moral analysis.”
I’m sure there are folks here who have listened to a lot more Sam Harris than I have, but I’ve listened to several audiobooks and probably 40-50 hours of his podcast. He has some smart things to say about neuroscience and mindfulness, but my god he has some toxic, middle-school-ass takes on Islam. I haven’t heard that quote before, but I’m not surprised he said it. He’s Ben Shapiro with a PhD who makes deliberately obtuse, reductive, bad faith statements about Islam and Muslims.
For the record, I’m a white atheist. I think religion has been the source of immeasurable violence in the world. I don’t think anyone should be shot over something they say or draw, but to declare “end of moral analysis” is ignorant.
I think the people’s presumption that they have some right to be free from offense has done way more damage than anything.
It is hard to make satire now when we seem to be living in an age that satirizes itself.
