|
|
On January 10 2015 03:31 rezoacken wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2015 03:26 Grettin wrote:
Any news on the woman? Did she escape or has she been at large before the second hostage situation? How many times do people have to repeat it ?
I would say at least once more, because i missed it. But went back and looked Yhamm's message, thanks though.
|
On January 10 2015 03:24 raynpelikoneet wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2015 03:20 OtherWorld wrote:On January 10 2015 03:16 raynpelikoneet wrote:On January 10 2015 02:55 kwizach wrote:On January 10 2015 01:56 farvacola wrote:
So, for a small change of pace, much of my social media is full of radicals and other folks fighting over exactly what kind of publication Charlie Hebdo is, with some arguing that its hypocritical and a front for conservatism and others saying that they are just really big fans of extremely biting satire. I was wondering if TL's French posters could give us their opinion on the magazine? I'm trying to get a sense for what it is the paper does, and I don't trust pretty much anyone who isn't "around" the magazine regularly. What I just replied to a friend who posted an article saying Charlie Hebdo was racist: The point that the article you linked to seems to completely miss is that Charlie Hebdo cartoons only represent racism and xenophobia to fight them and ridicule them - that's the entire point of satire. Their targets were notably racism, xenophobia, religious extremism and religious symbols, but they did NOT target religious people. Mocking religious symbols and institutions (such as the Pope, Jesus, Mahomet, etc.) is NOT racist or xenophobic. Attacking religious people (muslims, christians, jews, etc.) is, and that is NOT what Charlie Hebdo was doing. All of the covers cited in the article mock religious symbols, religious extremists (see the one where Mahomet is weeping, the "cons" he refers to are the extremists, as highlighted in the text next to the picture, not the muslims in general), or mock right-wing xenophobic fantasies about the Other (the drawing on the final "welfare queens" cover does NOT attack muslim women asking for welfare but the exact opposite: it is there to ridicule right-wing fantasies about immigrants profiting from welfare). The message of the cartoons is the OPPOSITE of racist, it is antiracist and works through satire, irony and ridicule. The author of your article completely misunderstands this and reads them at face value (au premier degré), which is not at all how they work. Also, contrary to what is asserted in the article, Charlie Hebdo did not only target Islam and islamic extremists but all religions and religious extremism in all forms. Regarding this: What i have always wondered is why do people "give ammunition" to groups like islamic and other extremists? Like i get the freedom of speech and yadda yadda everything but there are people who do not believe in freedom of speech. If there is a guy with a short temper and a gun ready to use it, you do not go call him an idiot (not even through satire) because you can get shot. That's just.. plain stupid. Why do people do this? Like, what's the point? I have never understood it because it just begs extremists to have / create a reason to do something like what's going on in France. That being said what's going on is really sad and i hope the situation gets solved as soon as possible -- without any new victims. Because if you never stand up, you end up losing all liberty. To follow your analogy, no you're not going to tell the guy with a gun that he's an idiot. Now what if he has such a short temper that he'll shoot you not only if you call him an idiot, but if you disagree with him or disobey him? Then what if other people, seeing the success that one guy with his short temper and his gun have, try to do the same? You lose all liberty. That's why satire, even "stupid" (by that I mean basic and crude) satire is necessary. I don't agree. Why would you "lose all liberty"? I don't understand why there has to be so many unnecessary deaths because of some cartoon. Is the world better place now because it had to be said? Did it really have to be said?
Well, let's consider that these terrorists, by targeting Charlie Hebdo, wanted to punish them for making fun of their religion. That means that they refuse to Charlie Hebdo the right to make fun of their religion. As far as I know, making fun of something belongs to the "freedom of speech" category. So if you accept not to express yourself because you fear the consequences, then what will happen when these terrorist won't just tell you "We don't want you to make fun of our religion", but things like "We want you to follow our religion", and so on? By your reasoning, because you'll be afraid of being shot, you'll accept what they demand from you. And what then, when they'll tell you "We want you to kill X because he did bad?"? etc etc
No the world is not a better place because 17+ people died, obviously. But as one of Charlie's cartoonist said himself, "I prefer to die stood up than to live sat down."
|
Coulibaly said today to BFMTV to be part of ISIS
|
|
|
On January 10 2015 03:27 OuchyDathurts wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2015 03:24 raynpelikoneet wrote:On January 10 2015 03:20 OtherWorld wrote:On January 10 2015 03:16 raynpelikoneet wrote:On January 10 2015 02:55 kwizach wrote:On January 10 2015 01:56 farvacola wrote:
So, for a small change of pace, much of my social media is full of radicals and other folks fighting over exactly what kind of publication Charlie Hebdo is, with some arguing that its hypocritical and a front for conservatism and others saying that they are just really big fans of extremely biting satire. I was wondering if TL's French posters could give us their opinion on the magazine? I'm trying to get a sense for what it is the paper does, and I don't trust pretty much anyone who isn't "around" the magazine regularly. What I just replied to a friend who posted an article saying Charlie Hebdo was racist: The point that the article you linked to seems to completely miss is that Charlie Hebdo cartoons only represent racism and xenophobia to fight them and ridicule them - that's the entire point of satire. Their targets were notably racism, xenophobia, religious extremism and religious symbols, but they did NOT target religious people. Mocking religious symbols and institutions (such as the Pope, Jesus, Mahomet, etc.) is NOT racist or xenophobic. Attacking religious people (muslims, christians, jews, etc.) is, and that is NOT what Charlie Hebdo was doing. All of the covers cited in the article mock religious symbols, religious extremists (see the one where Mahomet is weeping, the "cons" he refers to are the extremists, as highlighted in the text next to the picture, not the muslims in general), or mock right-wing xenophobic fantasies about the Other (the drawing on the final "welfare queens" cover does NOT attack muslim women asking for welfare but the exact opposite: it is there to ridicule right-wing fantasies about immigrants profiting from welfare). The message of the cartoons is the OPPOSITE of racist, it is antiracist and works through satire, irony and ridicule. The author of your article completely misunderstands this and reads them at face value (au premier degré), which is not at all how they work. Also, contrary to what is asserted in the article, Charlie Hebdo did not only target Islam and islamic extremists but all religions and religious extremism in all forms. Regarding this: What i have always wondered is why do people "give ammunition" to groups like islamic and other extremists? Like i get the freedom of speech and yadda yadda everything but there are people who do not believe in freedom of speech. If there is a guy with a short temper and a gun ready to use it, you do not go call him an idiot (not even through satire) because you can get shot. That's just.. plain stupid. Why do people do this? Like, what's the point? I have never understood it because it just begs extremists to have / create a reason to do something like what's going on in France. That being said what's going on is really sad and i hope the situation gets solved as soon as possible -- without any new victims. Because if you never stand up, you end up losing all liberty. To follow your analogy, no you're not going to tell the guy with a gun that he's an idiot. Now what if he has such a short temper that he'll shoot you not only if you call him an idiot, but if you disagree with him or disobey him? Then what if other people, seeing the success that one guy with his short temper and his gun have, try to do the same? You lose all liberty. That's why satire, even "stupid" (by that I mean basic and crude) satire is necessary. I don't agree. Why would you "lose all liberty"? I don't understand why there has to be so many unnecessary deaths because of some cartoon. Is the world better place now because it had to be said? Did it really have to be said? If you let some group silence an opinion because it offends them you've lost freedom of speech. People have and should have the right to say anything they want no matter who or how many it offends. If you let them squelch you you've let them win.
Feels like we are not probably on the same page.
It is obvious Charlie Hebdo did something to piss off a group of extremists -- hell even i would know in advance publishing something he did would piss them off. If you piss off a group like that sooner or later something like this will happen. Maybe it's not obvious to all people but that is true.
What i was trying to say is that while you are allowed to say what you think in a way you want you probably shouldn't always do so. That imo has nothing to do with neither freedom of speech nor "letting someone win". For me it's just common sense.
|
On January 10 2015 03:33 OtherWorld wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2015 03:24 raynpelikoneet wrote:On January 10 2015 03:20 OtherWorld wrote:On January 10 2015 03:16 raynpelikoneet wrote:On January 10 2015 02:55 kwizach wrote:On January 10 2015 01:56 farvacola wrote:
So, for a small change of pace, much of my social media is full of radicals and other folks fighting over exactly what kind of publication Charlie Hebdo is, with some arguing that its hypocritical and a front for conservatism and others saying that they are just really big fans of extremely biting satire. I was wondering if TL's French posters could give us their opinion on the magazine? I'm trying to get a sense for what it is the paper does, and I don't trust pretty much anyone who isn't "around" the magazine regularly. What I just replied to a friend who posted an article saying Charlie Hebdo was racist: The point that the article you linked to seems to completely miss is that Charlie Hebdo cartoons only represent racism and xenophobia to fight them and ridicule them - that's the entire point of satire. Their targets were notably racism, xenophobia, religious extremism and religious symbols, but they did NOT target religious people. Mocking religious symbols and institutions (such as the Pope, Jesus, Mahomet, etc.) is NOT racist or xenophobic. Attacking religious people (muslims, christians, jews, etc.) is, and that is NOT what Charlie Hebdo was doing. All of the covers cited in the article mock religious symbols, religious extremists (see the one where Mahomet is weeping, the "cons" he refers to are the extremists, as highlighted in the text next to the picture, not the muslims in general), or mock right-wing xenophobic fantasies about the Other (the drawing on the final "welfare queens" cover does NOT attack muslim women asking for welfare but the exact opposite: it is there to ridicule right-wing fantasies about immigrants profiting from welfare). The message of the cartoons is the OPPOSITE of racist, it is antiracist and works through satire, irony and ridicule. The author of your article completely misunderstands this and reads them at face value (au premier degré), which is not at all how they work. Also, contrary to what is asserted in the article, Charlie Hebdo did not only target Islam and islamic extremists but all religions and religious extremism in all forms. Regarding this: What i have always wondered is why do people "give ammunition" to groups like islamic and other extremists? Like i get the freedom of speech and yadda yadda everything but there are people who do not believe in freedom of speech. If there is a guy with a short temper and a gun ready to use it, you do not go call him an idiot (not even through satire) because you can get shot. That's just.. plain stupid. Why do people do this? Like, what's the point? I have never understood it because it just begs extremists to have / create a reason to do something like what's going on in France. That being said what's going on is really sad and i hope the situation gets solved as soon as possible -- without any new victims. Because if you never stand up, you end up losing all liberty. To follow your analogy, no you're not going to tell the guy with a gun that he's an idiot. Now what if he has such a short temper that he'll shoot you not only if you call him an idiot, but if you disagree with him or disobey him? Then what if other people, seeing the success that one guy with his short temper and his gun have, try to do the same? You lose all liberty. That's why satire, even "stupid" (by that I mean basic and crude) satire is necessary. I don't agree. Why would you "lose all liberty"? I don't understand why there has to be so many unnecessary deaths because of some cartoon. Is the world better place now because it had to be said? Did it really have to be said? Well, let's consider that these terrorists, by targeting Charlie Hebdo, wanted to punish them for making fun of their religion. That means that they refuse to Charlie Hebdo the right to make fun of their religion. As far as I know, making fun of something belongs to the "freedom of speech" category. So if you accept not to express yourself because you fear the consequences, then what will happen when these terrorist won't just tell you "We don't want you to make fun of our religion", but things like "We want you to follow our religion", and so on? By your reasoning, because you'll be afraid of being shot, you'll accept what they demand from you. And what then, when they'll tell you "We want you to kill X because he did bad?"? etc etc No the world is not a better place because 17+ people died, obviously. But as one of Charlie's cartoonist said himself, "I prefer to die stood up than to live sat down."
That's exactly my point!! Of course this happens because they do not believe in freedom of speech!!
What happens after is not relevant and people's reactions (defending the freedom of speech and saying stuff pointed out for example in this thread) are obviously correct. What interests me is why people do things that provoke other people to START this -- as i stated in my first post.
|
You have a point - perhaps, if Charlie Hebdo had not offended the religion of the suspects, then they would not have been a target for violence.
But here's the thing - if this cartoon provoked the suspects, it is entirely the fault of the suspects for allowing an expression of free speech to cause them to commit crimes. If you are saying that it's the fault of Charlie Hebdo for provoking them, you are essentially blaming the victim. Because the bottom line is that no one in their right mind should let an expression of free speech motivate them to commit murder.
|
On January 10 2015 03:45 raynpelikoneet wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2015 03:33 OtherWorld wrote:On January 10 2015 03:24 raynpelikoneet wrote:On January 10 2015 03:20 OtherWorld wrote:On January 10 2015 03:16 raynpelikoneet wrote:On January 10 2015 02:55 kwizach wrote:On January 10 2015 01:56 farvacola wrote:
So, for a small change of pace, much of my social media is full of radicals and other folks fighting over exactly what kind of publication Charlie Hebdo is, with some arguing that its hypocritical and a front for conservatism and others saying that they are just really big fans of extremely biting satire. I was wondering if TL's French posters could give us their opinion on the magazine? I'm trying to get a sense for what it is the paper does, and I don't trust pretty much anyone who isn't "around" the magazine regularly. What I just replied to a friend who posted an article saying Charlie Hebdo was racist: The point that the article you linked to seems to completely miss is that Charlie Hebdo cartoons only represent racism and xenophobia to fight them and ridicule them - that's the entire point of satire. Their targets were notably racism, xenophobia, religious extremism and religious symbols, but they did NOT target religious people. Mocking religious symbols and institutions (such as the Pope, Jesus, Mahomet, etc.) is NOT racist or xenophobic. Attacking religious people (muslims, christians, jews, etc.) is, and that is NOT what Charlie Hebdo was doing. All of the covers cited in the article mock religious symbols, religious extremists (see the one where Mahomet is weeping, the "cons" he refers to are the extremists, as highlighted in the text next to the picture, not the muslims in general), or mock right-wing xenophobic fantasies about the Other (the drawing on the final "welfare queens" cover does NOT attack muslim women asking for welfare but the exact opposite: it is there to ridicule right-wing fantasies about immigrants profiting from welfare). The message of the cartoons is the OPPOSITE of racist, it is antiracist and works through satire, irony and ridicule. The author of your article completely misunderstands this and reads them at face value (au premier degré), which is not at all how they work. Also, contrary to what is asserted in the article, Charlie Hebdo did not only target Islam and islamic extremists but all religions and religious extremism in all forms. Regarding this: What i have always wondered is why do people "give ammunition" to groups like islamic and other extremists? Like i get the freedom of speech and yadda yadda everything but there are people who do not believe in freedom of speech. If there is a guy with a short temper and a gun ready to use it, you do not go call him an idiot (not even through satire) because you can get shot. That's just.. plain stupid. Why do people do this? Like, what's the point? I have never understood it because it just begs extremists to have / create a reason to do something like what's going on in France. That being said what's going on is really sad and i hope the situation gets solved as soon as possible -- without any new victims. Because if you never stand up, you end up losing all liberty. To follow your analogy, no you're not going to tell the guy with a gun that he's an idiot. Now what if he has such a short temper that he'll shoot you not only if you call him an idiot, but if you disagree with him or disobey him? Then what if other people, seeing the success that one guy with his short temper and his gun have, try to do the same? You lose all liberty. That's why satire, even "stupid" (by that I mean basic and crude) satire is necessary. I don't agree. Why would you "lose all liberty"? I don't understand why there has to be so many unnecessary deaths because of some cartoon. Is the world better place now because it had to be said? Did it really have to be said? Well, let's consider that these terrorists, by targeting Charlie Hebdo, wanted to punish them for making fun of their religion. That means that they refuse to Charlie Hebdo the right to make fun of their religion. As far as I know, making fun of something belongs to the "freedom of speech" category. So if you accept not to express yourself because you fear the consequences, then what will happen when these terrorist won't just tell you "We don't want you to make fun of our religion", but things like "We want you to follow our religion", and so on? By your reasoning, because you'll be afraid of being shot, you'll accept what they demand from you. And what then, when they'll tell you "We want you to kill X because he did bad?"? etc etc No the world is not a better place because 17+ people died, obviously. But as one of Charlie's cartoonist said himself, "I prefer to die stood up than to live sat down." That's exactly my point!! Of course this happens because they do not believe in freedom of speech!! What happens after is not relevant and people's reactions (defending the freedom of speech and saying stuff pointed out for example in this thread) are obviously correct. What interests me is why people do things that provoke other people to START this -- as i stated in my first post.
Well that's in the second half of my post. At first what provokes them is things like what Charlie Hebdo did. But if no one does what Charlie does then what provokes them is no longer things like that, but things like disagreeing with them or not obeying to them.
I mean it's not so much people who do things that provoke other people, it's more along the lines of people being provoked by things did by other people. At least that's how I see it.
|
On January 10 2015 03:41 raynpelikoneet wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2015 03:27 OuchyDathurts wrote:On January 10 2015 03:24 raynpelikoneet wrote:On January 10 2015 03:20 OtherWorld wrote:On January 10 2015 03:16 raynpelikoneet wrote:On January 10 2015 02:55 kwizach wrote:On January 10 2015 01:56 farvacola wrote:
So, for a small change of pace, much of my social media is full of radicals and other folks fighting over exactly what kind of publication Charlie Hebdo is, with some arguing that its hypocritical and a front for conservatism and others saying that they are just really big fans of extremely biting satire. I was wondering if TL's French posters could give us their opinion on the magazine? I'm trying to get a sense for what it is the paper does, and I don't trust pretty much anyone who isn't "around" the magazine regularly. What I just replied to a friend who posted an article saying Charlie Hebdo was racist: The point that the article you linked to seems to completely miss is that Charlie Hebdo cartoons only represent racism and xenophobia to fight them and ridicule them - that's the entire point of satire. Their targets were notably racism, xenophobia, religious extremism and religious symbols, but they did NOT target religious people. Mocking religious symbols and institutions (such as the Pope, Jesus, Mahomet, etc.) is NOT racist or xenophobic. Attacking religious people (muslims, christians, jews, etc.) is, and that is NOT what Charlie Hebdo was doing. All of the covers cited in the article mock religious symbols, religious extremists (see the one where Mahomet is weeping, the "cons" he refers to are the extremists, as highlighted in the text next to the picture, not the muslims in general), or mock right-wing xenophobic fantasies about the Other (the drawing on the final "welfare queens" cover does NOT attack muslim women asking for welfare but the exact opposite: it is there to ridicule right-wing fantasies about immigrants profiting from welfare). The message of the cartoons is the OPPOSITE of racist, it is antiracist and works through satire, irony and ridicule. The author of your article completely misunderstands this and reads them at face value (au premier degré), which is not at all how they work. Also, contrary to what is asserted in the article, Charlie Hebdo did not only target Islam and islamic extremists but all religions and religious extremism in all forms. Regarding this: What i have always wondered is why do people "give ammunition" to groups like islamic and other extremists? Like i get the freedom of speech and yadda yadda everything but there are people who do not believe in freedom of speech. If there is a guy with a short temper and a gun ready to use it, you do not go call him an idiot (not even through satire) because you can get shot. That's just.. plain stupid. Why do people do this? Like, what's the point? I have never understood it because it just begs extremists to have / create a reason to do something like what's going on in France. That being said what's going on is really sad and i hope the situation gets solved as soon as possible -- without any new victims. Because if you never stand up, you end up losing all liberty. To follow your analogy, no you're not going to tell the guy with a gun that he's an idiot. Now what if he has such a short temper that he'll shoot you not only if you call him an idiot, but if you disagree with him or disobey him? Then what if other people, seeing the success that one guy with his short temper and his gun have, try to do the same? You lose all liberty. That's why satire, even "stupid" (by that I mean basic and crude) satire is necessary. I don't agree. Why would you "lose all liberty"? I don't understand why there has to be so many unnecessary deaths because of some cartoon. Is the world better place now because it had to be said? Did it really have to be said? If you let some group silence an opinion because it offends them you've lost freedom of speech. People have and should have the right to say anything they want no matter who or how many it offends. If you let them squelch you you've let them win. Feels like we are not probably on the same page. It is obvious Charlie Hebdo did something to piss off a group of extremists -- hell even i would know in advance publishing something he did would piss them off. If you piss off a group like that sooner or later something like this will happen. Maybe it's not obvious to all people but that is true. What i was trying to say is that while you are allowed to say what you think in a way you want you probably shouldn't always do so. That imo has nothing to do with neither freedom of speech nor "letting someone win". For me it's just common sense.
Its going to piss them off....so what? It has everything to do with freedom of speech. You're letting someone shut you up because they don't like what you're saying. That is the definition of freedom of speech. That freedom is the most important right people have. You are saying we should let terrorists, people who seek to push people around by fear, let us be pushed around by fear. That is definitionally letting them win. You are caving into their fear tactics. If you can't see that I can't help you.
Lets take a look at all the freedom people have lost in the US since 9/11 because of fear. People were terrified and the patriot act went through. Now we've got warrantless wiretapping, the TSA, the NSA spying on everyone in the world, etc. All because people were so scared they were willing to actively throw their rights away because of fear. If you ask me we let the terrorists win. Caving in on freedom of speech is where you lose everything. Without being free to speak your mind, about ANYTHING you like, for good or evil, you have nothing.
|
On January 10 2015 03:45 raynpelikoneet wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2015 03:33 OtherWorld wrote:On January 10 2015 03:24 raynpelikoneet wrote:On January 10 2015 03:20 OtherWorld wrote:On January 10 2015 03:16 raynpelikoneet wrote:On January 10 2015 02:55 kwizach wrote:On January 10 2015 01:56 farvacola wrote:
So, for a small change of pace, much of my social media is full of radicals and other folks fighting over exactly what kind of publication Charlie Hebdo is, with some arguing that its hypocritical and a front for conservatism and others saying that they are just really big fans of extremely biting satire. I was wondering if TL's French posters could give us their opinion on the magazine? I'm trying to get a sense for what it is the paper does, and I don't trust pretty much anyone who isn't "around" the magazine regularly. What I just replied to a friend who posted an article saying Charlie Hebdo was racist: The point that the article you linked to seems to completely miss is that Charlie Hebdo cartoons only represent racism and xenophobia to fight them and ridicule them - that's the entire point of satire. Their targets were notably racism, xenophobia, religious extremism and religious symbols, but they did NOT target religious people. Mocking religious symbols and institutions (such as the Pope, Jesus, Mahomet, etc.) is NOT racist or xenophobic. Attacking religious people (muslims, christians, jews, etc.) is, and that is NOT what Charlie Hebdo was doing. All of the covers cited in the article mock religious symbols, religious extremists (see the one where Mahomet is weeping, the "cons" he refers to are the extremists, as highlighted in the text next to the picture, not the muslims in general), or mock right-wing xenophobic fantasies about the Other (the drawing on the final "welfare queens" cover does NOT attack muslim women asking for welfare but the exact opposite: it is there to ridicule right-wing fantasies about immigrants profiting from welfare). The message of the cartoons is the OPPOSITE of racist, it is antiracist and works through satire, irony and ridicule. The author of your article completely misunderstands this and reads them at face value (au premier degré), which is not at all how they work. Also, contrary to what is asserted in the article, Charlie Hebdo did not only target Islam and islamic extremists but all religions and religious extremism in all forms. Regarding this: What i have always wondered is why do people "give ammunition" to groups like islamic and other extremists? Like i get the freedom of speech and yadda yadda everything but there are people who do not believe in freedom of speech. If there is a guy with a short temper and a gun ready to use it, you do not go call him an idiot (not even through satire) because you can get shot. That's just.. plain stupid. Why do people do this? Like, what's the point? I have never understood it because it just begs extremists to have / create a reason to do something like what's going on in France. That being said what's going on is really sad and i hope the situation gets solved as soon as possible -- without any new victims. Because if you never stand up, you end up losing all liberty. To follow your analogy, no you're not going to tell the guy with a gun that he's an idiot. Now what if he has such a short temper that he'll shoot you not only if you call him an idiot, but if you disagree with him or disobey him? Then what if other people, seeing the success that one guy with his short temper and his gun have, try to do the same? You lose all liberty. That's why satire, even "stupid" (by that I mean basic and crude) satire is necessary. I don't agree. Why would you "lose all liberty"? I don't understand why there has to be so many unnecessary deaths because of some cartoon. Is the world better place now because it had to be said? Did it really have to be said? Well, let's consider that these terrorists, by targeting Charlie Hebdo, wanted to punish them for making fun of their religion. That means that they refuse to Charlie Hebdo the right to make fun of their religion. As far as I know, making fun of something belongs to the "freedom of speech" category. So if you accept not to express yourself because you fear the consequences, then what will happen when these terrorist won't just tell you "We don't want you to make fun of our religion", but things like "We want you to follow our religion", and so on? By your reasoning, because you'll be afraid of being shot, you'll accept what they demand from you. And what then, when they'll tell you "We want you to kill X because he did bad?"? etc etc No the world is not a better place because 17+ people died, obviously. But as one of Charlie's cartoonist said himself, "I prefer to die stood up than to live sat down." That's exactly my point!! Of course this happens because they do not believe in freedom of speech!! What happens after is not relevant and people's reactions (defending the freedom of speech and saying stuff pointed out for example in this thread) are obviously correct. What interests me is why people do things that provoke other people to START this -- as i stated in my first post.
No. The ones starting this are Al Qaeda and ISIS, by invading countries, killing everyone even their brethren, enslaving people, brainwashing others, making little girls sex slaves if they are "without a god".
Muslims even say they don't follow the same religion. What Charlie did and will still do is a kind of passive aggressive resistance. It hurt the extremists in what they hold most dear : the aura of fear they have. Making people laugh about them and their twisted beliefs will make people less afraid of them, and weaken their power. That's why Charb was on a most wanted list. The point of dictators and extremists is that they do not accept criticism, be it constructive, true, or just making fools of them.
|
On January 10 2015 03:49 Warlock40 wrote:
You have a point - perhaps, if Charlie Hebdo had not offended the religion of the suspects, then they would not have been a target for violence.
But here's the thing - if this cartoon provoked the suspects, it is entirely the fault of the suspects for allowing an expression of free speech to cause them to commit crimes. If you are saying that it's the fault of Charlie Hebdo for provoking them, you are essentially blaming the victim. Because the bottom line is that no one in their right mind should let an expression of free speech motivate them to commit murder.
I am not saying it's Charlie Hebdo's fault -- obviously.
I am saying i don't understand why do people have to provoke people who think differently about things. Is it "just because you can"? It is a different thing to respond to something than it is to obviously provoke someone -- which this falls into imo.
|
People get offended everyday. In France, there's a state and legal ways to attack someone who offended you - which some did against Charlie Hebdo after the caricature of Mohammed. But it is also important to permit Charlie to say anything they like, because you will never be able to find a good borders.
Letting the state define what is okay and what is not okay in regard to speech is dangerous. Sooner than later you end up criminalizing any joke on any figure of power, like it's the case in many countries in the world.
|
On January 10 2015 03:52 raynpelikoneet wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2015 03:49 Warlock40 wrote:
You have a point - perhaps, if Charlie Hebdo had not offended the religion of the suspects, then they would not have been a target for violence.
But here's the thing - if this cartoon provoked the suspects, it is entirely the fault of the suspects for allowing an expression of free speech to cause them to commit crimes. If you are saying that it's the fault of Charlie Hebdo for provoking them, you are essentially blaming the victim. Because the bottom line is that no one in their right mind should let an expression of free speech motivate them to commit murder. I am not saying it's Charlie Hebdo's fault -- obviously. I am saying i don't understand why do people have to provoke people who think differently about things. Is it "just because you can"? It is a different thing to respond to something than it is to obviously provoke someone -- which this falls into imo.
I would put it this way - most satirists react to something to generate their material. They don't typically just create satirical material unless it was topically relevant. So they generate these provoking material because they themselves have been "offended" by the subject of their material.
As an example, Jon Stewart is a satirist in New York City. He satirized the the New York Police Department for being disrespectful during a funeral. His satire was a response to finding the actions of some police officers to be offensive. If nothing happened during that funeral, he would not have made fun of the NYPD in that way. So perhaps you should look at the satire and wonder what inspired them?
|
The most revulsing thing to me is the hypocrisy of the French politicians and PC media.
Everytime there's an Islamic terrorist attack, they refer to the perpetrators as "monsters" or "terrorists" to deprive them from their ISLAMIC ideology.
The truth is, these people motivations are based on a particular, but extremly well-spread and well-documented, understanding of Islam.
So absolute respect for the FN (nationalist, economically at the left, societally at the right) politicians who dare to call these bastards by their names : Islamic terrorists.
Not giving a fuck about being boycotted by the PC media, or losing the muslim votes.
Truth against professional political liers.
|
On January 10 2015 03:41 raynpelikoneet wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2015 03:27 OuchyDathurts wrote:On January 10 2015 03:24 raynpelikoneet wrote:On January 10 2015 03:20 OtherWorld wrote:On January 10 2015 03:16 raynpelikoneet wrote:On January 10 2015 02:55 kwizach wrote:On January 10 2015 01:56 farvacola wrote:
So, for a small change of pace, much of my social media is full of radicals and other folks fighting over exactly what kind of publication Charlie Hebdo is, with some arguing that its hypocritical and a front for conservatism and others saying that they are just really big fans of extremely biting satire. I was wondering if TL's French posters could give us their opinion on the magazine? I'm trying to get a sense for what it is the paper does, and I don't trust pretty much anyone who isn't "around" the magazine regularly. What I just replied to a friend who posted an article saying Charlie Hebdo was racist: The point that the article you linked to seems to completely miss is that Charlie Hebdo cartoons only represent racism and xenophobia to fight them and ridicule them - that's the entire point of satire. Their targets were notably racism, xenophobia, religious extremism and religious symbols, but they did NOT target religious people. Mocking religious symbols and institutions (such as the Pope, Jesus, Mahomet, etc.) is NOT racist or xenophobic. Attacking religious people (muslims, christians, jews, etc.) is, and that is NOT what Charlie Hebdo was doing. All of the covers cited in the article mock religious symbols, religious extremists (see the one where Mahomet is weeping, the "cons" he refers to are the extremists, as highlighted in the text next to the picture, not the muslims in general), or mock right-wing xenophobic fantasies about the Other (the drawing on the final "welfare queens" cover does NOT attack muslim women asking for welfare but the exact opposite: it is there to ridicule right-wing fantasies about immigrants profiting from welfare). The message of the cartoons is the OPPOSITE of racist, it is antiracist and works through satire, irony and ridicule. The author of your article completely misunderstands this and reads them at face value (au premier degré), which is not at all how they work. Also, contrary to what is asserted in the article, Charlie Hebdo did not only target Islam and islamic extremists but all religions and religious extremism in all forms. Regarding this: What i have always wondered is why do people "give ammunition" to groups like islamic and other extremists? Like i get the freedom of speech and yadda yadda everything but there are people who do not believe in freedom of speech. If there is a guy with a short temper and a gun ready to use it, you do not go call him an idiot (not even through satire) because you can get shot. That's just.. plain stupid. Why do people do this? Like, what's the point? I have never understood it because it just begs extremists to have / create a reason to do something like what's going on in France. That being said what's going on is really sad and i hope the situation gets solved as soon as possible -- without any new victims. Because if you never stand up, you end up losing all liberty. To follow your analogy, no you're not going to tell the guy with a gun that he's an idiot. Now what if he has such a short temper that he'll shoot you not only if you call him an idiot, but if you disagree with him or disobey him? Then what if other people, seeing the success that one guy with his short temper and his gun have, try to do the same? You lose all liberty. That's why satire, even "stupid" (by that I mean basic and crude) satire is necessary. I don't agree. Why would you "lose all liberty"? I don't understand why there has to be so many unnecessary deaths because of some cartoon. Is the world better place now because it had to be said? Did it really have to be said? If you let some group silence an opinion because it offends them you've lost freedom of speech. People have and should have the right to say anything they want no matter who or how many it offends. If you let them squelch you you've let them win. Feels like we are not probably on the same page. It is obvious Charlie Hebdo did something to piss off a group of extremists -- hell even i would know in advance publishing something he did would piss them off. If you piss off a group like that sooner or later something like this will happen. Maybe it's not obvious to all people but that is true. What i was trying to say is that while you are allowed to say what you think in a way you want you probably shouldn't always do so. That imo has nothing to do with neither freedom of speech nor "letting someone win". For me it's just common sense.
It's giving in to fear and terror. The vast majority would do what you do. The Charlie guys didn't, being fully aware of the risks.
The point is that you SHOULD be able to do what Charlie Hebdo does without getting threatend, firebombed and murdered*. If nobody does for fear of retaliation you have effectively given up that freedom and the terrorists have achieved their goal.
*Note that I don't say: without opposition. People who are offended by Charlie Hebdo's actions have as much right as Charlie Hebdo to express their opinions in public.
|
Russian Federation4447 Posts
On January 10 2015 03:52 raynpelikoneet wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2015 03:49 Warlock40 wrote:
You have a point - perhaps, if Charlie Hebdo had not offended the religion of the suspects, then they would not have been a target for violence.
But here's the thing - if this cartoon provoked the suspects, it is entirely the fault of the suspects for allowing an expression of free speech to cause them to commit crimes. If you are saying that it's the fault of Charlie Hebdo for provoking them, you are essentially blaming the victim. Because the bottom line is that no one in their right mind should let an expression of free speech motivate them to commit murder. I am not saying it's Charlie Hebdo's fault -- obviously. I am saying i don't understand why do people have to provoke people who think differently about things. Is it "just because you can"? It is a different thing to respond to something than it is to obviously provoke someone -- which this falls into imo.
Just research the history of satire and all of its forms. Satire is meant to be offensive and provocative. Are you against satire?
|
François Hollande talking. He confirms 4 dead hostages during the Vincennes operation. Salutes the police forces for their operations. Calls for unity and solidarity. Says the hostage takers and extremists have nothing to do with Islam. Invites everyone to Sunday's march in Paris.
|
I am saying i don't understand why do people have to provoke people who think differently about things. Is it "just because you can"? It is a different thing to respond to something than it is to obviously provoke someone -- which this falls into imo.
There will always be people expressing opinions that will provoke others, no matter how benign those opinions are.
|
On January 10 2015 03:55 Tien wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2015 03:52 raynpelikoneet wrote:On January 10 2015 03:49 Warlock40 wrote:
You have a point - perhaps, if Charlie Hebdo had not offended the religion of the suspects, then they would not have been a target for violence.
But here's the thing - if this cartoon provoked the suspects, it is entirely the fault of the suspects for allowing an expression of free speech to cause them to commit crimes. If you are saying that it's the fault of Charlie Hebdo for provoking them, you are essentially blaming the victim. Because the bottom line is that no one in their right mind should let an expression of free speech motivate them to commit murder. I am not saying it's Charlie Hebdo's fault -- obviously. I am saying i don't understand why do people have to provoke people who think differently about things. Is it "just because you can"? It is a different thing to respond to something than it is to obviously provoke someone -- which this falls into imo. Just research the history of satire and all of its forms. Are you against satire?
I know very well what satire is. I am not against it.
Sad thing here is not all the people know what satire is and some people ARE against it.
|
On January 10 2015 03:54 SiroKO wrote:
The most revulsing thing to me is the hypocrisy of the French politicians and PC media.
Everytime there's an Islamic terrorist attack, they refer to the perpetrators as "monsters" or "terrorists" to deprive them from their ISLAMIC ideology.
The truth is, these people motivations are based on a particular, but extremly well-spread and well-documented, understanding of Islam.
So absolute respect for the FN (nationalist, economically at the left, societally at the right) politicians who dare to call these bastards by their names : Islamic terrorists.
Not giving a fuck about being boycotted by the PC media, or losing the muslim votes.
Truth against professional political liers.
Please provide evidences. There have been numerous demonstrations of Muslims in France today to desolidarize themselves from these terrorists.
edit : and on a side note the FN is not really boycotted by the medias lol
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
