Extremists open fire at Paris satirical newspaper, kill 12

[mama cass]

Originally Posted by PhilsFan

I want to respect that some people don't want to get into a back-and-forth like this on the back of an appalling tragedy so I'm going to toss this into the Spoiler.

 

There's a difference between mocking Muhammad and mocking sex slaves, and I think everyone here knows that. The problem isn't Muhammad and never was Muhammad. The problem is mocking marginalized people. Saying there are lines you shouldn't cross isn't limiting free speech. It's letting criticism, a fundamental part of free speech, into the conversation.

I think mocking sex slaves is punching down, and I apparently I need to do my homework? Not to pigeon hole this discussion into comparing two entities because it shouldn't be, but it is a good example: Last I checked I don't see The Onion regularly mocking transgender people. Why? Because there's no point. There's nothing to be gained. All you're going to do is hurt people who are marginalized for cheap laughs from people you shouldn't want to be making laugh. That's how I feel about Charlie Hebdo's regular employment of mocking Islamic people in a country (and continent) that is still very Islamophobic. Mock Muhammad? Great. But when you get into the marginalized people and say "Hey, everyone's a target!" you're just in the business of excuse making.

There are eminently reasonable people are more familiar with this entity than I am, and they seem to agree with this characterization of Charlie Hebdo. I'm sure there is some context that I'm unaware of that will fill in a few gaps, but I have a hard time believing I'm missing the boat by that much here.

 

this article isn't dissimilar to the interpretation i offered earlier, re. taking an extreme example, Boko Haram situation, to spoof cliched thinking by the French far right on issues such as welfare/immigration... basically all the FN's (far right party despised by CH) worst nightmares rolled into one...

make of it what you will... [fwiw i do not approve of this cartoon, i think it is particularly tasteless and insensitive, but i do not believe the intent/message was racist/xenophobic whatsoever]

What are some of Charlie Hebdo's most famous cartoons? - The Charlie Hebdo attack, explained - Vox

This October 2014 cover stats "Boko Haram's sex slaves are angry"; the women, presumably victims of the Nigerian terrorist group, are shouting "Don't touch our welfare!" There are two ways to read this cover: as a deliberately tasteless, and indeed racist, depiction of Nigeria women; or as a provocative but nuanced satire expressing support for the French welfare state. There is real validity to both.

Charlie Hebdo covers often combined two unrelated stories to make a satirical point. In the context of the magazine's leftist politics, this seems to be about spoofing not Nigerian trafficking victims, but French welfare critics, who have argued that France should cut welfare programs to prevent immigrant women from exploiting them. The cover, in this view, seems to say, "Hey, welfare critics, you're so heartless that you probably think that even Nigerian sexual slavery victims are money-grubbing 'welfare queens.'"

At the same time, there is no getting around that the cover's point, even if its intention is to protect welfare for Nigerian immigrants to France, indulges some awfully racist stereotypes along the way.

This cover in many ways, then, captures Charlie Hebdo at its best and its worst, as a magazine that was daring and bitingly satirical, but whose bravery and defiance of the normal rules of good taste often took it several steps beyond mere provocation. That is not to condemn the magazine, but to understand it, which is among the least of what we owe them.

__________________

[bono_212]

That article seems to be saying almost exactly what I'm reading Peef to be saying, though.

[mama cass]

Originally Posted by BoMac

France has long defended the right to offend | Montreal Gazette

brings to mind, when spoken-word theatre was historically banned in France (due to criticism/caricaturing/ridiculing of the aristocracy/leaders) it led to the emergence of mime - subversion always finds a way...

[mama cass]

Originally Posted by bono_212

That article seems to be saying almost exactly what I'm reading Peef to be saying, though.

depends which of the two interpretations you choose, i.e. spoofing the Nigerian girls, or spoofing/winding up the anti-immigration/anti-welfare for immigrants brigade - i thought PhilsFan was more about the first interpretation?

[mama cass]

beautifully written article

Charlie Hebdo: Understanding is the least we owe the dead | Hari Kunzru | Comment is free | The Guardian

[Bad Exit]

Originally Posted by mama cass

depends which of the two interpretations you choose, i.e. spoofing the Nigerian girls, or spoofing/winding up the anti-immigration/anti-welfare for immigrants brigade - i thought PhilsFan was more about the first interpretation?

He was more about the "defiance of the good taste often took it several steps beyond mere provocation".

---

I know that I have the right to be an asshole, and I know that we all need to fight and defend our right to be assholes, but that doesn't mean that I'm not being an asshole.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by mama cass

 

this article isn't dissimilar to the interpretation i offered earlier, re. taking an extreme example, Boko Haram situation, to spoof cliched thinking by the French far right on issues such as welfare/immigration... basically all the FN's (far right party despised by CH) worst nightmares rolled into one...

make of it what you will... [fwiw i do not approve of this cartoon, i think it is particularly tasteless and insensitive, but i do not believe the intent/message was racist/xenophobic whatsoever]

What are some of Charlie Hebdo's most famous cartoons? - The Charlie Hebdo attack, explained - Vox

This is the most nuanced and intelligent exchange I've read in FYM in at least a year. A low bar these days, but true.

Thank you both. I feel as if I understand the issue better now because I've read two thoughtful takes.


Sent from

[liamcool]

Hostage situation to the north of Paris. Apparently at least one hostage has been killed so far. Charlie Hebdo: 'major operation' north-east of Paris in hunt for suspects – live updates | World news | The Guardian

[bono_212]

Originally Posted by liamcool

Hostage situation to the north of Paris. Apparently at least one hostage has been killed so far. Charlie Hebdo: 'major operation' north-east of Paris in hunt for suspects – live updates | World news | The Guardian

"The Paris prosecutor’s office has denied reports that one person has been killed in a shootout."

[liamcool]

Yep. Not much information - police are purposely keeping information from the media, because of possible monitoring of the media by the criminals.

[youarenotimmune]

Originally Posted by anitram

Most people are championing freedom of expression in a secular society. There are obviously clear legal limits to that but freedom of expression most certainly DOES NOT stop where your religiously based offence starts. That's preposterous.

I for one am tired of special allowances being afforded to religion that we would not afford to anyone else. If there is a cartoon of Muhammad making out with a guy or of Piss Christ painting, who the hell cares?

If you'd bothered to properly read what I wrote, you'd realize you're responding to things I neither said nor implied.

Originally Posted by anitram

I won't comment on the absurdity of your "they are morons or Muslim-haters" because that's really beneath any sort of rational discourse.

Fantastic, since I have no interest in engaging your straw man either.

[Babydoll]

Not entirely related to the topic at hand, but somewhat:

One Tweet Perfectly Sums Up the Big Problem With How We Talk About Terrorism - Mic

[DaveC]

Originally Posted by Babydoll

Not entirely related to the topic at hand, but somewhat:



One Tweet Perfectly Sums Up the Big Problem With How We Talk About Terrorism - Mic

That's a ridiculous article.

You can't compare someone dropping a pipe bomb outside a building that did no damage and didn't hurt anybody to a professional massacre of 12 people in the middle of one of the worlds biggest cities. OF COURSE the stories were covered differently because they aren't the same at all.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[mama cass]

oh fuck another new siege under way in Paris, 5 hostages held in a kosher store by the gunman suspected as having killed the policewoman in yesterday's attack (which has now been confirmed as related to the Charlie Hebdo attack)

meanwhile French security/military services have surrounded the Charlie Hebdo gunmen, who have at least one hostage, on the premises of a business a few miles outside of Paris

[Bad Exit]

Arab newspapers around the world react to Charlie Hebdo attack

[anitram]

The best article I have read so far can be found here:

http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/201...-we-need/?_r=2

Some excerpts:

I disagree slightly with Jonathan Chait’s formulation today that “one cannot defend the right [to blaspheme] without defending the practice.” If I devoted my next blog post to a scabrous, profanity-laced satire of the Buddha, I would not expect Chait or anyone else to immediately leap to my defense if the Times decided to delete the post and dismiss me from its ranks of columnists. If I ran a reactionary website that devoted itself to recycling pre-modern calumnies against Jewish law and ritual, my rights as an American would not be traduced if people picketed my offices and other journalists told me I had a moral obligation to desist. And similarly, in a cultural and political vacuum, it would be okay to think that some of the images (anti-Islamic and otherwise) that Charlie Hebdo regularly published, especially those chosen entirely for their shock value, contributed little enough to public discussion that the world would not suffer from their absence.

But we are not in a vacuum. We are in a situation where my third point applies, because the kind of blasphemy that Charlie Hebdo engaged in had deadly consequences, as everyone knew it could … and that kind of blasphemy is precisely the kind that needs to be defended, because it’s the kind that clearly serves a free society’s greater good. If a large enough group of someones is willing to kill you for saying something, then it’s something that almost certainly needs to be said, because otherwise the violent have veto power over liberal civilization, and when that scenario obtains it isn’t really a liberal civilization any more. Again, liberalism doesn’t depend on everyone offending everyone else all the time, and it’s okay to prefer a society where offense for its own sake is limited rather than pervasive. But when offenses are policed by murder, that’s when we need more of them, not less, because the murderers cannot be allowed for a single moment to think that their strategy can succeed.

[mama cass]

[Headache in a Suitcase]

Originally Posted by Babydoll

Not entirely related to the topic at hand, but somewhat:

One Tweet Perfectly Sums Up the Big Problem With How We Talk About Terrorism - Mic

They're covered differently because one was an attempt and one was an actual attack.

But there's no doubt that anyone, white, brown or green, who used religion as an excuse for violence is committing a terrorist act.

[iron yuppie]

"But when offenses are policed by murder, that’s when we need more of them, not less, because the murderers cannot be allowed for a single moment to think that their strategy can succeed."

Here's my problem with this type of reasoning: it's awfully easy to be super principled when you're writing from the safety of a home office or whatever. It's quite a different thing for people who are put in the line of danger for the sake of incendiary rhetoric.

[BEAL]

The two brothers are dead. As is the gal who was holding hostages.

I prefer we take these people alive, if only to learn from them. They can't speak when they're dead. Instead we'll fill in their words for them (on both sides)