EPTIf i say all redhaired women are stupid, that is fine.
If i say that they are all witches and need to be burned, and tell people that they should burn them, then it is no longer ok.
Basically, calling for violence is problematic.
Shots fired at Charlie Hebdo offices - France - Page 126
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Read this before posting. Stay civil. As the news continues to develop, please remember no NSFW images or video. Thank you. | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11973 Posts
If i say all redhaired women are stupid, that is fine. If i say that they are all witches and need to be burned, and tell people that they should burn them, then it is no longer ok. Basically, calling for violence is problematic. | ||
|
WhiteDog
France8650 Posts
On January 16 2015 07:52 MrCon wrote: Ok so forget dieudonné, most french people are brainwashed by years of media lies about him anyway so you're right talking about him is counter productive. Dieudonné targets everyone by the way, like CH. Let's talk about CH instead, all year long they say arabs are terrorists and their prophet is too, but when one of their journalist makes a "jew have money" joke article he instantly gets fired because he somehow crossed the line and he's antisemitic. There's double standard. Everybody knows about it. It has even made a lot of fuss within Charlie. Just read this article for instance : http://www.lemonde.fr/societe/article/2015/01/14/polemique-dans-la-famille-charlie-hebdo_4556428_3224.html Some old Charlie Hebdo caricaturist argue that Charlie under Philippe Val had an agenda "zionist" and "islamophobic". Putting the massacre aside, I was not at all OK with some of Charlie's work in the later years. Didn't prevented me from feeling "I am Charlie" like most. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
| ||
|
WhiteDog
France8650 Posts
On January 16 2015 08:13 Nyxisto wrote: I feel like there are two kinds of discrimination in many European countries, which makes it a little difficult. There is a lot of discrimination against Jews and Muslims but in different forms. Anti-Muslim sentiment is pretty mainstream and political, while Anti-Semitism is conspiracy-ish, like it even comes up in these threads sometimes. If a comedian who reinvented some kind of Nazi Salute gets punished for it, that's not "the evil jews running france" or "the French pm being the PM of Israel", it's simply enforcing anti-discriminatory laws. This idea that it's a nazi salute is kinda propaganda tho. It's not what the quennelle is in reality, it is a gesture that represent the arm going in the ass of a victim. He used to did this gesture a long time ago when he was still mainstream. Antisemitism comes from the worker class, islamophobia comes from the dominant part of our society. | ||
|
Incognoto
France10239 Posts
On January 16 2015 03:35 Ghostcom wrote: EDIT: I also think that it is an unhealthy attitude to assume that people in general are stupid which seems pervasive to the other answers I've been given. Gotta get to class in a bit so I have no time to write a wall of text (which mostly get ignored anyway in this thread), I just want to agree with this. It's not only unhealthy to consider that people are too stupid to think critically, it's dangerous in terms of the actual society. Do you really want to live in a country where people are deemed too dumb to be able to tell right from wrong on their own? Of course not. Whereas it's true that in some cases some people will adhere to a point of view thoughtlessly without thinking for themselves, censorship only works as a way to maintain this tendency. People should be encouraged to think for themselves. Living in a society where "intellectuals" choose what's right and wrong for you doesn't really encourage people to think, does that? Of course it doesn't. I have no idea how on earth you could even justify that one person might know what's "right and wrong" (politician and "intellectuals", notice I'm using quotes each time) and 100 others might not (populace). "People are too stupid to think critically" is not only a cynical and terrible point of view, but it's one that's against the principle of democracy. E: And yeah most of the stuff I've seen come out of CH in general is ass-wipe. It does incite hatred too, no matter how you look at it. Attacking ideas which are important to a person (religion) is an attack to that person. | ||
|
OtherWorld
France17333 Posts
On January 16 2015 07:05 MrCon wrote: Wow, exactly like dieudonné :D But dieudonné is hate for some reason while CH is free speech. That's why the cursor problem is a problem, when people that say the same thing but on one side it's considered "hate" and another "freedom of speech". The one who target a powerful community is making hate speech, while the other that targeting a poor (but with 20 times the people) community is exercising his freedom of speech. And everyone is ok with that. Dieudonné is not considered as making hate speech everytime. Just like he was not the only person to be arrested for apology of terrorism the last few days. Like you said, Dieudonné pretty much equals CH in that regard in that they were both satirical with a tendency to be kinda violent/provocative. Now Dieudonné did some things that were enough for him to be considered like an ass by a majority (?), or at least by an important part of the French population, and was sentenced for these things. CH did too, but was sentenced mainly for being insulting, not for hatred speech afaik. @WhiteDog : Does islamophobia really come from the dominant classes? I know the French countryside a bit and I know plenty of people who are always accusing Muslims, Arabs or anything that loosely looks like them (I pretty sure they don't even know that some Arabs are Christians) of all of their troubles. And these people, putting apart the fact that they probably never saw a Muslim of their life, are not part of what I'd call the "dominant classes" ; but more like the low-middle class. | ||
|
Yoav
United States1874 Posts
On January 16 2015 17:13 OtherWorld wrote: Dieudonné pretty much equals CH in that regard in that they were both satirical with a tendency to be kinda violent/provocative. Violent != Provocative. Provocative is, your mother is a whore. Violent is, I'm gonna kill your mom. One of those is rude. One of those is a threat to civil peace. | ||
|
OtherWorld
France17333 Posts
On January 16 2015 20:03 Yoav wrote: Violent != Provocative. Provocative is, your mother is a whore. Violent is, I'm gonna kill your mom. One of those is rude. One of those is a threat to civil peace. You're right. I meant "violent" as in "can offend someone". | ||
|
Noizhende
Austria328 Posts
On January 16 2015 16:08 Incognoto wrote: Gotta get to class in a bit so I have no time to write a wall of text (which mostly get ignored anyway in this thread), I just want to agree with this. It's not only unhealthy to consider that people are too stupid to think critically, it's dangerous in terms of the actual society. Do you really want to live in a country where people are deemed too dumb to be able to tell right from wrong on their own? Of course not. Whereas it's true that in some cases some people will adhere to a point of view thoughtlessly without thinking for themselves, censorship only works as a way to maintain this tendency. People should be encouraged to think for themselves. Living in a society where "intellectuals" choose what's right and wrong for you doesn't really encourage people to think, does that? Of course it doesn't. I have no idea how on earth you could even justify that one person might know what's "right and wrong" (politician and "intellectuals", notice I'm using quotes each time) and 100 others might not (populace). "People are too stupid to think critically" is not only a cynical and terrible point of view, but it's one that's against the principle of democracy. E: And yeah most of the stuff I've seen come out of CH in general is ass-wipe. It does incite hatred too, no matter how you look at it. Attacking ideas which are important to a person (religion) is an attack to that person. But right now people are too stupid to understand the complexities a more and more globalized world presents - especially concerning economic developments. The 1-dimensionality of political discourse in the general public is a nice indicator for that. That is THE problem for democracy today, the general public can't keep up with working through the information needed to vote in a reasonable manner (so it's stupidity in the sense of: i'm deciding something i have absolutely no clue about) Calling people stupid might not be nice but it's meant more to judge a society's knowledge had vs knowledge needed to make reasonable decisions about its future. If you can't maintain or increase that ratio then there is no democracy. | ||
|
Ghostcom
Denmark4783 Posts
| ||
|
ImFromPortugal
Portugal1368 Posts
| ||
|
Makro
France16890 Posts
On January 16 2015 23:28 ImFromPortugal wrote: Paris hostage situation ends after hostage-taker turns himself in, France's Ministry of Interior confirms - @NBCNews not related | ||
|
ZenithM
France15952 Posts
On January 16 2015 20:03 Yoav wrote: Violent != Provocative. Provocative is, your mother is a whore. Violent is, I'm gonna kill your mom. One of those is rude. One of those is a threat to civil peace. Hmm, I see what you're getting at, but the distinction is flimsy if nothing else. Both are probably going to yield violence in some form. Ostensibly taunting others into being violent first doesn't make you a saint, provocative or otherwise. | ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
your mother is a whore I'm gonna kill your mom Your "religion group" is something considered blasphemous to that religion group I'm gonna kill your "religious group" It is one of the defining features of basis of free speech. Otherwise you will end up like Pakistan and numerous other authoritarian countries where people literally die for being of other religions under spurious charges. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
There is no practical difference between the two statements. Go say these things to some stranger on the street, you're going to get punched in the face for both of them. | ||
|
WhiteDog
France8650 Posts
On January 16 2015 17:13 OtherWorld wrote: Dieudonné is not considered as making hate speech everytime. Just like he was not the only person to be arrested for apology of terrorism the last few days. Like you said, Dieudonné pretty much equals CH in that regard in that they were both satirical with a tendency to be kinda violent/provocative. Now Dieudonné did some things that were enough for him to be considered like an ass by a majority (?), or at least by an important part of the French population, and was sentenced for these things. CH did too, but was sentenced mainly for being insulting, not for hatred speech afaik. @WhiteDog : Does islamophobia really come from the dominant classes? I know the French countryside a bit and I know plenty of people who are always accusing Muslims, Arabs or anything that loosely looks like them (I pretty sure they don't even know that some Arabs are Christians) of all of their troubles. And these people, putting apart the fact that they probably never saw a Muslim of their life, are not part of what I'd call the "dominant classes" ; but more like the low-middle class. I didn't say dominant class but "dominant part of our society". More than anything, Islamophobia is institutionalized - unlike antisemitism - (the police and the judiciary system punish muslim more than any other religious group for exemple), and it is also heavily accepted within the media (Michel Houellebecq, Finkelkraut, Philippe Val or Fourest are all islamophobic for exemple). There is also discrimination in the working place toward muslim. It's true that a lot of people feel fear toward the islamisation of part of France, but it's fueled by the dominant part of our society. It's a plot by the great capital to split the worker class and make them forget their real enemy.  | ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
On January 17 2015 02:43 Nyxisto wrote: ... or you'll end up like most other Western countries which in fact have laws outlawing verbal personal attacks? Please stop this slippery slope nonsense, it's just annoying. There is no practical difference between the two statements. Go say these things to some stranger on the street, you're going to get punched in the face for both of them. Actually you'll be ignored because who cares what a stranger on the street decides to randomly say. Punching someone in the face on the other hands is assault. As for laws outlawing verbal personal attacks, I beleive you are refering to abuse of personal privacy laws by the rich? There's a reason why those laws are now being regressed and diminished under the interests or public interest. There is an important distinction between unfounded accusations between 2 media personalities having an affair or corruption, and that of inciting of hatred. It is a slippery slope and that's why we have law courts and every other associated institutions of modern civilisation. In the end you are equating the massacre of people with the blasphemy of Islam or Judaism or Christianity. The two aren't comparable at all. It is not a slippery slope. | ||
|
OtherWorld
France17333 Posts
On January 17 2015 02:50 WhiteDog wrote: I didn't say dominant class but "dominant part of our society". More than anything, Islamophobia is institutionalized - unlike antisemitism - (the police and the judiciary system punish muslim more than any other religious group for exemple), and it is also heavily accepted within the media (Michel Houellebecq, Finkelkraut, Philippe Val or Fourest are all islamophobic for exemple). There is also discrimination in the working place toward muslim. It's true that a lot of people feel fear toward the islamisation of part of France, but it's fueled by the dominant part of our society. It's a plot by the great capital to split the worker class and make them forget their real enemy. Ah ok I understand what you mean, and it is probably partly true. On the other hand, you could say that there is also an important anti-islamophobia movement from the dominant classes of society. I mean look at how every politician, except your usual far-right suspects, called to avoid the "terrorists = muslims" amalgam. Ironically enough this type of behavior precisely fuels far-right ideas and islamophobia. | ||
|
kwizach
3658 Posts
On January 16 2015 07:05 MrCon wrote: Wow, exactly like dieudonné :D But dieudonné is hate for some reason while CH is free speech. That's why the cursor problem is a problem, when people that say the same thing but on one side it's considered "hate" and another "freedom of speech". On January 16 2015 07:52 MrCon wrote: Ok so forget dieudonné, most french people are brainwashed by years of media lies about him anyway so you're right talking about him is counter productive. Dieudonné targets everyone by the way, like CH. Let's talk about CH instead, all year long they say arabs are terrorists On January 16 2015 07:30 Ghostcom wrote: So targeting one group is off limits, but the other is totally fine because... You said so? A Muslim will tell you that they have no more choice in believing than a Jew has of being jewish (which ironically is tied largely to Judaism). I'm sorry but your distinction doesn't really work. Both of you are completely failing to understand the difference between Dieudonné and Charlie Hebdo. The difference was made clear by Acertos but I'll explain it again. Dieudonné attacks religious people, namely Jews (for being Jews). He is clearly anti-semitic, has made anti-semitic statements, and has been condemned for them. Charlie Hebdo does not attack or criticize religious people. It does not attack Jews, it does not attack Muslims, it does not attack Christians (and it does not attack Arabs either, contrary to what you said). What Charlie Hebdo does is attack all religious extremists (not religious people in general) and criticize all religions and religious symbols (again, not religious people). Criticizing religions for the systems of beliefs they are, and mocking religious institutions and religious symbols for various reasons (for example for the Pope's stance on condoms), is not the same as attacking the religious people themselves. You're attacking ideas, institutions and figures of authority, NOT religious people as a group. This is an important distinction and it explains why Dieudonné has been condemned for anti-semitism/incitement to racial hatred while Charlie Hebdo has not (its condemnations were usually for having insulted individuals). Charlie Hebdo is an antiracist publication which has never promoted the type of hate-speech that Dieudonné is well-known for. To the contrary, its cartoons ridicule hate speech and they use right-wing imagery to mock it and denounce it those right-wing ideas. On January 16 2015 08:00 WhiteDog wrote: There's double standard. Everybody knows about it. WIth regards to the matter at hand, namely Charlie Hebdo and French law, there is absolutely no double standard, no. If you promote hate speech by targeting groups of people you get condemned. If you criticize religions, you don't. It's the same for everyone. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
Also again this distinction between attacking religions and attacking people is ridiculous. Christians aspire to be like Christ, for them he is the perfect Human being. Same can be said for Muslims and the prophet. You can not attack central figures or parts of a religion without attacking their believers. | ||
| ||
