|
|
On January 11 2015 03:10 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2015 02:37 Millitron wrote: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. 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.
While you are right this is not how a lot of the people see it.
If you target someone's religion/ideas/etc there will always be people who think you are targeting them as a person because they belong to such group.
|
On January 11 2015 03:12 raynpelikoneet wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2015 03:10 kwizach wrote:On January 11 2015 02:37 Millitron wrote: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:
[quote]
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. While you are right this is not how a lot of the people see it. If you target someone's religion/ideas/etc there will always be people who think you are targeting them as a person because they belong to such group.
And that's their problem. Like I said, the distinction still stands, and was made abundantly clear by Charlie Hebdo.
|
On January 11 2015 03:12 raynpelikoneet wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2015 03:10 kwizach wrote:On January 11 2015 02:37 Millitron wrote: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:
[quote]
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. While you are right this is not how a lot of the people see it. If you target someone's religion/ideas/etc there will always be people who think you are targeting them as a person because they belong to such group.
My point is that the same is true of ANY prejudice. You might say you're not targeting this or that group. You might even believe you're not targeting this or that group. But somebody from some group WILL get offended and think you're targeting them.
It's like that for racism, anti-religious prejudices, even political parties.
|
On January 11 2015 03:16 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2015 03:12 raynpelikoneet wrote:On January 11 2015 03:10 kwizach wrote:On January 11 2015 02:37 Millitron wrote: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:
[quote]
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. While you are right this is not how a lot of the people see it. If you target someone's religion/ideas/etc there will always be people who think you are targeting them as a person because they belong to such group. My point is that the same is true of ANY prejudice. You might say you're not targeting this or that group. You might even believe you're not targeting this or that group. But somebody from some group WILL get offended and think you're targeting them. It's like that for racism, anti-religious prejudices, even political parties.
Targetting an ideology is also a way to free yourself from it. Many people suffer from religious extremism, or for any form of collective organisation, and making fun of it is a way to deprive the structure from all its symbolic power.
"Irony is the braveness of the weak and the cowardice of the strong". In a society where religious extremism and the far right are rising, Charlie were an island of irony, making fun of the evolutions of our society, not necessarily always in the smartest way, but most of time with braveness and a strong desire for freedom.
You said yourself that oppression and prejudice is a question of perspective : for many reader of Charlie, their jokes and caricatures were a way to free themselves from an oppressive reality.
|
On January 11 2015 03:21 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2015 03:16 Millitron wrote:On January 11 2015 03:12 raynpelikoneet wrote:On January 11 2015 03:10 kwizach wrote:On January 11 2015 02:37 Millitron wrote: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:
[quote]
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. While you are right this is not how a lot of the people see it. If you target someone's religion/ideas/etc there will always be people who think you are targeting them as a person because they belong to such group. My point is that the same is true of ANY prejudice. You might say you're not targeting this or that group. You might even believe you're not targeting this or that group. But somebody from some group WILL get offended and think you're targeting them. It's like that for racism, anti-religious prejudices, even political parties. Targetting an ideology is also a way to free yourself from it. Many people suffer from religious extremism, or for any form of collective organisation, and making fun of it is a way to deprive the structure from all its symbolic power. "Irony is the braveness of the weak and the cowardice of the strong". In a society where religious extremism and the far right are rising, Charlie were an island of irony, making fun of the evolution, not necessarily in the brightest way, but most of time with braveness and a strong desire for freedom.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying they went too far. I'm saying they should be allowed to go farther. Why is it ok for them to mock every facet of life people define themselves by, except race?
“It's now very common to hear people say, 'I'm rather offended by that.' As if that gives them certain rights. It's actually nothing more... than a whine. 'I find that offensive.' It has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. 'I am offended by that.' Well, so fucking what." - Stephen Fry
|
On January 11 2015 03:23 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2015 03:21 WhiteDog wrote:On January 11 2015 03:16 Millitron wrote:On January 11 2015 03:12 raynpelikoneet wrote:On January 11 2015 03:10 kwizach wrote:On January 11 2015 02:37 Millitron wrote: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:
[quote]
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. While you are right this is not how a lot of the people see it. If you target someone's religion/ideas/etc there will always be people who think you are targeting them as a person because they belong to such group. My point is that the same is true of ANY prejudice. You might say you're not targeting this or that group. You might even believe you're not targeting this or that group. But somebody from some group WILL get offended and think you're targeting them. It's like that for racism, anti-religious prejudices, even political parties. Targetting an ideology is also a way to free yourself from it. Many people suffer from religious extremism, or for any form of collective organisation, and making fun of it is a way to deprive the structure from all its symbolic power. "Irony is the braveness of the weak and the cowardice of the strong". In a society where religious extremism and the far right are rising, Charlie were an island of irony, making fun of the evolution, not necessarily in the brightest way, but most of time with braveness and a strong desire for freedom. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying they went too far. I'm saying they should be allowed to go farther. Why is it ok for them to mock every facet of life people define themselves by, except race? “It's now very common to hear people say, 'I'm rather offended by that.' As if that gives them certain rights. It's actually nothing more... than a whine. 'I find that offensive.' It has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. 'I am offended by that.' Well, so fucking what." - Stephen Fry
Because "race" is not an opressive structure of power, it's a natural reality redefined and objectified by social representations, nothing more. There are no "race" that completly dominate as a race (except maybe the white, but it's up to discussion).
|
On January 11 2015 03:25 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2015 03:23 Millitron wrote:On January 11 2015 03:21 WhiteDog wrote:On January 11 2015 03:16 Millitron wrote:On January 11 2015 03:12 raynpelikoneet wrote:On January 11 2015 03:10 kwizach wrote:On January 11 2015 02:37 Millitron wrote: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:
[quote]
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. While you are right this is not how a lot of the people see it. If you target someone's religion/ideas/etc there will always be people who think you are targeting them as a person because they belong to such group. My point is that the same is true of ANY prejudice. You might say you're not targeting this or that group. You might even believe you're not targeting this or that group. But somebody from some group WILL get offended and think you're targeting them. It's like that for racism, anti-religious prejudices, even political parties. Targetting an ideology is also a way to free yourself from it. Many people suffer from religious extremism, or for any form of collective organisation, and making fun of it is a way to deprive the structure from all its symbolic power. "Irony is the braveness of the weak and the cowardice of the strong". In a society where religious extremism and the far right are rising, Charlie were an island of irony, making fun of the evolution, not necessarily in the brightest way, but most of time with braveness and a strong desire for freedom. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying they went too far. I'm saying they should be allowed to go farther. Why is it ok for them to mock every facet of life people define themselves by, except race? “It's now very common to hear people say, 'I'm rather offended by that.' As if that gives them certain rights. It's actually nothing more... than a whine. 'I find that offensive.' It has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. 'I am offended by that.' Well, so fucking what." - Stephen Fry Because "race" is not an opressive structure of power, it's a natural reality redefined and objectified by social representations, nothing more. There are no "race" that completly dominate the world as a race.
You sure about that? White people run most countries in the west. They completely dominate the lives of many people.
|
On January 11 2015 01:40 Biff The Understudy wrote:
It's necessary because that's those people and those caricatures, this Voltairian tradition that has made our society so secular. Which in my opinion is the one greatest reason to be proud of France. What they did was saying: No, we are not respecting superstition about Vrirgin Mary or Muhammad flying on his winged horse, no, we are not bowing in front of priests, and we are gonna go full hardcore on them because they get a respect they don't deserve and because we really don't like them. That's basically the spirit.
Right and you can understand how this majority culture of yours offends and discriminates against people, yes?
It's like the US right-wingers who say everybody has to play ball with their ideas, and minorities/differentreligions can fuck themselves. It's just that they're slightly more inclusive by adding "Jews" to the list of kosher religions in addition to their own, but this Secularism allows no other alternatives.
I love France and a lot about French culture, but banning the cross, kippah, and headscarf is not "equal treatment," it's predjudice in favor of Secularism. An analogy would be a Protestant or Muslim country banning all graven images. "It's equal: we can't have statues of saints/gods either." Well, no shit. And you weren't going to even if you could, so you're just legislating against Catholics/Hindus/Buddhists/etc.
Atheists like to pretend they are different from other religions, but intellectually, this is the same as the fundamentalists of any religion who respond to questions about tolerance by saying "We're correct, who needs tolerance? Those other religions people are deceived, and we should help to deliver them from their deception by making it hard to practice their religion."
|
On January 11 2015 03:28 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2015 03:25 WhiteDog wrote:On January 11 2015 03:23 Millitron wrote:On January 11 2015 03:21 WhiteDog wrote:On January 11 2015 03:16 Millitron wrote:On January 11 2015 03:12 raynpelikoneet wrote:On January 11 2015 03:10 kwizach wrote:On January 11 2015 02:37 Millitron wrote:On January 11 2015 02:36 Faust852 wrote:On January 11 2015 02:30 Millitron wrote:
[quote]
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. While you are right this is not how a lot of the people see it. If you target someone's religion/ideas/etc there will always be people who think you are targeting them as a person because they belong to such group. My point is that the same is true of ANY prejudice. You might say you're not targeting this or that group. You might even believe you're not targeting this or that group. But somebody from some group WILL get offended and think you're targeting them. It's like that for racism, anti-religious prejudices, even political parties. Targetting an ideology is also a way to free yourself from it. Many people suffer from religious extremism, or for any form of collective organisation, and making fun of it is a way to deprive the structure from all its symbolic power. "Irony is the braveness of the weak and the cowardice of the strong". In a society where religious extremism and the far right are rising, Charlie were an island of irony, making fun of the evolution, not necessarily in the brightest way, but most of time with braveness and a strong desire for freedom. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying they went too far. I'm saying they should be allowed to go farther. Why is it ok for them to mock every facet of life people define themselves by, except race? “It's now very common to hear people say, 'I'm rather offended by that.' As if that gives them certain rights. It's actually nothing more... than a whine. 'I find that offensive.' It has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. 'I am offended by that.' Well, so fucking what." - Stephen Fry Because "race" is not an opressive structure of power, it's a natural reality redefined and objectified by social representations, nothing more. There are no "race" that completly dominate the world as a race. You sure about that? White people run most countries in the west. They completely dominate the lives of many people.
Yeah it's debatable. I guess Charlie's journalist would have preferred to talk about class rather than race, like most french.
|
On January 11 2015 03:30 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2015 03:28 Millitron wrote:On January 11 2015 03:25 WhiteDog wrote:On January 11 2015 03:23 Millitron wrote:On January 11 2015 03:21 WhiteDog wrote:On January 11 2015 03:16 Millitron wrote:On January 11 2015 03:12 raynpelikoneet wrote:On January 11 2015 03:10 kwizach wrote:On January 11 2015 02:37 Millitron wrote:On January 11 2015 02:36 Faust852 wrote:
[quote]
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. While you are right this is not how a lot of the people see it. If you target someone's religion/ideas/etc there will always be people who think you are targeting them as a person because they belong to such group. My point is that the same is true of ANY prejudice. You might say you're not targeting this or that group. You might even believe you're not targeting this or that group. But somebody from some group WILL get offended and think you're targeting them. It's like that for racism, anti-religious prejudices, even political parties. Targetting an ideology is also a way to free yourself from it. Many people suffer from religious extremism, or for any form of collective organisation, and making fun of it is a way to deprive the structure from all its symbolic power. "Irony is the braveness of the weak and the cowardice of the strong". In a society where religious extremism and the far right are rising, Charlie were an island of irony, making fun of the evolution, not necessarily in the brightest way, but most of time with braveness and a strong desire for freedom. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying they went too far. I'm saying they should be allowed to go farther. Why is it ok for them to mock every facet of life people define themselves by, except race? “It's now very common to hear people say, 'I'm rather offended by that.' As if that gives them certain rights. It's actually nothing more... than a whine. 'I find that offensive.' It has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. 'I am offended by that.' Well, so fucking what." - Stephen Fry Because "race" is not an opressive structure of power, it's a natural reality redefined and objectified by social representations, nothing more. There are no "race" that completly dominate the world as a race. You sure about that? White people run most countries in the west. They completely dominate the lives of many people. Yeah it's debatable. I guess Charlie's journalist would have preferred to talk about class rather than race, like most french.
Probably. And I agree that class means more than race does in the modern world. But someone should be allowed to satirize race too. People define themselves just as much by their other features as they do race.
|
On January 11 2015 03:29 Yoav wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2015 01:40 Biff The Understudy wrote:
It's necessary because that's those people and those caricatures, this Voltairian tradition that has made our society so secular. Which in my opinion is the one greatest reason to be proud of France. What they did was saying: No, we are not respecting superstition about Vrirgin Mary or Muhammad flying on his winged horse, no, we are not bowing in front of priests, and we are gonna go full hardcore on them because they get a respect they don't deserve and because we really don't like them. That's basically the spirit. Atheists like to pretend they are different from other religions, but intellectually, this is the same as the fundamentalists of any religion who respond to questions about tolerance by saying "We're correct, who needs tolerance? Those other religions people are deceived, and we should help to deliver them from their deception by making it hard to practice their religion."
You can make the argument that oppression towards the removal of religious signs is as bad as oppression to impose them. But atheism IS different than "other" religions. For the simple reason it's not even a religion to begin with.
I'm not necessarily disagreeing with what you are trying to say, mostly arguing semantics here.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On January 11 2015 03:06 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2015 02:54 oneofthem wrote: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:
[quote]
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:
[quote]
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.
completely irrelevant to the point.
targeting ideas are not personal attacks.
|
Culture is what defines human societies. Cultures aren't better or worse than one another, they're merely different. Different groups of human beings have agreed to different ways of living together, that is what a nation is. Being intolerant of other cultures is being idiotic; nothing is wrong with loving your own culture.
Things like this are absurd, and frankly stupid. I know this post was a few pages back but I cant let it go. Its not a beautiful well thought out post, its a disgusting and narrow one. If you want to narrow culture down to something trite like the food they eat, then hooray for multiculturalism, but that isnt the totality of culture. How you treat a person, gays, women, thats culture too. How you treat human life, what you expect from the government and other people, thats culture. Hell, clothes are cultural, and thats not "merely different", as clothes reflect ideals. A niqab is not 'just different' from jeans and a tank top. Its positively worse and oppressive. THIS quoted post is the wishy washy crap of moral relativism.
|
On January 11 2015 03:42 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2015 03:06 Millitron wrote:On January 11 2015 02:54 oneofthem wrote: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:
[quote]
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:
[quote]
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. completely irrelevant to the point. targeting ideas are not personal attacks.
If the ideas are deeply held enough it is.
|
obviously insulting ideas insults people that identify with them. "sticks and stones may break my bones but word will never hurt me" is not how it works.
|
|
|
On January 10 2015 19:58 L1ghtning wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2015 15:25 Kickstart wrote:On January 10 2015 15:07 Jett.Jack.Alvir wrote:On January 10 2015 14:54 Kickstart wrote:
One thing that does disgust me however, and this always seems to happen when this type of thing occurs, is that people begin discussing the motives, or perhaps better put, the lack of sensitivity or constraint that the publisher had in deciding to print these cartoons. To me this doesn't matter in the slightest. I am sick of listening to people say that the cartoons were needlessly offensive or that they were in poor taste. The entire point of satire is that nothing is sacred, nothing is beyond scrutiny, and everything is open to criticism. The fact that every media outlet in the world doesn't immediately reproduce the images in question seems cowardly to me. If every major publication and news outlet was to decide to show the images, it would be a sign of solidarity with those who lost their lives for simply doing their jobs; whether or not the publications find the cartoons to be offensive or not, or even funny or interesting seems secondary to me. The media has a moral obligation to stand up for the freedom of press and the freedom to express ideas, even those that some would find offensive. The fact that almost every publication that chooses not to reproduce the cartoons in question admits that they won't do so out of fear of backlash and indeed violence from the muslim community is telling. It is a sad state of affairs when the worldwide press is being stifled and are afraid of doing their jobs and reporting the news by showing people what 'all the fuss is about' because they are being intimidated by religious bullies.
I want to focus on this paragraph, more specifically the part in bold. I agree it is a sad state of affairs, but its totally understandable. If I was the head editor of a newspaper, I have to consider the ramifications of publishing the content that incited this massacre. More innocent people might be in danger if it was published elsewhere internationally. I would like to see them publish the satirical content, but not at the expense of anymore lives. Yes that is sort of my point. Most people would like to see, and in my mind deserve to see what the satirical content was. I agree that it is a tough decision to make, but the fact that so many publications will not publish the content out of fear shows that the religious bullies, and indeed the perpetrator's of this particular atrocity are, for lack of a better term, 'winning' in their purported cause to stop the publication of depictions of the prophet. If, as I suggested, every publication went ahead and published the content anyways, it would be impossible for them all to be targeted. And again, do the major media outlets not have a moral obligation to stand up to these types of threats to the free expression of ideals, I posit that those that are able are indeed obligated to do so. If I was in the same scene as these frenchmen who was killed, then I would leave, immediately. Putting my life in danger is just not worth it, not for that cause. I would not be afraid of making fun of other religious groups, politicians or feminists, but muslim fundamentalists are freaking scary. This is exactly what they want us to think, so mission accomplished I guess. But please don't tell the ppl in the media who thinks like that, that they have a obligation to publish these caricatures. They don't have a obligation to risk their lives, and this is what's at stake here. I don't think you fully grasp the severity of this situation. You can't just ignore these ppl and hope that the threat will go away. If you make fun of islam, you put your life in danger. That is a reality right now. A great part of the western freedom of speech/expression was lost in this attack. What we need to figure out is how we can regain this freedom of speech/expression that was lost. Ignoring the threat and being reckless is not the answer.
I hope you will forgive me for not responding sooner, I retired to bed shortly after my post. Having skimmed through the last few pages it seems replying to this would still be appropriate so here it goes.
Whether or not you personally think the ideals of free speech, free press, and freedom of ideals is worth risking your life over is not particularly relevant. In my mind these are rather noble things to risk ones life over. The easiest way to make this point I guess is to compare journalism/being an author/being a media outlet to other professions. When one decides to become a police officer they are making a commitment that if need be, they will put themselves in harms way to do their jobs, same for firefighters, military personnel, and many other high-risk professions. Journalists, media outlets, authors, and all entities of this kind make their livings off of the work that their predecessor's made in obtaining things such as freedom of the press, freedom of speech, and freedom of ideals. Thus, when these ideals are threatened, they should be the first ones to rally and defend them. Or, if they are too cowardly to do that, they should at the very least not show just how cowardly they are by publicly stating that they view the works in question as needlessly offensive and pointless without printing them, that is perhaps the thing that annoys me most. How dare anyone in that profession criticize the cartoons when people lost their lives over them and when they themselves are too cowardly to take a stand so they just try and tout themselves as arbiters of political correctness. But I digress. The same thing happened when a fatwa was leveled on Salman Rushdie, it was disgusting to see the number of people who came out and publicly stated that in some sick way he should have known what he was getting himself into, instead of defending his right as a novelist to write about whatever topics he deemed interesting. I have no time for people like that, they are cowards who are willing to sit in their positions which are only available to them because their earlier comrades had to spill their blood and fight for these rights and yet now they will not do their part to defend these ideals when they are under attack.
Another thing you said of me is that I don't seem to understand the severity of what is going on. I don't see how you can read my post and come to that conclusion, but I will try to reiterate what I said in a moment. You go on to say that these people can not be ignored and that making fun of Islam is a dangerous thing to be doing. Both of these are true, and as I said in my first post, western civilization is at war with Islam, or a truer depiction of reality would be to say that Islam is at war with western civilization. Islamic extremists are the ones taking this to such a level, not anyone else. You say that a great part of western freedom of speech/expression was lost in these attacks, after you already stated that you personally would not risk your life for these ideals, and then accuse me of not knowing the severity of the situation. Again I don't see how you could have read the last two paragraphs of my original post and come to the conclusion that I do not know the severity of the situation. You end by saying that we can not ignore the threat and that being reckless is not the answer, whether or not you are accusing me of ignoring the threat and being reckless I do not know, perhaps you were just making a general statement; but I would point you to the ending of my original post where I describe what has happened in the past and what needs to happen now. Western civilization needs to make it completely clear that it will not sit idly by while the very ideals and freedoms it is founded upon are under attack by a segment of religious bullies and zealots.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On January 11 2015 03:45 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2015 03:42 oneofthem wrote:On January 11 2015 03:06 Millitron wrote:On January 11 2015 02:54 oneofthem wrote: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:
[quote]
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:
[quote]
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. completely irrelevant to the point. targeting ideas are not personal attacks. If the ideas are deeply held enough it is.
not true. target of the attack is still ideas, not the people. the people may be affected, but they are not the target. this is the difference.
|
On January 11 2015 03:14 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2015 03:12 raynpelikoneet wrote:On January 11 2015 03:10 kwizach wrote:On January 11 2015 02:37 Millitron wrote: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:
[quote]
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. While you are right this is not how a lot of the people see it. If you target someone's religion/ideas/etc there will always be people who think you are targeting them as a person because they belong to such group. And that's their problem. Like I said, the distinction still stands, and was made abundantly clear by Charlie Hebdo.
Yes but when you intentionally do stuff that offends them it becomes your problem aswell.
|
On January 11 2015 04:21 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2015 03:45 Millitron wrote:On January 11 2015 03:42 oneofthem wrote:On January 11 2015 03:06 Millitron wrote:On January 11 2015 02:54 oneofthem wrote: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:
[quote]
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:
[quote]
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. completely irrelevant to the point. targeting ideas are not personal attacks. If the ideas are deeply held enough it is. not true. target of the attack is still ideas, not the people. the people may be affected, but they are not the target. this is the difference.
that's just nonsense. For quite a lot of people their religion defines who they are at their very core. You could not attack them more personally in any other way. This isn't just exclusive to religion. Many people seem to be quite fond of their country in a similar way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
