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.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
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.
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
It’s time based. Buddhism also had a similar ban on iconic representation of the Buddha. That’s why some early art will just have footprints or things like that. Islam should allow iconic representation of their prophet within 300 years.
Were Buddhists killing people for depicting Buddha?
Removed by mod
Satire is a necessary way to call out impropriety in Democratic society. The humor softens the blow of the reality of horrible acts and makes less horrible but still bad acts easier to understand. As long as it’s not saying things that are just totally without merit or using it purely to spread hate, it should be staunchly defended regardless of who is offended by it.
Example of bad satire is something like a cartoon of an LGBTQ+ person going to a psychiatrist and the psychiatrist saying it’s a mental illness and their head explodes. This is pushing the narrative that being gay is something to be cured and that gay people just can’t accept it. This can be considered satire, but like any type of speech it’s stating something designed to harm others. Satire is meant to over-exaggerate a problem, not make up a problem that doesn’t actually exist for the express purpose of hate.
Would you support killing a person who published such a cartoon?
Social ostracization or ridicule is an appropriate response to bad statements, not violence
No. I don’t support the death penalty for any crimes except in circumstances where secure imprisonment is impossible and the criminal is a serious physical danger to others. I said defend satire, not punish hate speech disguised as satire which is another subject on how to do that.
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.
once The Fall happens
What’s that?
My god are there people who think like this? Hahaha
One of the four seasons
I thought they stopped making music in the 60s.
More like 1720 but who’s counting LMAO 🤣
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.
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.
Is making fun of a religion hate speech?
Many believers seem to think so. Then again, they think it’s “hate speech” to show the contradictions of their “holy” book, so…
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.
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.
Removed by mod
Yeah but what is hate speech when it comes to religion? For hardcore religious people blasphemy is hate speech. Like when that French teacher just showed drawings of Muhammed in historical context it was enough reason for a Muslim to kill him.
If you don’t know what hate speech is I don’t know what to tell you. Or are you doing the equivalent of the “what is a woman” nonsense?
I made a few statements.
-
Satire is fine. Agree/ disagree? I think we agree
-
Hate speech is not. Agree/ disagree? I don’t know if we agree
-
Neither should come with a death penalty? Agree disagree? I hope we agree
-
I personally don’t cry over dead bigots. A personal statement. Undebatable unless you want to call me a liar.
-
There’s a time and space for jokes. For some jokes there’s neither. Agree/ disagree? I don’t know if we agree.
I think his response was clear. Hate speech can be twisted into anything you want as it’s just an opinion.
I thought they were disagreeing with point two, I don’t want to jump to conclusions though. Social media is full of “so you think [extreme nonsense here]” I am trying to be better than that.
I dunno. I was around for the “it’s PC culture gone mad” position from yonder year. Their comment was similar to arguments made back then about racism, transphobia, homophobia, any protected class really.
-
deleted by creator
Reality keeps sliding into absurdity rendering satire mute.
Removed by mod
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.
I am legally obligated not to have an opinion
I don’t.
Fuck terrorists, fuck terrorists sympathizers and fuck people who kill others over a cartoon
If your group can’t take a joke, your group is a joke. Especially if it is abusive imaginary parent who according to you does everything that is wrong with the world in order to “build character” and overall rules through fear only.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
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.
Do you think they wanted to bully the minority rather than the islamists?
What was the satire here, then? How is portraying her as a gypsy anything but racist?
Didn’t really get the gypsy reference, so I looked it up, Charlie directly answered to the emotion it caused here: https://charliehebdo.fr/2018/06/societe/ je-ne-suis-pas-charlie-halep / (the paywall can be bypassed with reading mode). Basically, they are saying that what they did is a satire of French people prejudices against Romanian people. They often do that, they reuse the words/prejudices of the people they criticize in a satirical setting to mock it, though without knowing Charlie’s culture, it’s difficult to interpret. Consider it as the equivalent of “/s” at the end of a comment here.
Have we read the same article? Because that article simply claims that Romanians have an air of superiority and that it was a banal drawing and then lists a bunch of reactions from some Romanians and also brings up the fact that Halep is of aromanian descent, despite it being irrelevant. Unless they think aromanians and the romani are the same people, which they’re not. Sounds unapologetic and no explanation given for the reinforcement of the romanians = gypsies stereotype.
They could’ve at least framed it as a “le monde” title or something to imply that it’s the media framing her as such… there’s nothing there to imply those are other people’s words…
So I can make a comic of Obama with some fried chicken and some watermelon at a desk with a plaque that says POTUS and just be like “it’s a joke! I’m making fun of the racists!” ? That doesn’t sound right to me, but whatever.
The framing is having it on Charlie Hebdo and knowing what is their style. When people take it out of this context and with no knowledge of local politics, it will easily look racist. The same happens with a satirical comment here, take it out of context and present it at a family dinner, it will not be received the same.
Let me take an up voted comment from here as an example.
Ugh. Bougie homeless. Just sleep in your car like normal people. 🙄
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
This seems to be from 1979 and I can’t find any description to explain the context. But it mentions oil, so I would guess it is a satire of politicians talking about going to war with Arabic countries over oil prices. Would you have the historical context?
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
You know it’s okay to just not post anything right?
