Extremists open fire at Paris satirical newspaper, kill 12

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
mama cass said:
i guess that is the problem - people with no historical, cultural or emotional connection to the magazine are just discovering it now and making judgements via the internet... i find it insulting that people would think that France would hold a "reactionary far right rag" so dear, and miss the point completely, sorry

but yeah, i understand vlad is normally pretty on the ball with stuff, but i guess this is very "French" and i understand that i would have no clue about publications in many other countries, so i get that he was just inquisitive and maybe wasn't aware of the context of the cartoons he posted...
Click to expand...

It's hard to have a decent conversation when your first reaction is to lash out, just in case, though. Vlad really only seemed to be asking for clarification. How are we supposed to have a cultural connection to something we're not culturally connected to? Vlad asked for clarification, you jumped down his throat, it's pretty simple.

PhilsFan said:
I didn't recognize the name at first but once I was reminded that they were the ones who received threats a few years ago, yes. I'm far from a study on them but my understanding of them is apparently far different from Mama Cass's, as everything I've heard about them before this and now after this tragedy has made me think they're racist and xenophobic.

The best description I saw of Charlie Hebdo was "a bunch of white guys punching down."
Click to expand...

I didn't recognize the name, but I knew it had to be the same publication, almost immediately. At the time of the original threats, I remember they were being referred to the same as you're describing now. The only thing was, and still is, that I have no idea who to believe on that particular thought-process because I'm not from France and I'm not familiar, so I'm still just sitting over here really upset that someone would do such a thing in the first place.

And I totally understand that you're trying to bring some light to some topics of this conversation, and I appreciate that.
 
Agree completely with PhilsFan. Anybody who does NOT condemn this barbaric act should be judged as a disgusting human being. But for fuck's sake not championing the guy and his publication does not equal not condemning this attack.

Imagine a racist piece attacking blacks. Or an antisemitic article. What if it incited a similar violent response? Would you condemn that? Of fucking course you would and you should. But would you champion the racists for spewing hatred by exercising their freedom of speech?

Muhammad is the pinnacle of reverence for Muslims. There is nothing more insulting than disrespecting their prophet. So please, condemn this barbaric attack as you rightly should. But when you champion the racists and xenophobes for spewing hateful bile in the name of freedom of expression, you come off as a moron at best, and a racist Muslim-hater at worst.
 
youarenotimmune said:
Agree completely with PhilsFan. Anybody who does NOT condemn this barbaric act should be judged as a disgusting human being. But for fuck's sake not championing the guy and his publication does not equal not condemning this attack.

Imagine a racist piece attacking blacks. Or an antisemitic article. What if it incited a similar violent response? Would you condemn that? Of fucking course you would and you should. But would you champion the racists for spewing hatred by exercising their freedom of speech?

Muhammad is the pinnacle of reverence for Muslims. There is nothing more insulting than disrespecting their prophet. So please, condemn this barbaric attack as you rightly should. But when you champion the racists and xenophobes for spewing hateful bile in the name of freedom of expression, you come off as a moron at best, and a racist Muslim-hater at worst.
Click to expand...

and so should you :down:
 
Is Muslim a race? I'm white, I could convert to Islam and be a muslim. I can't convert to black, or Asian.

Satire is satire. Can it be offensive? Sure, but it's subjective. If you find something in poor taste, you're right. If you don't find it in poor taste, you're right.

If enough people find something terribly offensive, there should be NON VIOLENT means to resolve the issue.

I don't care how insulting it is to draw the prophet Muhammad. To be the religion of peace, they could....you know...protest it peacefully? Go through proper channels and make a change that way?

Instead, 12 people are dead and many present the killers as victims. There needs to be a fundamental change within Islam to back away from the violence any time something offensive happens to their religion. They have many legitimate beefs with the West, but those can't be taken seriously when the reaction is violence.

The Bible has many verses that call out for violence or degrade specific human rights towards minorities/women, yet Christians don't go out stoning, crucifying, or any other violent punishment towards the offending parties. They've adapted to secular society, and for the most part get along peacefully (You could argue they've ventured more into politics to do their damage now)

When will Islam go through the same? Would Christianity have adapted as it did if it had access to today's weapons?

This is not going to be an easy path. It may never get there, this may be one of the top threats to civilization.
 
youarenotimmune said:
Agree completely with PhilsFan. Anybody who does NOT condemn this barbaric act should be judged as a disgusting human being. But for fuck's sake not championing the guy and his publication does not equal not condemning this attack.

Imagine a racist piece attacking blacks. Or an antisemitic article. What if it incited a similar violent response? Would you condemn that? Of fucking course you would and you should. But would you champion the racists for spewing hatred by exercising their freedom of speech?

Muhammad is the pinnacle of reverence for Muslims. There is nothing more insulting than disrespecting their prophet. So please, condemn this barbaric attack as you rightly should. But when you champion the racists and xenophobes for spewing hateful bile in the name of freedom of expression, you come off as a moron at best, and a racist Muslim-hater at worst.
Click to expand...

Every word of this :up:
 
i have just this minute found out that a close friend of mine knew two of the murdered cartoonists personally

to call them racists or xenophobes is pretty ignorant

why don't you try using your brains and scratching beneath the surface to discover meaning? things aren't always as they appear

i am not championing the magazine but i understand its significance to France and its battle against censorship thru fear, and nowhere here has anyone claimed that they are the champions of discourse (they're just a satirical magazine for fuckssakes, but which refused to be intimidated and ridiculed stupidity in all its guises), i am aware that the cartoonists could often go too far and cross the line in terms of bad taste, they were terrible irreverent, anticlerical "clowns" (as they described themselves), but everything that Charlie Hebdo stood for was the opposite of hateful bile - which is clear from the outpouring of grief among the very diverse communities (whether Jewish, Muslim, Christian, atheist) throughout France
 
As a Quebecer, I'm somewhat culturally attuned to France and French customs, so I completely understand where mama cass is coming from. Whether you see the cartoons in poor taste or not funny, freedom of expression and secularism is ingrained in French society, so publications like Charlie Hebdo are held in high regard.
 
BoMac said:
As a Quebecer, I'm somewhat culturally attuned to France and French customs, so I completely understand where mama cass is coming from. Whether you see the cartoons in poor taste or not funny, freedom of expression and secularism is ingrained in French society, so publications like Charlie Hebdo are held in high regard.
Click to expand...

thanks :hug:

i kind of thought i was going crazy in here with the lack of understanding, whereas, in my real world, everyone i know feels the same :lol:
 
BEAL said:
Is Muslim a race? I'm white, I could convert to Islam and be a muslim. I can't convert to black, or Asian.

Satire is satire. Can it be offensive? Sure, but it's subjective. If you find something in poor taste, you're right. If you don't find it in poor taste, you're right.

If enough people find something terribly offensive, there should be NON VIOLENT means to resolve the issue.

I don't care how insulting it is to draw the prophet Muhammad. To be the religion of peace, they could....you know...protest it peacefully? Go through proper channels and make a change that way?
Click to expand...

Yea I know the racist thing is technically incorrect but it's colloquially used in general discourse in this context.

And I completely agree with what you're saying. My point with bringing up Muhammad's reverence in Islam was simply to draw a parallel to racism/antisemitism/xenophobia. If you insult an Arab by making a derogatory remark about his race versus disrespecting his prophet, 10 out of 10 Arabs would be offended a great deal more by the latter.

The point is, racism or antisemitism are clearly defined socially 'bad' constructs in the western world. It is difficult for people to wrap their heads around why insulting a religious figure can be worse than these things to a community. Of course no matter how offended Muslims are by it, violence is never a justifiable reaction. But when you champion the publication as a stalwart of freedom of speech, you need to be aware that you are supporting something not just akin to, but significantly worse than racism/antisemitism in the Muslim world. This sociological context is key, and sadly lost on a lot of people so passionately taking part in this debate.
 
youarenotimmune said:
Yea I know the racist thing is technically incorrect but it's colloquially used in general discourse in this context.

And I completely agree with what you're saying. My point with bringing up Muhammad's reverence in Islam was simply to draw a parallel to racism/antisemitism/xenophobia. If you insult an Arab by making a derogatory remark about his race versus disrespecting his prophet, 10 out of 10 Arabs would be offended a great deal more by the latter.

The point is, racism or antisemitism are clearly defined socially 'bad' constructs in the western world. It is difficult for people to wrap their heads around why insulting a religious figure can be worse than these things to a community. Of course no matter how offended Muslims are by it, violence is never a justifiable reaction. But when you champion the publication as a stalwart of freedom of speech, you need to be aware that you are supporting something not just akin to, but significantly worse than racism/antisemitism in the Muslim world. This sociological context is key, and sadly lost on a lot of people so passionately taking part in this debate.
Click to expand...

Thanks for responding and drawing it out more. I think the real key here is "intent". If I see someone make a racist, or bigoted comment...I don't just naturally shrug it off as "well, its OK because it's their right". I feel ashamed, angered, and wish it wouldn't be made.

I think those that use their speech towards inciting rage because they truly hate that group or person (or thing) is wrong. The nice thing about the freedom of speech is that we can identify with those who are idiots, and while they can say the stupidest things...it's up to us to either ignore, or make sure these ideas/views don't take a position of power.

Satire is a fine line. I would say it can still be mean spirited, but I don't think their intent is to cause a reaction where people are hurt or even killed. I am sure they didn't WANT to die by making fun of Islam.

Islam(and the other religions) say some pretty nasty things about women, gays and those who don't believe the same as them. Yet it feels like when this is pointed out, those in the religious community run straight to same argument that we are making, that their speech should be protected by law because of it's religious nature.

It is a mess, and I am just not sure how it gets solved. I definitely do not agree with not printing the cartoons or altering our rights towards fanatics. The freedoms we have are to protect us, not to protect fanatics.
 
youarenotimmune said:
Muhammad is the pinnacle of reverence for Muslims. There is nothing more insulting than disrespecting their prophet. So please, condemn this barbaric attack as you rightly should. But when you champion the racists and xenophobes for spewing hateful bile in the name of freedom of expression, you come off as a moron at best, and a racist Muslim-hater at worst.
Click to expand...

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?

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.
 
anitram said:
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?

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.
Click to expand...

Well said.
 
PhilsFan said:
I don't think Charlie Hebdo cast the spotlight on bigotry, racism, and stupidity nearly as much as they think (or you) think they do. That's all. Again, I'm not saying they were asking for it any sense, I just don't think they should be celebrated as if they were doing a great thing. They were most certainly not. Their cartoons aren't funny and many times simply trip over satire on the way to being offensive. They have every right to do that and the people who did this are heinous, but that doesn't mean they should be held up as a bastion of wit.

This feels gross to talk about in light of what happened, but it seems like it's being overlooked too frequently here.
Click to expand...

I still share this view, and obviously there's somewhat of a difference between French and Australian (where I live) society, but you wouldn't see anything published in even the most notorious Murdoch washcloths in Australia that would even come close to what I've seen from CH, out of context or not.

mama cass said:
i guess that is the problem - people with no historical, cultural or emotional connection to the magazine are just discovering it now and making judgements via the internet... i find it insulting that people would think that France would hold a "reactionary far right rag" so dear, and miss the point completely, sorry

but yeah, i understand vlad is normally pretty on the ball with stuff, but i guess this is very "French" and i understand that i would have no clue about publications in many other countries, so i get that he was just inquisitive and maybe wasn't aware of the context of the cartoons he posted...
Click to expand...

mama cass said:
yeah sure, so i gave him a pounding first just in case it was a trick question, but then answered his question at least :D

ps: sorry vlad
Click to expand...

Yeah it's fine, really, I wasn't expecting such a stern response myself. I thought I had made my query as clear as possible. :lol:
 
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.
 
PhilsFan said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...
 
That article seems to be saying almost exactly what I'm reading Peef to be saying, though.
 
bono_212 said:
That article seems to be saying almost exactly what I'm reading Peef to be saying, though.
Click to expand...

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 said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
mama cass said:
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
Click to expand...




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
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

LemonMelon
Desert Island XI - QUARANTINE ISLAND - Group 2 Listening Thread
4 5 6
Replies
175
Views
6K
namkcuR
N
lharper
Innocent Experience - Chapter 7
Replies
6
Views
2K
Anto74
A
youvedonewhat
Diaries Part 6.
Replies
2
Views
1K
lharper
lharper
LemonMelon
Desert Island X: Group 1 Listening Thread
5 6 7
Replies
185
Views
7K
lazarus
lazarus
youvedonewhat
Diaries. Part 3.
Replies
11
Views
2K
youvedonewhat
youvedonewhat

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom