Active Member
Quiet Member
People who don't understand annihilation seem to fall back on blowback?Originally Posted by orestes
tempus est umbra in mente
I have no idea what you're saying... Please clarify?
If the ultimate goal of these attacks on the west might be to exacerbate tense relations with Islamic residents in the west, and to give radical groups clout to espouse their hateful segregationist bullshit... If their endgame goal was to ignite a backlash against the west, wouldn't they want to drive westerners into acting fearful of Muslims, irrationally angry at them, pissed off at their beliefs which they repeatedly reveal they know very little about... If they want pissed off hot-headed youths to feel alienated and surrounded by disdain...
Then the people who are demanding that "every Muslim should apologize" are playing right into their hands.
Melty Member
I think what we can't agree with is if the publication is really a free speech mag or if it is a far right rag. From what I have read, it seems to fall in the latter but you have posts that show it attacks the right, which is correct. They seem to support Marie Le Pen but at the same time run a comic of her making out with her dad. I haven't read the magazine, I can't even speak French. I'm just going off of what I have read.The US has come a VERY long way with regards to what is generally acceptable in comic portrayals of minorities (not just african americans) since the civil war, and to imply otherwise is simply absurd. Racism still exists, but we don't have blackface minstrel theater anymore for starters. Racist declarations in humor aren't taken lightly anymore either. Ask Michael Richards (remember Kramer) how that worked out for him...
Regarding your second point, simply drawing a cartoon impression of the prophet of the Muslim faith is not a celebration of Muslim stereotypes.
The more I look into it, the more I'm convinced that there's been a really shoddy initial representation of the content of the magazine. Contrary to earlier assertions that the magazine especially focused on mocking Muslims (and used sparse portrayals of other groups as a fallback alibi), that seems very much to not be the case. The majority of the covers mock political figures, and they seem to take turns making fun of various religions. To insist that one single religion be exempt from mockery is not asking for respect, but special treatment with the insinuation that your ideas are more precious than others.
Regarding the book by Michel Hauellebecq, the AUTHOR is being ridiculed on the cover of the latest issue (the one that came out right before the attacks). The cartoon on the cover portrays him as a seemingly drunk wizard making silly comical predictions. It wasn't an interview, and even if it was, it's presumptuous to assume that an interview is a blanket endorsement.
Either way, it's hard to see that image as particularly flattering.
I've seen some people run to some really wild conclusions about the content and nature of Charlie Hebdo. I've taken the stance from the start that the nature of their media is, in the larger discussion, relatively unimportant. Still, maybe it's time to actually counter these claims I'm running into, where I've seen the magazine compared to the Westboro Baptists or storm front. France's laws against hate speech would not allow either of those groups to exist in France.
We do make fun of religious minorities. I didn't see anyone trying to shut down The Book of Mormon, and the only people trying to suppress criticism or mockery of Scientologists are the Scientologists.
What Raif was blogging about (which almost got him the death penalty) was not even really satire, but the endorsement of basic human rights and religious tolerance. He's brave, but the punishment is outrageous. If someone published openly mocking cartoons akin to the controversial Hebdo ones IN Saudi Arabia, that would be brave but it would also be suicide.
From the context of what we have been talking about, I figured Raif wrote satire. But if he didn't, I dont understand why he is relavent to the discussion.
tempus est umbra in mente
honestly, if there should be one floating message, it's that all beliefs are equally worthy of respect, and nobody's ideas are better, more powerful, or worse
Last edited by Jinsai; 01-13-2015 at 02:27 AM.
Throbbing Member
Not sure if you're joking here but I do not agree with this. Yes one should accept the right of others to believe what they want, but there is definitely room for discrimination of ideas based on worth. Which idea is better is of course a matter of argument, but the argument is and should be there.
Active Member
angsty teens and industrial rock singers love to quote nietzsche, but I rarely see anyone quote this -
all ideas are subject to interpretation and the prevalence of any given idea is a function of power and not truth
That said, I'm live and let live but if a person's beliefs start to encroach on my liberty then I'll start to encroach on theirs
Active Member
Or equally worthy of disrespect, it swings both ways, especially considering how concepts, symbols and beliefs can be easily twisted and interpreted to fit one's agenda. I become extremely wary when someone starts to quote an ancient scripture, wave a flag, basically every time one's argument and discourse's only foundation is a symbol or abstraction.
"I can see that you're wearing a good guy badge, you're shoving it in everyone's face, but those are real cheap and everyone has one or a dozen". Symbols are pretty but don't mean shit. A thousand people wearing a cross, brandishing a peace sign or holding a flag would never agree on what that symbol really means and which values it holds.
Edited because it could appear as if the line (now in quotes) was a direct reply to Jinsai, while it certainly wasn't.
Last edited by Khrz; 01-13-2015 at 08:08 AM.
tempus est umbra in mente
This is the point I'm doing a poor job of representing. Yes, by "respect" I mean that they deserve to be regarded without bias and evaluated on their own merits. I'm not saying that an idea like "kill the gays" is respectable.
To be fair though, I edited my post after "Ice Cream" face palmed it... but really, I would just like him/her to acknowledge that the point about the content of the paper is at least (in some part) exonerated by the fact that the author of the book was being ridiculed. I don't know why we've reached a point where NOBODY is willing to admit that they are just fucking wrong.
Sir Ice Cream, you implied that the editors of Charlie Hebdo were endorsing the opinions of a far right author who was writing fiction where Islam was going to take over the country. I pointed out that the magazine was actually mocking this notion, and making a cover story of mocking this person. You failed to acknowledge this. Please, just admit you were wrong on this one small point, and we can then move on, and then we've cleared the air and made a point, and now it's not so insane to further discuss the topic. Otherwise, we're dealing with a shitty situation where people are apparently unwilling to relent even the smallest aspect of their argument.
Last edited by Jinsai; 01-13-2015 at 06:37 AM.
Active Member
Well, given how worldwide this debate has become, and knowing how google works, everything you'll find online will only blur the line further. They certainly never, ever, supported Marine LePen, or her dad, or any other far right official. The problem is, they never supported anyone, that's the point.
That magazine has never defended any ideology, any political or social ground.
It is the exact opposite of that. It has always been a satire weekly mag, making fun of the people in charge, of the sheep mentality, of every group who would tell the people what to think. It is insulting, profane, lowbrow and crass. As opposed to another satire magazine, Le Canard Enchainé, which has actual journalists analyzing the actuality and investigating facts, CH has always been there to stir shit up. That "no limits" attitude has certainly been problematic in the past, there have been numerous clashes in the past because of collaborators who thought some people and groups were bashed too often, with little comedic purpose. The debate among the staff was constant, there was no real editorial line beside "fuck 'em".
Active Member
tempus est umbra in mente
Yes, I was being sarcastic.
Last edited by Jinsai; 01-13-2015 at 02:36 PM. Reason: I should just be clear here... it's getting kind of ridiculous
Melty Member
Yeah, I was wrong. As Khrz said so much shit is out there. Hard to wade through it all.
Active Member
France arrested 54 people in relation to hate speech or defending terrorism.
"The Justice Ministry laid out the legal basis for rounding up those who defend the Paris terror attacks as well as those responsible for racist or anti-Semitic words or acts"
"Among those detained was Dieudonne, a popular and controversial comic who has repeated convictions for racism and anti-Semitism"
"The Justice Ministry said the 54 people included four minors and several had already been convicted under special measures for immediate sentencing."
"[...]but none of the 54 people mentioned Wednesday have been linked to the attacks."
"The government is writing broader new laws on phone-tapping and other intelligence to fight terrorism[...]"
Are they going to be arresting everyone who supports the killing of all Muslims?
Active Member
Nine guys have been arrested for cheering at the news of the massacre in the Charlie Hebdo office. Up to 7 years for being a stupid asshole on Twitter. It's just a smackdown on hate speech and encouraging violence. They're trying to appear proactive, and given the current situation are trying to extinguish as many fires as they can. There probably also has been a rise in provocative/aggressive rhetoric lately, since everyone's so passionate currently.
As you can see, it's not only about violence against Muslims. Dieudonné has regularly been fined for his shows because of his jokes and parallels between zionism and nazism (the guy used to be part of a duo with Elie Semoun, a jewish comedian, amazingly...). People have been arrested and prosecuted for defending terrorism, and indeed other have been arrested for hate speech or violence against Muslims or Muslim institutions.
It's damage control, I'm not surprised given the situation. It does sound paradoxical after such a huge uprising in defense of freedom of speech, but the laws haven't changed here.
Active Member
Quoting Jinsai because I think he's detailed the most accurate representation of CH here. I've largely been having this conversation elsewhere.
This is correct. A bit like SNL, Charlie Hebdo criticises everyone for everything. Satire - particularly on this end of the spectrum (I don't know any US examples but Private Eye and Have I Got News for You are UK examples) is reactionary, provocative, sparked by outrage. Absolutely anyone featured in CH is a point of comment. In a similar way that Warhol showed up commercialism using soup and Marilyn Monroe. The pen/brush is the weapon.The more I look into it, the more I'm convinced that there's been a really shoddy initial representation of the content of the magazine. Contrary to earlier assertions that the magazine especially focused on mocking Muslims (and used sparse portrayals of other groups as a fallback alibi), that seems very much to not be the case. The majority of the covers mock political figures, and they seem to take turns making fun of various religions. To insist that one single religion be exempt from mockery is not asking for respect, but special treatment with the insinuation that your ideas are more precious than others.
Regarding the book by Michel Hauellebecq, the AUTHOR is being ridiculed on the cover of the latest issue (the one that came out right before the attacks). The cartoon on the cover portrays him as a seemingly drunk wizard making silly comical predictions. It wasn't an interview, and even if it was, it's presumptuous to assume that an interview is a blanket endorsement.
Either way, it's hard to see that image as particularly flattering.
I've seen some people run to some really wild conclusions about the content and nature of Charlie Hebdo. I've taken the stance from the start that the nature of their media is, in the larger discussion, relatively unimportant. Still, maybe it's time to actually counter these claims I'm running into, where I've seen the magazine compared to the Westboro Baptists or storm front. France's laws against hate speech would not allow either of those groups to exist in France.
France's ideology is French above all else. The march on Sunday was exemplary of that. Christians are treated the same if they want to be Catholic before French. Furthermore, very many global news stories recently has had a narrative of good vs evil. This topic has been very interesting to read because almost every comment is binary, people trying to fit this subject into the black/white arena. CH probably deserved a few complaint letters because they were more than a little controversial, but not death (I mean, compare this to Marilyn Manson; CH arguably made something more worthwhile but all those 90s religious people did was show up with placards). Hence the cartoonists reactions of pen vs gun in the days that followed. CH weren't innocent angels, but they didn't ask for it either. Also the notion of "evil empire from out there" doesn't exist in this situation. You can't blame criteria of X and Y because X and Y exist on the other side (there is at least an octagon-level of sides here).
One thing this situation has highlighted to me is that most people commenting on it are not fully equiped with the vocabulary to comment on pop culture. I mean, they've been doing it for various news stories over the past few years, but the volume of absolute misinformed rubbish people are willing to call an opinion is really apparent these days.
*edit* Oh, I suppose a lot of the stuff the South Park creators did can be called the same form of satire.
Active Member
That is true of every person commenting on an event which doesn't take place in their own country, though.
I didn't comment on Ferguson even if I had some opinions on the subject, because not only am I only superficially knowledgeable on the US culture, but I know nothing of the state it took place in politically, and nothing about Ferguson's history and social situation.
The whole world, as @allegro pointed out, has commented on 9/11. The whole world has commented on Columbine and Virginia tech. Everyone makes that mistake.
There are too many variables to really have a hold on the subject, even when it happens in your own country, yet it is very easy to relate to the general situation. The internet has become more about communication than information, so we communicate our opinions, even if we don't understand the issues at hand as much as we think we do.
It's hard to find a balance, and in passionate/tragic events like these, the information that is available to us changes according to what the rest of the world is looking for. People go to Google to find out if Charlie Hebdo is a racist rag, so of course when you do your search this is what you'll find. When the topic was irrelevant, what would come up was probably be very different. Now Google will return a thousand misinformed Tumblr opinion pieces on the overwhelming racist, misogynistic and homophobic content of the magazine...
It happens every time, very little part of the internet, or the media now for that matters, is constituted of actual journalists. We're building opinion pieces on top of other opinion pieces, we have neither the time nor the means for proper investigation. It's a great tool, but like every tool we'd better learn to use it carefully.
Active Member
So only a certain class of people should be able to express their opinions? You may or may not comment on foreign events depending on the knowledge you have of the country or the "variables" related to said event?
How is that a mistake to express your opinion on worldwide events? I may not know all the facts but by expressing my opinion, it will lead to a discussion with other people that are more knowledgeable. From this knowledge you can either solidify your original opinion or amend as you gain the knowledge.
I've learn a great deal from this board. As some may attest, I may not agree with everyone's opinion I still learn a great deal from the people who don't share my views.
It's not a mistake to comment on an event that is not happening in your country. Come on ..
Active Member
Active Member
No, you misread me, or rather, I badly expressed my point.
It is just extremely difficult to really embrace an issue, even if you're part of the culture in which this event took place, event if you're aware of the social and historical context. So it's only understandable if people misinterpret that event because all the information they are able to gather is stripped of this context.
That doesn't mean topics should be restricted to the only people concerned by it, obviously not. I was just trying to say that given how widely this information spreads, it is only human if the people wondering about it aren't aware of every facet of the issue.
Active Member
I would argue that making a deduction about the sociopolitical standpoint of a creative text is different to making one about a world event. If it wasn't clear, I was speaking specifically about the publication than the shootings.
My comment about pop culture was separate to this as it's a growing attitude people have to news stories in general; reactions are increasingly hyperbolic, misinformed, and binary oppositions to things.
Last edited by icklekitty; 01-14-2015 at 03:32 PM.
God is an American
Angered by Charlie Hebdo's defiant depiction of Mohammed on the cover of their latest issue, Wahhabists in the African republic of Niger (whose population is more than 94% practicing Muslims) have taken to burning down Christian churches in protest, killing eleven people so far, and began looting "after authorities banned a meeting called by Islamic leaders". Niger is a former French colony.
Last edited by botley; 01-17-2015 at 07:07 PM.
Active Member
For fuck's sake...
tempus est umbra in mente
The part where this really gets out of hand is tied to the point where the flames of this outrage were fanned. Charlie Hebdo isn't a Christian magazine. This is a weird misconception I've seen tossed about a lot as well. I've seen people defiantly claim that the magazine would never dare mock the pope (I originally thought this was a strangely sociopathic form of trolling at first) or Christianity. Somebody is eagerly spreading this spin.
The idea that this is a Christian magazine published by malicious Westerners who hate Islam (and by extension the Middle East) is a twisted version of the story being fed to people with the hope that it will incite this sort of response.
Intentional misinformation is a powerful tool, and I think the spillover from the way this content is being represented is landing all over my Facebook wall and media feeds. You generally don't see people coming together to attack the insensitive nature and character of people who were recently murdered by terrorists. I see friends (who have South Park in their "likes" list) spewing invective hatred at the "racist shitbags" at Charlie Hebdo. It's like they never saw the movie Team America. It's like they don't even care that playing with hot-button topics that get us easily riled up is a tactic in modern humor. I've seen too many people being unreasonable about it.
So it makes sense that people are burning churches and attacking Christians over the content of an atheist publication like Charlie Hebdo, if only because I'm seeing people with unrestricted access to a better representation of the truth rushing to equally hyperbolic, hypersensitive, and very poorly timed tirades against them which ultimately reveal that they didn't just look into it a bit before getting magnificently pissed off.
Last edited by Jinsai; 01-17-2015 at 09:49 PM.
Active Member
Don't tell me those guys were waiting on the edge of their seat for the latest news on Charlie Hebdo either. Saying their latest cover is the cause for this massacre is a spin itself.
Local issues and tensions were a pre-existing condition, and some people fed a version of the truth to the angry masses to rile them up.
There is a difference between the comfortable ignorance of your armchair SJW, and the spreading of useful disinformation in order to start violence.
Seriously, Wahhabists are hardcore, they're at war with anyone who's not them, basically. They don't even need an incentive to riot against other religions, or even other forms of islamism.
Last edited by Khrz; 01-17-2015 at 10:02 PM.
Active Member
tempus est umbra in mente
Peacefully is the sensible and proper way you exchange ideas and let people know that you are upset or offended by something as innocuous as a drawing.
The only issue here is the massive throng of people who aren't exactly expressing peaceful ideas or suggestions, and the rampant endorsements of violence.
Active Member
The comments are equally delicious...
Throbbing Member
Ramzan Kadyrov leader of Chechnya and organiser of that protest has long been connected to the murders of journalists and dissidents himself.
tempus est umbra in mente
where should we put the news about Michelle Obama saying "fuck it I won't wear a veil?" in Saudi Arabia? It's not like it deserves its own thread.
I guess considering my previous rants in this thread about Saudi Arabia, and the fact that I think it's connected (and wonderful that she's doing this) it goes here, and why not http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...-saudi-arabia/
Likes: 
Faceplams: 
Reply With Quote
