|
|
On January 11 2015 02:16 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
So the female suspect traveled to Syria less than a week ago?
Last time I checked there is no reason to believe she's really involved. Supportive probably but I don't see how she's really more relevant than the dozens of women who travel to Syria since the whole crisis there began.
|
On January 11 2015 02:19 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2015 02:17 Millitron wrote:On January 11 2015 02:08 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 11 2015 02:07 WhiteDog wrote:On January 11 2015 02:04 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 11 2015 02:02 WhiteDog wrote:On January 11 2015 01:52 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 11 2015 01:43 WhiteDog wrote:On January 11 2015 01:36 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 11 2015 01:31 WhiteDog wrote:
[quote]
Yes and that's the two only front page you can find on jews and it's about all religions. Charlie barely ever joked about the Shoah or about jews specifically, which explains why the jewish political groups barely ever criticized them. But the front page with "the Quran is shit", or all the cardinal butt fucking each other, all those are way more frontal. Why would they laugh about the Shoah? That has nothing to do with religion. And there is nothing to laugh about really. What I am trying to tell you is that Charlie didn't laugh about "the jews", because it never laughed about people for what they are, because they were not racist. It didn't laugh about "christians" or "muslims" either. It was anti-clerical, so it laughed about the Pope, about rabbis EVERYWHERE, about imams. It was anti extremists so it laughed about christian bigots, orthodox Jews and muslim fundamentalists. It was anti religion so it laughed about Moses, about Jesus, about Muhammad, about Abraham and so on. But it didn't laugh about generic muslims, generic jews and generic christians. Charlie was fighting against IDEAS not against people. Laughing about the Shoah is not laughing against ideas. Laughing about jews because they are rich or have a bug nose or control the world is not laughing about ideas. Charlie was not Dieudonné How is saying the coran is shit not against muslim ? Where are the ideas ? I liked Charlie, I see great qualities in them and they were, individually great people. I also loved their most offensive stuff, against anyone. But this idea that they criticized exactly everybody in the same way is, in my opinion, going a little too far : they had their own wars, mainly against the FN and anything related (soral, dieudonné), for total sexual freedom (because they loved it really), and against extremism (mostly muslim and christian extremism). They never really criticized the CRIF, despite its role in france in the last few years, or never made any relationship between what happen in Israel and the jewish religion. Laughing about the Quran is laughing about Islam. Not about muslim. Islam is an idea. Muslim are people. If I say "Jews have big nose and are conspiring to take over the world" I am targeting people and I'm actually being racist.
If I say "Abraham can get fucked in the ass by Moses and use the Torah as a condom", I am targeting Judaism. People can get offended if they wish, but I only talk about what they are thinking, not about what they are.It's a huge difference. I saw pictures of rabbi in every Charlie I read and I never saw them talking about religions in general without mentioning Judaism. And their Israel cartoons ALWAYS featured jewish extremist. You know, lots of settlers and far right guys in Israel are not Orthodox. But Charlie always showed orthodox and religious extremists when talking about Israeli screwing up. I don't remember any picture about the CRIF, but then I don't remember any picture about many many things. Maybe they didn't make fun of the CRIF. And what? They made fun of the religion itself, of its holy book, of its priests, and of its extremists. That's what they were doing with every religion. There is no jewish exception with Charlie. That's just factually not true. Maybe they lacked balls with the CRIF I don't know. That's really a detail though. Saying Benoit XVI is a pedophile is not attacking people ? It's attacking Benoit XVI, for what he does. Being the Pope, and a high ranked priest. Not attacking a group of people for what they are. Like Jews, because they are Jews. The same that drawing rabbis and priests is not attacking Jews and Christians. It's anti-clericalism, not racism. Don't you think there is a little double standard considering Siné got fired for basically saying "He just declared his desire to convert to judaïsm before marrying his fiancee, jewish, and heiress of Darty. He will go a long way this boy !". It's just critcisizing a rich kid to me. No, there is no double standard. What Siné did, was targeting a group of people for what they are based on racist stereotype: the Jews have money. That's VERY different, and Siné, that time, crossed a red line by actually making a racist drawing, which Charlie NEVER did. I can bet you that if he had drawn a picture implying muslims were stealing in supermarket, just because, it would have been the same, he would have been fired also. And saying the pope, or other priests are pedophiles is targeting Christians. No, it's not. It's targeting religious institutions and figures of authority, not Christians as a people. The difference is there and clearly matters.
Not all christians will see it that way.
|
On January 11 2015 02:17 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2015 02:08 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 11 2015 02:07 WhiteDog wrote:On January 11 2015 02:04 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 11 2015 02:02 WhiteDog wrote:On January 11 2015 01:52 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 11 2015 01:43 WhiteDog wrote:On January 11 2015 01:36 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 11 2015 01:31 WhiteDog wrote:On January 11 2015 01:22 Biff The Understudy wrote:
[quote]
Yes? And?
[quote]
[quote]
Personally I see everyone in the same basket Yes and that's the two only front page you can find on jews and it's about all religions. Charlie barely ever joked about the Shoah or about jews specifically, which explains why the jewish political groups barely ever criticized them. But the front page with "the Quran is shit", or all the cardinal butt fucking each other, all those are way more frontal. Why would they laugh about the Shoah? That has nothing to do with religion. And there is nothing to laugh about really. What I am trying to tell you is that Charlie didn't laugh about "the jews", because it never laughed about people for what they are, because they were not racist. It didn't laugh about "christians" or "muslims" either. It was anti-clerical, so it laughed about the Pope, about rabbis EVERYWHERE, about imams. It was anti extremists so it laughed about christian bigots, orthodox Jews and muslim fundamentalists. It was anti religion so it laughed about Moses, about Jesus, about Muhammad, about Abraham and so on. But it didn't laugh about generic muslims, generic jews and generic christians. Charlie was fighting against IDEAS not against people. Laughing about the Shoah is not laughing against ideas. Laughing about jews because they are rich or have a bug nose or control the world is not laughing about ideas. Charlie was not Dieudonné How is saying the coran is shit not against muslim ? Where are the ideas ? I liked Charlie, I see great qualities in them and they were, individually great people. I also loved their most offensive stuff, against anyone. But this idea that they criticized exactly everybody in the same way is, in my opinion, going a little too far : they had their own wars, mainly against the FN and anything related (soral, dieudonné), for total sexual freedom (because they loved it really), and against extremism (mostly muslim and christian extremism). They never really criticized the CRIF, despite its role in france in the last few years, or never made any relationship between what happen in Israel and the jewish religion. Laughing about the Quran is laughing about Islam. Not about muslim. Islam is an idea. Muslim are people. If I say "Jews have big nose and are conspiring to take over the world" I am targeting people and I'm actually being racist.
If I say "Abraham can get fucked in the ass by Moses and use the Torah as a condom", I am targeting Judaism. People can get offended if they wish, but I only talk about what they are thinking, not about what they are.It's a huge difference. I saw pictures of rabbi in every Charlie I read and I never saw them talking about religions in general without mentioning Judaism. And their Israel cartoons ALWAYS featured jewish extremist. You know, lots of settlers and far right guys in Israel are not Orthodox. But Charlie always showed orthodox and religious extremists when talking about Israeli screwing up. I don't remember any picture about the CRIF, but then I don't remember any picture about many many things. Maybe they didn't make fun of the CRIF. And what? They made fun of the religion itself, of its holy book, of its priests, and of its extremists. That's what they were doing with every religion. There is no jewish exception with Charlie. That's just factually not true. Maybe they lacked balls with the CRIF I don't know. That's really a detail though. Saying Benoit XVI is a pedophile is not attacking people ? It's attacking Benoit XVI, for what he does. Being the Pope, and a high ranked priest. Not attacking a group of people for what they are. Like Jews, because they are Jews. The same that drawing rabbis and priests is not attacking Jews and Christians. It's anti-clericalism, not racism. Don't you think there is a little double standard considering Siné got fired for basically saying "He just declared his desire to convert to judaïsm before marrying his fiancee, jewish, and heiress of Darty. He will go a long way this boy !". It's just critcisizing a rich kid to me. No, there is no double standard. What Siné did, was targeting a group of people for what they are based on racist stereotype: the Jews have money. That's VERY different, and Siné, that time, crossed a red line by actually making a racist drawing, which Charlie NEVER did. I can bet you that if he had drawn a picture implying muslims were stealing in supermarket, just because, it would have been the same, he would have been fired also. And saying the pope, or other priests are pedophiles is targeting Christians. The thing about racism or any other prejudices is that saying anything negative about anyone could be considered racist. You may not see a problem with satirizing rabbis and priests like CH did, but someone else might. Racism is in the eye of the beholder.
People can get offended for anything, it's our tradition to actually push the boundaries and critic all figure of power. Oftentime, "offended" people use this their "sensibility" as a tool to impose ideas and revendications on people. Caricature is a good way to push away those revendications.
|
On January 11 2015 02:23 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2015 02:19 kwizach wrote:On January 11 2015 02:17 Millitron wrote:On January 11 2015 02:08 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 11 2015 02:07 WhiteDog wrote:On January 11 2015 02:04 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 11 2015 02:02 WhiteDog wrote:On January 11 2015 01:52 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 11 2015 01:43 WhiteDog wrote:On January 11 2015 01:36 Biff The Understudy wrote:
[quote]
Why would they laugh about the Shoah? That has nothing to do with religion. And there is nothing to laugh about really.
What I am trying to tell you is that Charlie didn't laugh about "the jews", because it never laughed about people for what they are, because they were not racist. It didn't laugh about "christians" or "muslims" either.
It was anti-clerical, so it laughed about the Pope, about rabbis EVERYWHERE, about imams.
It was anti extremists so it laughed about christian bigots, orthodox Jews and muslim fundamentalists.
It was anti religion so it laughed about Moses, about Jesus, about Muhammad, about Abraham and so on.
But it didn't laugh about generic muslims, generic jews and generic christians.
Charlie was fighting against IDEAS not against people. Laughing about the Shoah is not laughing against ideas. Laughing about jews because they are rich or have a bug nose or control the world is not laughing about ideas.
Charlie was not Dieudonné How is saying the coran is shit not against muslim ? Where are the ideas ? I liked Charlie, I see great qualities in them and they were, individually great people. I also loved their most offensive stuff, against anyone. But this idea that they criticized exactly everybody in the same way is, in my opinion, going a little too far : they had their own wars, mainly against the FN and anything related (soral, dieudonné), for total sexual freedom (because they loved it really), and against extremism (mostly muslim and christian extremism). They never really criticized the CRIF, despite its role in france in the last few years, or never made any relationship between what happen in Israel and the jewish religion. Laughing about the Quran is laughing about Islam. Not about muslim. Islam is an idea. Muslim are people. If I say "Jews have big nose and are conspiring to take over the world" I am targeting people and I'm actually being racist.
If I say "Abraham can get fucked in the ass by Moses and use the Torah as a condom", I am targeting Judaism. People can get offended if they wish, but I only talk about what they are thinking, not about what they are.It's a huge difference. I saw pictures of rabbi in every Charlie I read and I never saw them talking about religions in general without mentioning Judaism. And their Israel cartoons ALWAYS featured jewish extremist. You know, lots of settlers and far right guys in Israel are not Orthodox. But Charlie always showed orthodox and religious extremists when talking about Israeli screwing up. I don't remember any picture about the CRIF, but then I don't remember any picture about many many things. Maybe they didn't make fun of the CRIF. And what? They made fun of the religion itself, of its holy book, of its priests, and of its extremists. That's what they were doing with every religion. There is no jewish exception with Charlie. That's just factually not true. Maybe they lacked balls with the CRIF I don't know. That's really a detail though. Saying Benoit XVI is a pedophile is not attacking people ? It's attacking Benoit XVI, for what he does. Being the Pope, and a high ranked priest. Not attacking a group of people for what they are. Like Jews, because they are Jews. The same that drawing rabbis and priests is not attacking Jews and Christians. It's anti-clericalism, not racism. Don't you think there is a little double standard considering Siné got fired for basically saying "He just declared his desire to convert to judaïsm before marrying his fiancee, jewish, and heiress of Darty. He will go a long way this boy !". It's just critcisizing a rich kid to me. No, there is no double standard. What Siné did, was targeting a group of people for what they are based on racist stereotype: the Jews have money. That's VERY different, and Siné, that time, crossed a red line by actually making a racist drawing, which Charlie NEVER did. I can bet you that if he had drawn a picture implying muslims were stealing in supermarket, just because, it would have been the same, he would have been fired also. And saying the pope, or other priests are pedophiles is targeting Christians. No, it's not. It's targeting religious institutions and figures of authority, not Christians as a people. The difference is there and clearly matters. Not all christians will see it that way.
Sure. People don't like their religion to be mocked, which is why they try to target Charlie Hebdo as racist. The courts always stated the opposite and I don't think the idea has really ever been catching up in France.
I think it's extremely important, vital even, that we make the distinction between ideas, institutions, and people. Because if we don't, we can say goodbye to freedom of speech.
|
On January 11 2015 02:24 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2015 02:17 Millitron wrote:On January 11 2015 02:08 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 11 2015 02:07 WhiteDog wrote:On January 11 2015 02:04 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 11 2015 02:02 WhiteDog wrote:On January 11 2015 01:52 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 11 2015 01:43 WhiteDog wrote:On January 11 2015 01:36 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 11 2015 01:31 WhiteDog wrote:
[quote]
Yes and that's the two only front page you can find on jews and it's about all religions. Charlie barely ever joked about the Shoah or about jews specifically, which explains why the jewish political groups barely ever criticized them. But the front page with "the Quran is shit", or all the cardinal butt fucking each other, all those are way more frontal. Why would they laugh about the Shoah? That has nothing to do with religion. And there is nothing to laugh about really. What I am trying to tell you is that Charlie didn't laugh about "the jews", because it never laughed about people for what they are, because they were not racist. It didn't laugh about "christians" or "muslims" either. It was anti-clerical, so it laughed about the Pope, about rabbis EVERYWHERE, about imams. It was anti extremists so it laughed about christian bigots, orthodox Jews and muslim fundamentalists. It was anti religion so it laughed about Moses, about Jesus, about Muhammad, about Abraham and so on. But it didn't laugh about generic muslims, generic jews and generic christians. Charlie was fighting against IDEAS not against people. Laughing about the Shoah is not laughing against ideas. Laughing about jews because they are rich or have a bug nose or control the world is not laughing about ideas. Charlie was not Dieudonné How is saying the coran is shit not against muslim ? Where are the ideas ? I liked Charlie, I see great qualities in them and they were, individually great people. I also loved their most offensive stuff, against anyone. But this idea that they criticized exactly everybody in the same way is, in my opinion, going a little too far : they had their own wars, mainly against the FN and anything related (soral, dieudonné), for total sexual freedom (because they loved it really), and against extremism (mostly muslim and christian extremism). They never really criticized the CRIF, despite its role in france in the last few years, or never made any relationship between what happen in Israel and the jewish religion. Laughing about the Quran is laughing about Islam. Not about muslim. Islam is an idea. Muslim are people. If I say "Jews have big nose and are conspiring to take over the world" I am targeting people and I'm actually being racist.
If I say "Abraham can get fucked in the ass by Moses and use the Torah as a condom", I am targeting Judaism. People can get offended if they wish, but I only talk about what they are thinking, not about what they are.It's a huge difference. I saw pictures of rabbi in every Charlie I read and I never saw them talking about religions in general without mentioning Judaism. And their Israel cartoons ALWAYS featured jewish extremist. You know, lots of settlers and far right guys in Israel are not Orthodox. But Charlie always showed orthodox and religious extremists when talking about Israeli screwing up. I don't remember any picture about the CRIF, but then I don't remember any picture about many many things. Maybe they didn't make fun of the CRIF. And what? They made fun of the religion itself, of its holy book, of its priests, and of its extremists. That's what they were doing with every religion. There is no jewish exception with Charlie. That's just factually not true. Maybe they lacked balls with the CRIF I don't know. That's really a detail though. Saying Benoit XVI is a pedophile is not attacking people ? It's attacking Benoit XVI, for what he does. Being the Pope, and a high ranked priest. Not attacking a group of people for what they are. Like Jews, because they are Jews. The same that drawing rabbis and priests is not attacking Jews and Christians. It's anti-clericalism, not racism. Don't you think there is a little double standard considering Siné got fired for basically saying "He just declared his desire to convert to judaïsm before marrying his fiancee, jewish, and heiress of Darty. He will go a long way this boy !". It's just critcisizing a rich kid to me. No, there is no double standard. What Siné did, was targeting a group of people for what they are based on racist stereotype: the Jews have money. That's VERY different, and Siné, that time, crossed a red line by actually making a racist drawing, which Charlie NEVER did. I can bet you that if he had drawn a picture implying muslims were stealing in supermarket, just because, it would have been the same, he would have been fired also. And saying the pope, or other priests are pedophiles is targeting Christians. The thing about racism or any other prejudices is that saying anything negative about anyone could be considered racist. You may not see a problem with satirizing rabbis and priests like CH did, but someone else might. Racism is in the eye of the beholder. People can get offended for anything, it's our tradition to actually push the boundaries and critic all figure of power. Oftentime, "offended" people use this their "sensibility" as a tool to impose ideas and revendications on people. Caricature is a good way to push away those revendications.
I completely agree. I think it's very important to make a radical distinction between offensive and racist.
Offensive is in the eye of the beholder (I know christians who were laughing their ass off at CH). Racist is in the intention and the content itself. I don't think we should pay that much attention to people who are "offended" all the time.
Charlie was extremely offensive in the sense that a lot of people are getting offended every time one makes fun or criticize religions. I'm fine with it, I even think it's totally necessary to be often very offensive from time to time.
|
On January 11 2015 02:15 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2015 01:53 raynpelikoneet wrote:
Especially when even statistically speaking 50% of the people are dumber than the rest (yes that's a fact) This isn't a fact in any statistically (or otherwise) meaningful way. 99% of people are also dumber than the rest. 5% of people are dumber than the rest. 60% of numbers 1-10 are less than the other 40% (choose a subset of 1-6). 20% of numbers are less than the other 80% (choose a subset of 1-2). 4 out of 5 giraffes are taller than the baby giraffe in the family. What you may have been trying to touch on was to say 50% of people are dumber than average, but this tacitly assumes that dumbness is distributed such that the median is the same as the mean (or in other words the distribution is symmetric). If you can demonstrate that I would like to see it so I can use this information in the future but it definitely requires a little more than saying the equivalent of 50% of trees are greener than the rest.
Yes this is what i was trying to say.
I have gotten into problems many times because i say the things like they are. Nowadays i have learned that is not the correct way regardless of if you are/aren't allowed to say what you think, just because the majority of the people can't understand you and some of them might be total idiots who might have a knife or a gun.
What has been said in this thread about the freedom of speech is kinda absurd because those utopistic worlds will never come true.
|
On January 11 2015 02:28 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2015 02:24 WhiteDog wrote:On January 11 2015 02:17 Millitron wrote:On January 11 2015 02:08 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 11 2015 02:07 WhiteDog wrote:On January 11 2015 02:04 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 11 2015 02:02 WhiteDog wrote:On January 11 2015 01:52 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 11 2015 01:43 WhiteDog wrote:On January 11 2015 01:36 Biff The Understudy wrote:
[quote]
Why would they laugh about the Shoah? That has nothing to do with religion. And there is nothing to laugh about really.
What I am trying to tell you is that Charlie didn't laugh about "the jews", because it never laughed about people for what they are, because they were not racist. It didn't laugh about "christians" or "muslims" either.
It was anti-clerical, so it laughed about the Pope, about rabbis EVERYWHERE, about imams.
It was anti extremists so it laughed about christian bigots, orthodox Jews and muslim fundamentalists.
It was anti religion so it laughed about Moses, about Jesus, about Muhammad, about Abraham and so on.
But it didn't laugh about generic muslims, generic jews and generic christians.
Charlie was fighting against IDEAS not against people. Laughing about the Shoah is not laughing against ideas. Laughing about jews because they are rich or have a bug nose or control the world is not laughing about ideas.
Charlie was not Dieudonné How is saying the coran is shit not against muslim ? Where are the ideas ? I liked Charlie, I see great qualities in them and they were, individually great people. I also loved their most offensive stuff, against anyone. But this idea that they criticized exactly everybody in the same way is, in my opinion, going a little too far : they had their own wars, mainly against the FN and anything related (soral, dieudonné), for total sexual freedom (because they loved it really), and against extremism (mostly muslim and christian extremism). They never really criticized the CRIF, despite its role in france in the last few years, or never made any relationship between what happen in Israel and the jewish religion. Laughing about the Quran is laughing about Islam. Not about muslim. Islam is an idea. Muslim are people. If I say "Jews have big nose and are conspiring to take over the world" I am targeting people and I'm actually being racist.
If I say "Abraham can get fucked in the ass by Moses and use the Torah as a condom", I am targeting Judaism. People can get offended if they wish, but I only talk about what they are thinking, not about what they are.It's a huge difference. I saw pictures of rabbi in every Charlie I read and I never saw them talking about religions in general without mentioning Judaism. And their Israel cartoons ALWAYS featured jewish extremist. You know, lots of settlers and far right guys in Israel are not Orthodox. But Charlie always showed orthodox and religious extremists when talking about Israeli screwing up. I don't remember any picture about the CRIF, but then I don't remember any picture about many many things. Maybe they didn't make fun of the CRIF. And what? They made fun of the religion itself, of its holy book, of its priests, and of its extremists. That's what they were doing with every religion. There is no jewish exception with Charlie. That's just factually not true. Maybe they lacked balls with the CRIF I don't know. That's really a detail though. Saying Benoit XVI is a pedophile is not attacking people ? It's attacking Benoit XVI, for what he does. Being the Pope, and a high ranked priest. Not attacking a group of people for what they are. Like Jews, because they are Jews. The same that drawing rabbis and priests is not attacking Jews and Christians. It's anti-clericalism, not racism. Don't you think there is a little double standard considering Siné got fired for basically saying "He just declared his desire to convert to judaïsm before marrying his fiancee, jewish, and heiress of Darty. He will go a long way this boy !". It's just critcisizing a rich kid to me. No, there is no double standard. What Siné did, was targeting a group of people for what they are based on racist stereotype: the Jews have money. That's VERY different, and Siné, that time, crossed a red line by actually making a racist drawing, which Charlie NEVER did. I can bet you that if he had drawn a picture implying muslims were stealing in supermarket, just because, it would have been the same, he would have been fired also. And saying the pope, or other priests are pedophiles is targeting Christians. The thing about racism or any other prejudices is that saying anything negative about anyone could be considered racist. You may not see a problem with satirizing rabbis and priests like CH did, but someone else might. Racism is in the eye of the beholder. People can get offended for anything, it's our tradition to actually push the boundaries and critic all figure of power. Oftentime, "offended" people use this their "sensibility" as a tool to impose ideas and revendications on people. Caricature is a good way to push away those revendications. I completely agree. I think it's very important to make a radical distinction between offensive and racist. Offensive is in the eye of the beholder (I know christians who were laughing their ass off at CH). Racist is in the intention and the content itself. I don't think we should pay that much attention to people who are "offended" all the time.
I don't see any limits and make no distinctions between racism and offensive. I believe the tribunal and the public are the judges, so anything can be said, which is why I was very bored at the Siné case. Self censorship is worst than anything.
|
On January 11 2015 02:26 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2015 02:23 Millitron wrote:On January 11 2015 02:19 kwizach wrote:On January 11 2015 02:17 Millitron wrote:On January 11 2015 02:08 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 11 2015 02:07 WhiteDog wrote:On January 11 2015 02:04 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 11 2015 02:02 WhiteDog wrote:On January 11 2015 01:52 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 11 2015 01:43 WhiteDog wrote:
[quote]
How is saying the coran is shit not against muslim ? Where are the ideas ?
I liked Charlie, I see great qualities in them and they were, individually great people. I also loved their most offensive stuff, against anyone. But this idea that they criticized exactly everybody in the same way is, in my opinion, going a little too far : they had their own wars, mainly against the FN and anything related (soral, dieudonné), for total sexual freedom (because they loved it really), and against extremism (mostly muslim and christian extremism).
They never really criticized the CRIF, despite its role in france in the last few years, or never made any relationship between what happen in Israel and the jewish religion. Laughing about the Quran is laughing about Islam. Not about muslim. Islam is an idea. Muslim are people. If I say "Jews have big nose and are conspiring to take over the world" I am targeting people and I'm actually being racist.
If I say "Abraham can get fucked in the ass by Moses and use the Torah as a condom", I am targeting Judaism. People can get offended if they wish, but I only talk about what they are thinking, not about what they are.It's a huge difference. I saw pictures of rabbi in every Charlie I read and I never saw them talking about religions in general without mentioning Judaism. And their Israel cartoons ALWAYS featured jewish extremist. You know, lots of settlers and far right guys in Israel are not Orthodox. But Charlie always showed orthodox and religious extremists when talking about Israeli screwing up. I don't remember any picture about the CRIF, but then I don't remember any picture about many many things. Maybe they didn't make fun of the CRIF. And what? They made fun of the religion itself, of its holy book, of its priests, and of its extremists. That's what they were doing with every religion. There is no jewish exception with Charlie. That's just factually not true. Maybe they lacked balls with the CRIF I don't know. That's really a detail though. Saying Benoit XVI is a pedophile is not attacking people ? It's attacking Benoit XVI, for what he does. Being the Pope, and a high ranked priest. Not attacking a group of people for what they are. Like Jews, because they are Jews. The same that drawing rabbis and priests is not attacking Jews and Christians. It's anti-clericalism, not racism. Don't you think there is a little double standard considering Siné got fired for basically saying "He just declared his desire to convert to judaïsm before marrying his fiancee, jewish, and heiress of Darty. He will go a long way this boy !". It's just critcisizing a rich kid to me. No, there is no double standard. What Siné did, was targeting a group of people for what they are based on racist stereotype: the Jews have money. That's VERY different, and Siné, that time, crossed a red line by actually making a racist drawing, which Charlie NEVER did. I can bet you that if he had drawn a picture implying muslims were stealing in supermarket, just because, it would have been the same, he would have been fired also. And saying the pope, or other priests are pedophiles is targeting Christians. No, it's not. It's targeting religious institutions and figures of authority, not Christians as a people. The difference is there and clearly matters. Not all christians will see it that way. Sure. People don't like their religion to be mocked, which is why they try to target Charlie Hebdo as racist. The courts always stated the opposite and I don't think the idea has really ever been catching up in France. I think it's extremely important, vital even, that we make the distinction between ideas, institutions, and people. Because if we don't, we can say goodbye to freedom of speech.
Christians are people too, defined by their ideas. Ideas and people an inseparable.
I don't see why making jokes about someone's race is any worse than making jokes about their religion. They didn't choose either.
|
On January 11 2015 02:30 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2015 02:26 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 11 2015 02:23 Millitron wrote:On January 11 2015 02:19 kwizach wrote:On January 11 2015 02:17 Millitron wrote:On January 11 2015 02:08 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 11 2015 02:07 WhiteDog wrote:On January 11 2015 02:04 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 11 2015 02:02 WhiteDog wrote:On January 11 2015 01:52 Biff The Understudy wrote:
[quote]
Laughing about the Quran is laughing about Islam. Not about muslim. Islam is an idea. Muslim are people.
If I say "Jews have big nose and are conspiring to take over the world" I am targeting people and I'm actually being racist.
If I say "Abraham can get fucked in the ass by Moses and use the Torah as a condom", I am targeting Judaism. People can get offended if they wish, but I only talk about what they are thinking, not about what they are.
It's a huge difference.
I saw pictures of rabbi in every Charlie I read and I never saw them talking about religions in general without mentioning Judaism. And their Israel cartoons ALWAYS featured jewish extremist. You know, lots of settlers and far right guys in Israel are not Orthodox. But Charlie always showed orthodox and religious extremists when talking about Israeli screwing up.
I don't remember any picture about the CRIF, but then I don't remember any picture about many many things. Maybe they didn't make fun of the CRIF. And what? They made fun of the religion itself, of its holy book, of its priests, and of its extremists. That's what they were doing with every religion.
There is no jewish exception with Charlie. That's just factually not true. Maybe they lacked balls with the CRIF I don't know. That's really a detail though. Saying Benoit XVI is a pedophile is not attacking people ? It's attacking Benoit XVI, for what he does. Being the Pope, and a high ranked priest. Not attacking a group of people for what they are. Like Jews, because they are Jews. The same that drawing rabbis and priests is not attacking Jews and Christians. It's anti-clericalism, not racism. Don't you think there is a little double standard considering Siné got fired for basically saying "He just declared his desire to convert to judaïsm before marrying his fiancee, jewish, and heiress of Darty. He will go a long way this boy !". It's just critcisizing a rich kid to me. No, there is no double standard. What Siné did, was targeting a group of people for what they are based on racist stereotype: the Jews have money. That's VERY different, and Siné, that time, crossed a red line by actually making a racist drawing, which Charlie NEVER did. I can bet you that if he had drawn a picture implying muslims were stealing in supermarket, just because, it would have been the same, he would have been fired also. And saying the pope, or other priests are pedophiles is targeting Christians. No, it's not. It's targeting religious institutions and figures of authority, not Christians as a people. The difference is there and clearly matters. Not all christians will see it that way. Sure. People don't like their religion to be mocked, which is why they try to target Charlie Hebdo as racist. The courts always stated the opposite and I don't think the idea has really ever been catching up in France. I think it's extremely important, vital even, that we make the distinction between ideas, institutions, and people. Because if we don't, we can say goodbye to freedom of speech. Christians are people too, defined by their ideas. Ideas and people an inseparable. I don't see why making jokes about someone's race is any worse than making jokes about their religion. They didn't choose either.
They can change their religion tho. It's pretty hard to change the color of your skin or you ascendance.
|
On January 11 2015 02:30 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2015 02:26 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 11 2015 02:23 Millitron wrote:On January 11 2015 02:19 kwizach wrote:On January 11 2015 02:17 Millitron wrote:On January 11 2015 02:08 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 11 2015 02:07 WhiteDog wrote:On January 11 2015 02:04 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 11 2015 02:02 WhiteDog wrote:On January 11 2015 01:52 Biff The Understudy wrote:
[quote]
Laughing about the Quran is laughing about Islam. Not about muslim. Islam is an idea. Muslim are people.
If I say "Jews have big nose and are conspiring to take over the world" I am targeting people and I'm actually being racist.
If I say "Abraham can get fucked in the ass by Moses and use the Torah as a condom", I am targeting Judaism. People can get offended if they wish, but I only talk about what they are thinking, not about what they are.
It's a huge difference.
I saw pictures of rabbi in every Charlie I read and I never saw them talking about religions in general without mentioning Judaism. And their Israel cartoons ALWAYS featured jewish extremist. You know, lots of settlers and far right guys in Israel are not Orthodox. But Charlie always showed orthodox and religious extremists when talking about Israeli screwing up.
I don't remember any picture about the CRIF, but then I don't remember any picture about many many things. Maybe they didn't make fun of the CRIF. And what? They made fun of the religion itself, of its holy book, of its priests, and of its extremists. That's what they were doing with every religion.
There is no jewish exception with Charlie. That's just factually not true. Maybe they lacked balls with the CRIF I don't know. That's really a detail though. Saying Benoit XVI is a pedophile is not attacking people ? It's attacking Benoit XVI, for what he does. Being the Pope, and a high ranked priest. Not attacking a group of people for what they are. Like Jews, because they are Jews. The same that drawing rabbis and priests is not attacking Jews and Christians. It's anti-clericalism, not racism. Don't you think there is a little double standard considering Siné got fired for basically saying "He just declared his desire to convert to judaïsm before marrying his fiancee, jewish, and heiress of Darty. He will go a long way this boy !". It's just critcisizing a rich kid to me. No, there is no double standard. What Siné did, was targeting a group of people for what they are based on racist stereotype: the Jews have money. That's VERY different, and Siné, that time, crossed a red line by actually making a racist drawing, which Charlie NEVER did. I can bet you that if he had drawn a picture implying muslims were stealing in supermarket, just because, it would have been the same, he would have been fired also. And saying the pope, or other priests are pedophiles is targeting Christians. No, it's not. It's targeting religious institutions and figures of authority, not Christians as a people. The difference is there and clearly matters. Not all christians will see it that way. Sure. People don't like their religion to be mocked, which is why they try to target Charlie Hebdo as racist. The courts always stated the opposite and I don't think the idea has really ever been catching up in France. I think it's extremely important, vital even, that we make the distinction between ideas, institutions, and people. Because if we don't, we can say goodbye to freedom of speech. Christians are people too, defined by their ideas. Ideas and people an inseparable. I don't see why making jokes about someone's race is any worse than making jokes about their religion. They didn't choose either.
Fine. If I say your idea is stupid, I am not saying you are stupid. I am not insulting you. I am insulting your idea. And you perfectly chose to believe whatever the hell you want. Nobody is forced to believe in Virgin Mary
|
On January 11 2015 02:30 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2015 02:28 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 11 2015 02:24 WhiteDog wrote:On January 11 2015 02:17 Millitron wrote:On January 11 2015 02:08 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 11 2015 02:07 WhiteDog wrote:On January 11 2015 02:04 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 11 2015 02:02 WhiteDog wrote:On January 11 2015 01:52 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 11 2015 01:43 WhiteDog wrote:
[quote]
How is saying the coran is shit not against muslim ? Where are the ideas ?
I liked Charlie, I see great qualities in them and they were, individually great people. I also loved their most offensive stuff, against anyone. But this idea that they criticized exactly everybody in the same way is, in my opinion, going a little too far : they had their own wars, mainly against the FN and anything related (soral, dieudonné), for total sexual freedom (because they loved it really), and against extremism (mostly muslim and christian extremism).
They never really criticized the CRIF, despite its role in france in the last few years, or never made any relationship between what happen in Israel and the jewish religion. Laughing about the Quran is laughing about Islam. Not about muslim. Islam is an idea. Muslim are people. If I say "Jews have big nose and are conspiring to take over the world" I am targeting people and I'm actually being racist.
If I say "Abraham can get fucked in the ass by Moses and use the Torah as a condom", I am targeting Judaism. People can get offended if they wish, but I only talk about what they are thinking, not about what they are.It's a huge difference. I saw pictures of rabbi in every Charlie I read and I never saw them talking about religions in general without mentioning Judaism. And their Israel cartoons ALWAYS featured jewish extremist. You know, lots of settlers and far right guys in Israel are not Orthodox. But Charlie always showed orthodox and religious extremists when talking about Israeli screwing up. I don't remember any picture about the CRIF, but then I don't remember any picture about many many things. Maybe they didn't make fun of the CRIF. And what? They made fun of the religion itself, of its holy book, of its priests, and of its extremists. That's what they were doing with every religion. There is no jewish exception with Charlie. That's just factually not true. Maybe they lacked balls with the CRIF I don't know. That's really a detail though. Saying Benoit XVI is a pedophile is not attacking people ? It's attacking Benoit XVI, for what he does. Being the Pope, and a high ranked priest. Not attacking a group of people for what they are. Like Jews, because they are Jews. The same that drawing rabbis and priests is not attacking Jews and Christians. It's anti-clericalism, not racism. Don't you think there is a little double standard considering Siné got fired for basically saying "He just declared his desire to convert to judaïsm before marrying his fiancee, jewish, and heiress of Darty. He will go a long way this boy !". It's just critcisizing a rich kid to me. No, there is no double standard. What Siné did, was targeting a group of people for what they are based on racist stereotype: the Jews have money. That's VERY different, and Siné, that time, crossed a red line by actually making a racist drawing, which Charlie NEVER did. I can bet you that if he had drawn a picture implying muslims were stealing in supermarket, just because, it would have been the same, he would have been fired also. And saying the pope, or other priests are pedophiles is targeting Christians. The thing about racism or any other prejudices is that saying anything negative about anyone could be considered racist. You may not see a problem with satirizing rabbis and priests like CH did, but someone else might. Racism is in the eye of the beholder. People can get offended for anything, it's our tradition to actually push the boundaries and critic all figure of power. Oftentime, "offended" people use this their "sensibility" as a tool to impose ideas and revendications on people. Caricature is a good way to push away those revendications. I completely agree. I think it's very important to make a radical distinction between offensive and racist. Offensive is in the eye of the beholder (I know christians who were laughing their ass off at CH). Racist is in the intention and the content itself. I don't think we should pay that much attention to people who are "offended" all the time. I don't see any limits and make no distinctions between racism and offensive. I believe the tribunal and the public are the judges, so anything can be said, which is why I was very bored at the Siné case. Self censorship is worst than anything.
Well, I tried to make a distinction in the last three pages of this discussion, which I believe (but maybe I am being presumptuous) is very solid. It's the one French tribunals are actually following. It's a bit annoying because I feel you just don't want of my ideas or what I am saying based on the fact we didn't agree on one point at the beginning of the discussion.
Then, like in Siné case, you can have ambiguity or interpretations, but the distinction is still there. Of course. But again, if you want examples: putting the Torah as toilet paper might be offensive but certainly not racist, drawing a jew with a big nose dominating the world is factually racist.
|
On January 11 2015 02:23 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2015 02:19 kwizach wrote:On January 11 2015 02:17 Millitron wrote:On January 11 2015 02:08 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 11 2015 02:07 WhiteDog wrote:On January 11 2015 02:04 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 11 2015 02:02 WhiteDog wrote:On January 11 2015 01:52 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 11 2015 01:43 WhiteDog wrote:On January 11 2015 01:36 Biff The Understudy wrote:
[quote]
Why would they laugh about the Shoah? That has nothing to do with religion. And there is nothing to laugh about really.
What I am trying to tell you is that Charlie didn't laugh about "the jews", because it never laughed about people for what they are, because they were not racist. It didn't laugh about "christians" or "muslims" either.
It was anti-clerical, so it laughed about the Pope, about rabbis EVERYWHERE, about imams.
It was anti extremists so it laughed about christian bigots, orthodox Jews and muslim fundamentalists.
It was anti religion so it laughed about Moses, about Jesus, about Muhammad, about Abraham and so on.
But it didn't laugh about generic muslims, generic jews and generic christians.
Charlie was fighting against IDEAS not against people. Laughing about the Shoah is not laughing against ideas. Laughing about jews because they are rich or have a bug nose or control the world is not laughing about ideas.
Charlie was not Dieudonné How is saying the coran is shit not against muslim ? Where are the ideas ? I liked Charlie, I see great qualities in them and they were, individually great people. I also loved their most offensive stuff, against anyone. But this idea that they criticized exactly everybody in the same way is, in my opinion, going a little too far : they had their own wars, mainly against the FN and anything related (soral, dieudonné), for total sexual freedom (because they loved it really), and against extremism (mostly muslim and christian extremism). They never really criticized the CRIF, despite its role in france in the last few years, or never made any relationship between what happen in Israel and the jewish religion. Laughing about the Quran is laughing about Islam. Not about muslim. Islam is an idea. Muslim are people. If I say "Jews have big nose and are conspiring to take over the world" I am targeting people and I'm actually being racist.
If I say "Abraham can get fucked in the ass by Moses and use the Torah as a condom", I am targeting Judaism. People can get offended if they wish, but I only talk about what they are thinking, not about what they are.It's a huge difference. I saw pictures of rabbi in every Charlie I read and I never saw them talking about religions in general without mentioning Judaism. And their Israel cartoons ALWAYS featured jewish extremist. You know, lots of settlers and far right guys in Israel are not Orthodox. But Charlie always showed orthodox and religious extremists when talking about Israeli screwing up. I don't remember any picture about the CRIF, but then I don't remember any picture about many many things. Maybe they didn't make fun of the CRIF. And what? They made fun of the religion itself, of its holy book, of its priests, and of its extremists. That's what they were doing with every religion. There is no jewish exception with Charlie. That's just factually not true. Maybe they lacked balls with the CRIF I don't know. That's really a detail though. Saying Benoit XVI is a pedophile is not attacking people ? It's attacking Benoit XVI, for what he does. Being the Pope, and a high ranked priest. Not attacking a group of people for what they are. Like Jews, because they are Jews. The same that drawing rabbis and priests is not attacking Jews and Christians. It's anti-clericalism, not racism. Don't you think there is a little double standard considering Siné got fired for basically saying "He just declared his desire to convert to judaïsm before marrying his fiancee, jewish, and heiress of Darty. He will go a long way this boy !". It's just critcisizing a rich kid to me. No, there is no double standard. What Siné did, was targeting a group of people for what they are based on racist stereotype: the Jews have money. That's VERY different, and Siné, that time, crossed a red line by actually making a racist drawing, which Charlie NEVER did. I can bet you that if he had drawn a picture implying muslims were stealing in supermarket, just because, it would have been the same, he would have been fired also. And saying the pope, or other priests are pedophiles is targeting Christians. No, it's not. It's targeting religious institutions and figures of authority, not Christians as a people. The difference is there and clearly matters. Not all christians will see it that way.
That's their problem. The distinction still stands.
|
On January 11 2015 02:30 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2015 02:26 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 11 2015 02:23 Millitron wrote:On January 11 2015 02:19 kwizach wrote:On January 11 2015 02:17 Millitron wrote:On January 11 2015 02:08 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 11 2015 02:07 WhiteDog wrote:On January 11 2015 02:04 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 11 2015 02:02 WhiteDog wrote:On January 11 2015 01:52 Biff The Understudy wrote:
[quote]
Laughing about the Quran is laughing about Islam. Not about muslim. Islam is an idea. Muslim are people.
If I say "Jews have big nose and are conspiring to take over the world" I am targeting people and I'm actually being racist.
If I say "Abraham can get fucked in the ass by Moses and use the Torah as a condom", I am targeting Judaism. People can get offended if they wish, but I only talk about what they are thinking, not about what they are.
It's a huge difference.
I saw pictures of rabbi in every Charlie I read and I never saw them talking about religions in general without mentioning Judaism. And their Israel cartoons ALWAYS featured jewish extremist. You know, lots of settlers and far right guys in Israel are not Orthodox. But Charlie always showed orthodox and religious extremists when talking about Israeli screwing up.
I don't remember any picture about the CRIF, but then I don't remember any picture about many many things. Maybe they didn't make fun of the CRIF. And what? They made fun of the religion itself, of its holy book, of its priests, and of its extremists. That's what they were doing with every religion.
There is no jewish exception with Charlie. That's just factually not true. Maybe they lacked balls with the CRIF I don't know. That's really a detail though. Saying Benoit XVI is a pedophile is not attacking people ? It's attacking Benoit XVI, for what he does. Being the Pope, and a high ranked priest. Not attacking a group of people for what they are. Like Jews, because they are Jews. The same that drawing rabbis and priests is not attacking Jews and Christians. It's anti-clericalism, not racism. Don't you think there is a little double standard considering Siné got fired for basically saying "He just declared his desire to convert to judaïsm before marrying his fiancee, jewish, and heiress of Darty. He will go a long way this boy !". It's just critcisizing a rich kid to me. No, there is no double standard. What Siné did, was targeting a group of people for what they are based on racist stereotype: the Jews have money. That's VERY different, and Siné, that time, crossed a red line by actually making a racist drawing, which Charlie NEVER did. I can bet you that if he had drawn a picture implying muslims were stealing in supermarket, just because, it would have been the same, he would have been fired also. And saying the pope, or other priests are pedophiles is targeting Christians. No, it's not. It's targeting religious institutions and figures of authority, not Christians as a people. The difference is there and clearly matters. Not all christians will see it that way. Sure. People don't like their religion to be mocked, which is why they try to target Charlie Hebdo as racist. The courts always stated the opposite and I don't think the idea has really ever been catching up in France. I think it's extremely important, vital even, that we make the distinction between ideas, institutions, and people. Because if we don't, we can say goodbye to freedom of speech. Christians are people too, defined by their ideas. Ideas and people an inseparable. I don't see why making jokes about someone's race is any worse than making jokes about their religion. They didn't choose either.
Millitron, France is a country that really hate racism, CH existed for ages, and yet almost never got shut down for racism hate. Racism is prohibited in France still.
You really should learn the difference between hating on an ideology and hating on people, that really really important imho.
I can say that religions is shit, stupid and dangerous, but I can't say that their followers are stupid etc...
|
On January 11 2015 02:31 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2015 02:30 Millitron wrote:On January 11 2015 02:26 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 11 2015 02:23 Millitron wrote:On January 11 2015 02:19 kwizach wrote:On January 11 2015 02:17 Millitron wrote:On January 11 2015 02:08 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 11 2015 02:07 WhiteDog wrote:On January 11 2015 02:04 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 11 2015 02:02 WhiteDog wrote:
[quote]
Saying Benoit XVI is a pedophile is not attacking people ? It's attacking Benoit XVI, for what he does. Being the Pope, and a high ranked priest. Not attacking a group of people for what they are. Like Jews, because they are Jews. The same that drawing rabbis and priests is not attacking Jews and Christians. It's anti-clericalism, not racism. Don't you think there is a little double standard considering Siné got fired for basically saying "He just declared his desire to convert to judaïsm before marrying his fiancee, jewish, and heiress of Darty. He will go a long way this boy !". It's just critcisizing a rich kid to me. No, there is no double standard. What Siné did, was targeting a group of people for what they are based on racist stereotype: the Jews have money. That's VERY different, and Siné, that time, crossed a red line by actually making a racist drawing, which Charlie NEVER did. I can bet you that if he had drawn a picture implying muslims were stealing in supermarket, just because, it would have been the same, he would have been fired also. And saying the pope, or other priests are pedophiles is targeting Christians. No, it's not. It's targeting religious institutions and figures of authority, not Christians as a people. The difference is there and clearly matters. Not all christians will see it that way. Sure. People don't like their religion to be mocked, which is why they try to target Charlie Hebdo as racist. The courts always stated the opposite and I don't think the idea has really ever been catching up in France. I think it's extremely important, vital even, that we make the distinction between ideas, institutions, and people. Because if we don't, we can say goodbye to freedom of speech. Christians are people too, defined by their ideas. Ideas and people an inseparable. I don't see why making jokes about someone's race is any worse than making jokes about their religion. They didn't choose either. They can change their religion tho. It's pretty hard to change the color of your skin or you ascendance.
Nobody changes their religion by choice. You have no say in what you believe. You can't just up and decide "Huh, today I feel like being a Buddhist." People who change their religion either had a deep revelation, which they had no control over, or are putting on an act, and still believe what they did before deep down.
On January 11 2015 02:36 Faust852 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2015 02:30 Millitron wrote:On January 11 2015 02:26 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 11 2015 02:23 Millitron wrote:On January 11 2015 02:19 kwizach wrote:On January 11 2015 02:17 Millitron wrote:On January 11 2015 02:08 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 11 2015 02:07 WhiteDog wrote:On January 11 2015 02:04 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 11 2015 02:02 WhiteDog wrote:
[quote]
Saying Benoit XVI is a pedophile is not attacking people ? It's attacking Benoit XVI, for what he does. Being the Pope, and a high ranked priest. Not attacking a group of people for what they are. Like Jews, because they are Jews. The same that drawing rabbis and priests is not attacking Jews and Christians. It's anti-clericalism, not racism. Don't you think there is a little double standard considering Siné got fired for basically saying "He just declared his desire to convert to judaïsm before marrying his fiancee, jewish, and heiress of Darty. He will go a long way this boy !". It's just critcisizing a rich kid to me. No, there is no double standard. What Siné did, was targeting a group of people for what they are based on racist stereotype: the Jews have money. That's VERY different, and Siné, that time, crossed a red line by actually making a racist drawing, which Charlie NEVER did. I can bet you that if he had drawn a picture implying muslims were stealing in supermarket, just because, it would have been the same, he would have been fired also. And saying the pope, or other priests are pedophiles is targeting Christians. No, it's not. It's targeting religious institutions and figures of authority, not Christians as a people. The difference is there and clearly matters. Not all christians will see it that way. Sure. People don't like their religion to be mocked, which is why they try to target Charlie Hebdo as racist. The courts always stated the opposite and I don't think the idea has really ever been catching up in France. I think it's extremely important, vital even, that we make the distinction between ideas, institutions, and people. Because if we don't, we can say goodbye to freedom of speech. Christians are people too, defined by their ideas. Ideas and people an inseparable. I don't see why making jokes about someone's race is any worse than making jokes about their religion. They didn't choose either. Millitron, France is a country that really hate racism, CH existed for ages, and yet almost never got shut down for racism hate. Racism is prohibited in France still. You really should learn the difference between hating on an ideology and hating on people, that really really important imho. I can say that religions is shit, stupid and dangerous, but I can't say that their followers are stupid etc...
Targeting an ideology is inherently targeting the people who believe it. You cannot have an ideology without followers. Ideologies and their followers are inseparable.
|
On January 11 2015 00:57 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2015 23:46 L1ghtning wrote:On January 10 2015 22:50 WhiteDog wrote:
The term culture is flawed to begin with. It doesn't mean much : if you think you can resume french culture with Liberty Fraternity and Equality then... France has had the chance to be a dominant power during the 19th and 20th century. Sudan has not, which makes your point of view biased : what do you know about Sudan before the colonisation ? What would have become Sudan if it was not for the dominance of some other country ? How its culture would have evolved ?
I don't even know why you absolutly want to give an objective value to a culture in itself anyway : it has value for the people that live in it, as it help structure their day to day experience, their interactions, give them meanings, identities and roles. The foundation of my argument is not that the french culture is superior to most of the other cultures, although I think this is the case, and is pretty obvious. I mainly pointed out the huge flaws in the idea that all cultures are equal. Cultures can evolve and stagnant, and probably more rarely, devolve. It's very important to put a value on culture, because that's how you make a society progress. You keep the good and get rid of the bad. The french enlightenment was a crossroad for the french ppl, where they had to choose between old cultural norms and new cultural norms. It was triggered by the cultural growth of the french society. The french society had culturally advanced to such an extent that they no longer could accept the traditional monarchy. Then they were swept away by nationalism, just like Germany were later on, but both the french and the germans learned from their mistakes. As a whole, the french society have advanced since the medieval times. And like I said, all cultures have value. I never said that inferior cultures have no meaning, and I'm sure that there are certain elements of the Sudan culture that is superior to the french culture. We can all learn something from other cultures, but all cultures are not as a whole, equally valuable. I think you mix up culture and society. Which are of course two very permeable terms, but have to be distinguished. Societies go up and down on all points of view, and carry values that change all the time. And yes, certain are better than others at certain times. I think French society today is better than it was in, say 1930, for example, and is better than Nigerian society. Now when you talk about culture, comparing them is irrelevant, because they are qualitatively different. Take an example: German culture. It's one of the richest in the world, and it has been constantly for the past two hundred years. Yet with the same culture, they have had the society they have now, one of the best in history by many standards, and Hitler and nazism. It was the same culture, the culture of Goethe, Wagner, Kant, that has produced two societies at different times that were either phenomenal, or one of the greatest pit of shame of human history. Why does it make a difference? Because what is wrong with Sudan, and what could be said inferior to France right now, is not its poets, its traditions, its artists and its history. That's its culture and its perfectly fine. What is wrong is its relationship to its traditions, and the general state of basically everything.
If you don't make the distinction, you basically say that Sudan would be better off if Sudanese abandoned what make them who they are and became French. That's not true.
Social values and characteristics: secularism, feminism and sex equality, economic prosperity, all those things are not specific to one culture. They are transversal to all of us. Culture is not. An example: Islamic societies have been the most tolerant in the world in the XIIth XIIIth century. Now they are the most intolerant. What has happened is that we have changed our relationship to our religion and tradition for the better (with secularisation) while they have changed it for the worst (with wahabbism for example). It's not the inherent merit of Islam or Christianity that make France better today, but our reltionship to those: that's our type of society. And you could have a perfectly tolerant society whose culture is made with Muhammad and not Jesus, with Shawqi instead of Arthur Rimbaud, etc etc etc... Note than when people believed really what you said, that our culture was the best and that people would be better off with it because it was superior, it gave colonialism. We tried to make all Africa French or English. Look at the result.
But it is true. I'm sure you can see statistics that shows that those who live in colonies who speaks french, are better off than those who don't. Those who live in french african colonies, they are generally better off if they reject their old traditions and learns the french language and their traditions. It may sound heartless to say this, but it's true. Those societies doesn't have the traditions that makes France a relatively good place to live in. You don't have the same respect for honest hard work, property and democracy. You don't have the same respect for women and children, or life in general.
Nazi Germany was a result of the germans taking huge steps back. It was a product of Prussian politics. They manifactured most of that mess. When the Prussians got into power, the old germanic tradition of dividing the power was rejected. And the prussians used their public schools to brainwash entire generations of german kids. These kids were the soldiers in WW1 and the driving force behind WW2.
Anyway, the jew genocide was not the last genocide in human history, far from it. It was the last genocide in the west though.
And you make it sound like the purpose of colonialism was to help the indigenous ppl. Colonialism is conquest. There's no real difference between the Roman conquest of Gaul/France and the french colonization of west Africa. And you also make it sound like the colonization was only negative for the ppl in Africa. I think it was the opposite, but I would settle on the middle ground, we simply don't know. Is the state of Africa worse today than it was before the colonization, not really. For the most part it's better off.
Look at Japan and what they went through from around 1850-1950. What happened in post-war Japan is almost a miracle, and it wouldn't have been possible if it weren't for their culture. USA literally blowed them to smithereens. They lost a very important war. They lost their empire status and power. What did they do? They worked their asses off to get back into super power status, this time taking a pacifistic route. They even tried to learn from their greatest enemy, USA. That speaks volumes about the value of the japanese culture. I'm hugely sceptical that there's even one other culture out there who could have risen from that situation as fast as they did, and the idea that every single culture out there could have done it is so ridicilous that it's hard to take you seriously.
|
On January 11 2015 02:37 L1ghtning wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2015 00:57 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 10 2015 23:46 L1ghtning wrote:On January 10 2015 22:50 WhiteDog wrote:
The term culture is flawed to begin with. It doesn't mean much : if you think you can resume french culture with Liberty Fraternity and Equality then... France has had the chance to be a dominant power during the 19th and 20th century. Sudan has not, which makes your point of view biased : what do you know about Sudan before the colonisation ? What would have become Sudan if it was not for the dominance of some other country ? How its culture would have evolved ?
I don't even know why you absolutly want to give an objective value to a culture in itself anyway : it has value for the people that live in it, as it help structure their day to day experience, their interactions, give them meanings, identities and roles. The foundation of my argument is not that the french culture is superior to most of the other cultures, although I think this is the case, and is pretty obvious. I mainly pointed out the huge flaws in the idea that all cultures are equal. Cultures can evolve and stagnant, and probably more rarely, devolve. It's very important to put a value on culture, because that's how you make a society progress. You keep the good and get rid of the bad. The french enlightenment was a crossroad for the french ppl, where they had to choose between old cultural norms and new cultural norms. It was triggered by the cultural growth of the french society. The french society had culturally advanced to such an extent that they no longer could accept the traditional monarchy. Then they were swept away by nationalism, just like Germany were later on, but both the french and the germans learned from their mistakes. As a whole, the french society have advanced since the medieval times. And like I said, all cultures have value. I never said that inferior cultures have no meaning, and I'm sure that there are certain elements of the Sudan culture that is superior to the french culture. We can all learn something from other cultures, but all cultures are not as a whole, equally valuable. I think you mix up culture and society. Which are of course two very permeable terms, but have to be distinguished. Societies go up and down on all points of view, and carry values that change all the time. And yes, certain are better than others at certain times. I think French society today is better than it was in, say 1930, for example, and is better than Nigerian society. Now when you talk about culture, comparing them is irrelevant, because they are qualitatively different. Take an example: German culture. It's one of the richest in the world, and it has been constantly for the past two hundred years. Yet with the same culture, they have had the society they have now, one of the best in history by many standards, and Hitler and nazism. It was the same culture, the culture of Goethe, Wagner, Kant, that has produced two societies at different times that were either phenomenal, or one of the greatest pit of shame of human history. Why does it make a difference? Because what is wrong with Sudan, and what could be said inferior to France right now, is not its poets, its traditions, its artists and its history. That's its culture and its perfectly fine. What is wrong is its relationship to its traditions, and the general state of basically everything.
If you don't make the distinction, you basically say that Sudan would be better off if Sudanese abandoned what make them who they are and became French. That's not true.
Social values and characteristics: secularism, feminism and sex equality, economic prosperity, all those things are not specific to one culture. They are transversal to all of us. Culture is not. An example: Islamic societies have been the most tolerant in the world in the XIIth XIIIth century. Now they are the most intolerant. What has happened is that we have changed our relationship to our religion and tradition for the better (with secularisation) while they have changed it for the worst (with wahabbism for example). It's not the inherent merit of Islam or Christianity that make France better today, but our reltionship to those: that's our type of society. And you could have a perfectly tolerant society whose culture is made with Muhammad and not Jesus, with Shawqi instead of Arthur Rimbaud, etc etc etc... Note than when people believed really what you said, that our culture was the best and that people would be better off with it because it was superior, it gave colonialism. We tried to make all Africa French or English. Look at the result. But it is true. I'm sure you can see statistics that shows that those who live in colonies who speaks french, are better off than those who don't. Those who live in french african colonies, they are generally better off if they reject their old traditions and learns the french language and their traditions. It may sound heartless to say this, but it's true. Those societies doesn't have the traditions that makes France a relatively good place to live in. You don't have the same respect for honest hard work, property and democracy. You don't have the same respect for women and children, or life in general. Nazi Germany was a result of the germans taking huge steps back. It was a product of Prussian politics. They manifactured most of that mess. When the Prussians got into power, the old germanic tradition of dividing the power was rejected. And the prussians used their public schools to brainwash entire generations of german kids. These kids were the soldiers in WW1 and the driving force behind WW2. Anyway, the jew genocide was not the last genocide in human history, far from it. It was the last genocide in the west though. And you make it sound like the purpose of colonialism was to help the indigenous ppl. Colonialism is conquest. There's no real difference between the Roman conquest of Gaul/France and the french colonization of west Africa. And you also make it sound like the colonization was only negative for the ppl in Africa. I think it was the opposite, but I would settle on the middle ground, we simply don't know. Is the state of Africa worse today than it was before the colonization, not really. For the most part it's better off. Look at Japan and what they went through from around 1850-1950. What happened in post-war Japan is almost a miracle, and it wouldn't have been possible if it weren't for their culture. USA literally blowed them to smithereens. They lost a very important war. They lost their empire status and power. What did they do? They worked their asses off to get back into super power status, this time taking a pacifistic route. They even tried to learn from their greatest enemy, USA. That speaks volumes about the value of the japanese culture. I'm hugely sceptical that there's even one other culture out there who could have risen from that situation as fast as they did, and the idea that every single culture out there could have done it is so ridicilous that it's hard to take you seriously.
The whole discussion makes 0 sense at all because we haven't defined what is a culture.
I am not sure the discussion is very interesting anyway. If what you are saying is that we are better off because we play violin and not persian tar or that our poets are betterer and greaterer than Arab poets or that our religion is more this or that, or that our traditions are also more betterer too, then I think it's not really worth discussing.
I don't think Sudanese will be better off if they stop speaking their language and believing in the god of other people, or change the way they cook, and forget about their history. Well, that's culture.
Ethnocentrism. We left that behind us, like, a century ago. I advise you to read Claude Levi Strauss, for a start.
|
On January 11 2015 02:35 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2015 02:30 WhiteDog wrote:On January 11 2015 02:28 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 11 2015 02:24 WhiteDog wrote:On January 11 2015 02:17 Millitron wrote:On January 11 2015 02:08 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 11 2015 02:07 WhiteDog wrote:On January 11 2015 02:04 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 11 2015 02:02 WhiteDog wrote:On January 11 2015 01:52 Biff The Understudy wrote:
[quote]
Laughing about the Quran is laughing about Islam. Not about muslim. Islam is an idea. Muslim are people.
If I say "Jews have big nose and are conspiring to take over the world" I am targeting people and I'm actually being racist.
If I say "Abraham can get fucked in the ass by Moses and use the Torah as a condom", I am targeting Judaism. People can get offended if they wish, but I only talk about what they are thinking, not about what they are.
It's a huge difference.
I saw pictures of rabbi in every Charlie I read and I never saw them talking about religions in general without mentioning Judaism. And their Israel cartoons ALWAYS featured jewish extremist. You know, lots of settlers and far right guys in Israel are not Orthodox. But Charlie always showed orthodox and religious extremists when talking about Israeli screwing up.
I don't remember any picture about the CRIF, but then I don't remember any picture about many many things. Maybe they didn't make fun of the CRIF. And what? They made fun of the religion itself, of its holy book, of its priests, and of its extremists. That's what they were doing with every religion.
There is no jewish exception with Charlie. That's just factually not true. Maybe they lacked balls with the CRIF I don't know. That's really a detail though. Saying Benoit XVI is a pedophile is not attacking people ? It's attacking Benoit XVI, for what he does. Being the Pope, and a high ranked priest. Not attacking a group of people for what they are. Like Jews, because they are Jews. The same that drawing rabbis and priests is not attacking Jews and Christians. It's anti-clericalism, not racism. Don't you think there is a little double standard considering Siné got fired for basically saying "He just declared his desire to convert to judaïsm before marrying his fiancee, jewish, and heiress of Darty. He will go a long way this boy !". It's just critcisizing a rich kid to me. No, there is no double standard. What Siné did, was targeting a group of people for what they are based on racist stereotype: the Jews have money. That's VERY different, and Siné, that time, crossed a red line by actually making a racist drawing, which Charlie NEVER did. I can bet you that if he had drawn a picture implying muslims were stealing in supermarket, just because, it would have been the same, he would have been fired also. And saying the pope, or other priests are pedophiles is targeting Christians. The thing about racism or any other prejudices is that saying anything negative about anyone could be considered racist. You may not see a problem with satirizing rabbis and priests like CH did, but someone else might. Racism is in the eye of the beholder. People can get offended for anything, it's our tradition to actually push the boundaries and critic all figure of power. Oftentime, "offended" people use this their "sensibility" as a tool to impose ideas and revendications on people. Caricature is a good way to push away those revendications. I completely agree. I think it's very important to make a radical distinction between offensive and racist. Offensive is in the eye of the beholder (I know christians who were laughing their ass off at CH). Racist is in the intention and the content itself. I don't think we should pay that much attention to people who are "offended" all the time. I don't see any limits and make no distinctions between racism and offensive. I believe the tribunal and the public are the judges, so anything can be said, which is why I was very bored at the Siné case. Self censorship is worst than anything. Well, I tried to make a distinction in the last three pages of this discussion, which I believe (but maybe I am being presumptuous) is very solid. It's the one French tribunals are actually following. It's a bit annoying because I feel you just don't want of my ideas or what I am saying based on the fact we didn't agree on one point at the beginning of the discussion. Then, like in Siné case, you can have ambiguity or interpretations, but the distinction is still there. Of course. But again, if you want examples: putting the Torah as toilet paper might be offensive but certainly not racist, drawing a jew with a big nose dominating the world is factually racist.
No I agree with most of the thing you said. I just believe they have always been harder on some specific topic. This idea that they were completly neutral and that they always followed specific rules is, to me, not entirely true. I don't want to really focus on Siné, I just took it as an exemple. Here is another exemple
+ Show Spoiler +
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On January 11 2015 02:37 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2015 02:31 WhiteDog wrote:On January 11 2015 02:30 Millitron wrote:On January 11 2015 02:26 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 11 2015 02:23 Millitron wrote:On January 11 2015 02:19 kwizach wrote:On January 11 2015 02:17 Millitron wrote:On January 11 2015 02:08 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 11 2015 02:07 WhiteDog wrote:On January 11 2015 02:04 Biff The Understudy wrote:
[quote]
It's attacking Benoit XVI, for what he does. Being the Pope, and a high ranked priest.
Not attacking a group of people for what they are. Like Jews, because they are Jews.
The same that drawing rabbis and priests is not attacking Jews and Christians. It's anti-clericalism, not racism. Don't you think there is a little double standard considering Siné got fired for basically saying "He just declared his desire to convert to judaïsm before marrying his fiancee, jewish, and heiress of Darty. He will go a long way this boy !". It's just critcisizing a rich kid to me. No, there is no double standard. What Siné did, was targeting a group of people for what they are based on racist stereotype: the Jews have money. That's VERY different, and Siné, that time, crossed a red line by actually making a racist drawing, which Charlie NEVER did. I can bet you that if he had drawn a picture implying muslims were stealing in supermarket, just because, it would have been the same, he would have been fired also. And saying the pope, or other priests are pedophiles is targeting Christians. No, it's not. It's targeting religious institutions and figures of authority, not Christians as a people. The difference is there and clearly matters. Not all christians will see it that way. Sure. People don't like their religion to be mocked, which is why they try to target Charlie Hebdo as racist. The courts always stated the opposite and I don't think the idea has really ever been catching up in France. I think it's extremely important, vital even, that we make the distinction between ideas, institutions, and people. Because if we don't, we can say goodbye to freedom of speech. Christians are people too, defined by their ideas. Ideas and people an inseparable. I don't see why making jokes about someone's race is any worse than making jokes about their religion. They didn't choose either. They can change their religion tho. It's pretty hard to change the color of your skin or you ascendance. Nobody changes their religion by choice. You have no say in what you believe. You can't just up and decide "Huh, today I feel like being a Buddhist." People who change their religion either had a deep revelation, which they had no control over, or are putting on an act, and still believe what they did before deep down. Show nested quote +On January 11 2015 02:36 Faust852 wrote:On January 11 2015 02:30 Millitron wrote:On January 11 2015 02:26 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 11 2015 02:23 Millitron wrote:On January 11 2015 02:19 kwizach wrote:On January 11 2015 02:17 Millitron wrote:On January 11 2015 02:08 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 11 2015 02:07 WhiteDog wrote:On January 11 2015 02:04 Biff The Understudy wrote:
[quote]
It's attacking Benoit XVI, for what he does. Being the Pope, and a high ranked priest.
Not attacking a group of people for what they are. Like Jews, because they are Jews.
The same that drawing rabbis and priests is not attacking Jews and Christians. It's anti-clericalism, not racism. Don't you think there is a little double standard considering Siné got fired for basically saying "He just declared his desire to convert to judaïsm before marrying his fiancee, jewish, and heiress of Darty. He will go a long way this boy !". It's just critcisizing a rich kid to me. No, there is no double standard. What Siné did, was targeting a group of people for what they are based on racist stereotype: the Jews have money. That's VERY different, and Siné, that time, crossed a red line by actually making a racist drawing, which Charlie NEVER did. I can bet you that if he had drawn a picture implying muslims were stealing in supermarket, just because, it would have been the same, he would have been fired also. And saying the pope, or other priests are pedophiles is targeting Christians. No, it's not. It's targeting religious institutions and figures of authority, not Christians as a people. The difference is there and clearly matters. Not all christians will see it that way. Sure. People don't like their religion to be mocked, which is why they try to target Charlie Hebdo as racist. The courts always stated the opposite and I don't think the idea has really ever been catching up in France. I think it's extremely important, vital even, that we make the distinction between ideas, institutions, and people. Because if we don't, we can say goodbye to freedom of speech. Christians are people too, defined by their ideas. Ideas and people an inseparable. I don't see why making jokes about someone's race is any worse than making jokes about their religion. They didn't choose either. Millitron, France is a country that really hate racism, CH existed for ages, and yet almost never got shut down for racism hate. Racism is prohibited in France still. You really should learn the difference between hating on an ideology and hating on people, that really really important imho. I can say that religions is shit, stupid and dangerous, but I can't say that their followers are stupid etc... Targeting an ideology is inherently targeting the people who believe it. You cannot have an ideology without followers. Ideologies and their followers are inseparable.
that's just dumb. speaking in terms of ideas is not targeting persons. this is a very clear modal difference. why do you think ad hominem is a thing.
this racial/cultural tangent is getting nowhere especially with the usual suspects posting essays. smh
|
On January 11 2015 02:54 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2015 02:37 Millitron wrote:On January 11 2015 02:31 WhiteDog wrote:On January 11 2015 02:30 Millitron wrote:On January 11 2015 02:26 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 11 2015 02:23 Millitron wrote:On January 11 2015 02:19 kwizach wrote:On January 11 2015 02:17 Millitron wrote:On January 11 2015 02:08 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 11 2015 02:07 WhiteDog wrote:
[quote]
Don't you think there is a little double standard considering Siné got fired for basically saying "He just declared his desire to convert to judaïsm before marrying his fiancee, jewish, and heiress of Darty. He will go a long way this boy !". It's just critcisizing a rich kid to me. No, there is no double standard. What Siné did, was targeting a group of people for what they are based on racist stereotype: the Jews have money. That's VERY different, and Siné, that time, crossed a red line by actually making a racist drawing, which Charlie NEVER did. I can bet you that if he had drawn a picture implying muslims were stealing in supermarket, just because, it would have been the same, he would have been fired also. And saying the pope, or other priests are pedophiles is targeting Christians. No, it's not. It's targeting religious institutions and figures of authority, not Christians as a people. The difference is there and clearly matters. Not all christians will see it that way. Sure. People don't like their religion to be mocked, which is why they try to target Charlie Hebdo as racist. The courts always stated the opposite and I don't think the idea has really ever been catching up in France. I think it's extremely important, vital even, that we make the distinction between ideas, institutions, and people. Because if we don't, we can say goodbye to freedom of speech. Christians are people too, defined by their ideas. Ideas and people an inseparable. I don't see why making jokes about someone's race is any worse than making jokes about their religion. They didn't choose either. They can change their religion tho. It's pretty hard to change the color of your skin or you ascendance. Nobody changes their religion by choice. You have no say in what you believe. You can't just up and decide "Huh, today I feel like being a Buddhist." People who change their religion either had a deep revelation, which they had no control over, or are putting on an act, and still believe what they did before deep down. On January 11 2015 02:36 Faust852 wrote:On January 11 2015 02:30 Millitron wrote:On January 11 2015 02:26 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 11 2015 02:23 Millitron wrote:On January 11 2015 02:19 kwizach wrote:On January 11 2015 02:17 Millitron wrote:On January 11 2015 02:08 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 11 2015 02:07 WhiteDog wrote:
[quote]
Don't you think there is a little double standard considering Siné got fired for basically saying "He just declared his desire to convert to judaïsm before marrying his fiancee, jewish, and heiress of Darty. He will go a long way this boy !". It's just critcisizing a rich kid to me. No, there is no double standard. What Siné did, was targeting a group of people for what they are based on racist stereotype: the Jews have money. That's VERY different, and Siné, that time, crossed a red line by actually making a racist drawing, which Charlie NEVER did. I can bet you that if he had drawn a picture implying muslims were stealing in supermarket, just because, it would have been the same, he would have been fired also. And saying the pope, or other priests are pedophiles is targeting Christians. No, it's not. It's targeting religious institutions and figures of authority, not Christians as a people. The difference is there and clearly matters. Not all christians will see it that way. Sure. People don't like their religion to be mocked, which is why they try to target Charlie Hebdo as racist. The courts always stated the opposite and I don't think the idea has really ever been catching up in France. I think it's extremely important, vital even, that we make the distinction between ideas, institutions, and people. Because if we don't, we can say goodbye to freedom of speech. Christians are people too, defined by their ideas. Ideas and people an inseparable. I don't see why making jokes about someone's race is any worse than making jokes about their religion. They didn't choose either. Millitron, France is a country that really hate racism, CH existed for ages, and yet almost never got shut down for racism hate. Racism is prohibited in France still. You really should learn the difference between hating on an ideology and hating on people, that really really important imho. I can say that religions is shit, stupid and dangerous, but I can't say that their followers are stupid etc... Targeting an ideology is inherently targeting the people who believe it. You cannot have an ideology without followers. Ideologies and their followers are inseparable. that's just dumb. speaking in terms of ideas is not targeting persons. this is a very clear modal difference. why do you think ad hominem is a thing. this racial/cultural tangent is getting nowhere especially with the usual suspects posting essays. smh
Ad hominem attacks are attacks on some irrelevant feature of a person, not just any attack on a person.
|
On January 11 2015 02:37 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2015 02:36 Faust852 wrote:On January 11 2015 02:30 Millitron wrote:On January 11 2015 02:26 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 11 2015 02:23 Millitron wrote:On January 11 2015 02:19 kwizach wrote:On January 11 2015 02:17 Millitron wrote:On January 11 2015 02:08 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 11 2015 02:07 WhiteDog wrote:On January 11 2015 02:04 Biff The Understudy wrote:
[quote]
It's attacking Benoit XVI, for what he does. Being the Pope, and a high ranked priest.
Not attacking a group of people for what they are. Like Jews, because they are Jews.
The same that drawing rabbis and priests is not attacking Jews and Christians. It's anti-clericalism, not racism. Don't you think there is a little double standard considering Siné got fired for basically saying "He just declared his desire to convert to judaïsm before marrying his fiancee, jewish, and heiress of Darty. He will go a long way this boy !". It's just critcisizing a rich kid to me. No, there is no double standard. What Siné did, was targeting a group of people for what they are based on racist stereotype: the Jews have money. That's VERY different, and Siné, that time, crossed a red line by actually making a racist drawing, which Charlie NEVER did. I can bet you that if he had drawn a picture implying muslims were stealing in supermarket, just because, it would have been the same, he would have been fired also. And saying the pope, or other priests are pedophiles is targeting Christians. No, it's not. It's targeting religious institutions and figures of authority, not Christians as a people. The difference is there and clearly matters. Not all christians will see it that way. Sure. People don't like their religion to be mocked, which is why they try to target Charlie Hebdo as racist. The courts always stated the opposite and I don't think the idea has really ever been catching up in France. I think it's extremely important, vital even, that we make the distinction between ideas, institutions, and people. Because if we don't, we can say goodbye to freedom of speech. Christians are people too, defined by their ideas. Ideas and people an inseparable. I don't see why making jokes about someone's race is any worse than making jokes about their religion. They didn't choose either. Millitron, France is a country that really hate racism, CH existed for ages, and yet almost never got shut down for racism hate. Racism is prohibited in France still. You really should learn the difference between hating on an ideology and hating on people, that really really important imho. I can say that religions is shit, stupid and dangerous, but I can't say that their followers are stupid etc... Targeting an ideology is inherently targeting the people who believe it. You cannot have an ideology without followers. Ideologies and their followers are inseparable.
No, that's just not true. Again, targeting ideas is not the same as attacking the people holding these ideas for holding them. Criticizing religions is just not the same as targeting religious people.
|
|
|
|
|
|
![[image loading]](http://negronews.fr/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/CHARLIE-HEBDO.jpg)
EPT
