|
|
On January 10 2015 07:37 silynxer wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2015 07:32 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 10 2015 07:14 silynxer wrote:On January 10 2015 06:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 10 2015 06:38 Squat wrote:On January 10 2015 05:03 mahrgell wrote:On January 10 2015 04:54 Squat wrote:On January 10 2015 04:06 raynpelikoneet wrote:On January 10 2015 04:00 Tien wrote:On January 10 2015 03:57 raynpelikoneet wrote:
[quote]
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. SNL is satire based on offending people. The Simpsons is satire. Drawings cartoons is satire. Satire is an expression of free speech. Drawing Muhammad is a right we ought to protect. Just because a book 1500 years ago said you are not allowed to draw doesn't mean we have to surrender our right to draw Muhammad so extremists aren't offended. My entire point is you don't need to protect the right to drawing Muhammad by drawing Muhammad if you know it's gonna sooner or later result in numerous people dying because of it. There are other ways to express freedom of speech. There is no right more crucial, more integral to a free society than the right to say what others do not wish to hear. The right to draw Muhammed should be protected more vigorously and ferociously than just about any other right. The moment we begin to second-guess ourselves about speaking our minds because we fear for our lives is the moment we lose the war. There is no room for compromise here. This is an all or nothing situation. The same logic is used by the extremists and some of their supporting organizations/countries and why they have no difficulty in finding more supporters. Congrats in the world of people trying to argue which way to live is the right one, and each one fighting to the extreme, to attack the other at every opportunity. This is an all or nothing situation, because each side thinks, that they are entirely right and the others are entirely wrong if they do not accept the own believes to 100% Yes this is an all or nothing situation. There is a very disturbing trend among young people on the political left today, where I still identify as a member, to take all the rights and liberties we enjoy for granted. The cliche that freedom isn't free is actually quite apt here. People fought and died for these rights. To defend them with any less than that is, in my view, contemptible. A post from one of my Muslim friends. I am not Charlie. I am Ahmed, the French Muslim police officer. Charlie ridiculed my religion and prophet and I died defending his right to do that. I will assume your friend is from the US. Making such a statement in the name of a deceased you know nothing about in regards to a satirical publication you most likely also know nothing about (and can only evaluate based on your cultural perceptions, I have been told french humor tends to be more crass) is in extremely poor taste. I've read elsewhere (French people please confirm) that Stéphane Charbonnier was about to publish a book about islamophobia before he was killed... As far as I know Charlie Hebdo also made plenty fun of christianity (and probably other religions as well), imagine making a similar statement in the name of a killed (for the purpose of this thought experiment) christian officer. You can still dislike the humor of Charlie Hebdo or find it tasteless (although you should let a French person translate the seemingly offensive covers and explain the context), of course. He is from Pakistan and lives/works in French Canada. I did meet him in school in the US though. He speaks at least 4 languages fluently and French is one of them. So, no your assumptions are not accurate. A Christian example is totally different. The attackers weren't Christian, and there is not a phobia of all Christians wanting to kill anyone who insults their prophet. It remains in poor taste even if he was French and understands the context perfectly. And by what WhiteDog said we can assume that the real, dead Ahmed would not approve of your friend.
How is "Je suis Ahmed" different from "Je suis Charlie"? It seems like a relevant reference to not-Voltaire's quote to me. Or do you find it tasteless because it implicitly criticises Charlie Hebdo, something that's "too soon" considering what just happened?
|
On January 10 2015 07:34 mahrgell wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2015 07:14 silynxer wrote:On January 10 2015 06:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 10 2015 06:38 Squat wrote:On January 10 2015 05:03 mahrgell wrote:On January 10 2015 04:54 Squat wrote:On January 10 2015 04:06 raynpelikoneet wrote:On January 10 2015 04:00 Tien wrote:On January 10 2015 03:57 raynpelikoneet wrote:On January 10 2015 03:55 Tien wrote:
[quote]
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. SNL is satire based on offending people. The Simpsons is satire. Drawings cartoons is satire. Satire is an expression of free speech. Drawing Muhammad is a right we ought to protect. Just because a book 1500 years ago said you are not allowed to draw doesn't mean we have to surrender our right to draw Muhammad so extremists aren't offended. My entire point is you don't need to protect the right to drawing Muhammad by drawing Muhammad if you know it's gonna sooner or later result in numerous people dying because of it. There are other ways to express freedom of speech. There is no right more crucial, more integral to a free society than the right to say what others do not wish to hear. The right to draw Muhammed should be protected more vigorously and ferociously than just about any other right. The moment we begin to second-guess ourselves about speaking our minds because we fear for our lives is the moment we lose the war. There is no room for compromise here. This is an all or nothing situation. The same logic is used by the extremists and some of their supporting organizations/countries and why they have no difficulty in finding more supporters. Congrats in the world of people trying to argue which way to live is the right one, and each one fighting to the extreme, to attack the other at every opportunity. This is an all or nothing situation, because each side thinks, that they are entirely right and the others are entirely wrong if they do not accept the own believes to 100% Yes this is an all or nothing situation. There is a very disturbing trend among young people on the political left today, where I still identify as a member, to take all the rights and liberties we enjoy for granted. The cliche that freedom isn't free is actually quite apt here. People fought and died for these rights. To defend them with any less than that is, in my view, contemptible. A post from one of my Muslim friends. I am not Charlie. I am Ahmed, the French Muslim police officer. Charlie ridiculed my religion and prophet and I died defending his right to do that. I will assume your friend is from the US. Making such a statement in the name of a deceased you know nothing about in regards to a satirical publication you most likely also know nothing about (and can only evaluate based on your cultural perceptions, I have been told french humor tends to be more crass) is in extremely poor taste. I've read elsewhere (French people please confirm) that Stéphane Charbonnier was about to publish a book about islamophobia before he was killed... As far as I know Charlie Hebdo also made plenty fun of christianity (and probably other religions as well), imagine making a similar statement in the name of a killed (for the purpose of this thought experiment) christian officer. You can still dislike the humor of Charlie Hebdo or find it tasteless (although you should let a French person translate the seemingly offensive covers and explain the context), of course. his "friend" is a copycat, that copied a tweet from some french whatever dude.... This tweet has going around a lot in the past few days, similar to "je suis charlie" e: and obv even greenhorizons did not notice, that it was just copied, but thought his friend is very brilliant...
Yeah all those Charlie's are just copycats too! amiright?
Or maybe I noticed and I just said how I saw it? Maybe because it is nice knowing personally a Muslim who is not the caricature painted of Muslims in places like this? How would I not know? He had like 20 friends who commented with "I am Ahmed?" The point is to say not every Muslim wants to "Kill the Infidels" or wants to kill anyone who insults their Prophet.
People can be offended, but that doesn't mean they hate the offender. People can be offended to varying degrees also. My friends say racist shit all the time but I don't hate them for it. I am pretty much the only reason they don't think every black person is a criminal.
|
Charlie isn't a person. It's both a collective and an idea I suppose. When people say they are "charlie", they are both paying respect to the dead, their ideas and what they lived for, and at the same time saying that they would defend the freedom of speech, whatever the costs. Again everybody can relate to this, muslims, jews, buddhists or sadomasochists.
Ahmed is one of the 12 french that died this day and who happen to be a muslim.
|
One shows solidarity with a satirical newspaper (Charlie refers to the name of the paper) and the other puts words in the mouth of a dead man that imply a moral stance with regards to the newspaper that he most likely did not share.
As soon as "Je suis Charlie" will be used by rightwing idiots to push some horrible agenda I would call that out as well (because from all I know that would run counter to what Charlie was/is about).
|
On January 10 2015 06:38 Squat wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2015 05:03 mahrgell wrote:On January 10 2015 04:54 Squat wrote:On January 10 2015 04:06 raynpelikoneet wrote:On January 10 2015 04:00 Tien wrote:On January 10 2015 03:57 raynpelikoneet wrote:On January 10 2015 03:55 Tien wrote: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. SNL is satire based on offending people. The Simpsons is satire. Drawings cartoons is satire. Satire is an expression of free speech. Drawing Muhammad is a right we ought to protect. Just because a book 1500 years ago said you are not allowed to draw doesn't mean we have to surrender our right to draw Muhammad so extremists aren't offended. My entire point is you don't need to protect the right to drawing Muhammad by drawing Muhammad if you know it's gonna sooner or later result in numerous people dying because of it. There are other ways to express freedom of speech. There is no right more crucial, more integral to a free society than the right to say what others do not wish to hear. The right to draw Muhammed should be protected more vigorously and ferociously than just about any other right. The moment we begin to second-guess ourselves about speaking our minds because we fear for our lives is the moment we lose the war. There is no room for compromise here. This is an all or nothing situation. The same logic is used by the extremists and some of their supporting organizations/countries and why they have no difficulty in finding more supporters. Congrats in the world of people trying to argue which way to live is the right one, and each one fighting to the extreme, to attack the other at every opportunity. This is an all or nothing situation, because each side thinks, that they are entirely right and the others are entirely wrong if they do not accept the own believes to 100% Yes this is an all or nothing situation. There is a very disturbing trend among young people on the political left today, where I still identify as a member, to take all the rights and liberties we enjoy for granted. The cliche that freedom isn't free is actually quite apt here. People fought and died for these rights. To defend them with any less than that is, in my view, contemptible.
What are you talking about here? So far only conservatives have suggested the abrogation of rights of citizens to prevent further terror.
|
While I get the point being made, I don't think you guys get how it's coming across.
You can feel however you want about it. I can agree simply making it "I am Ahmed" would be more appropriate, unfortunately people are so rampantly ignorant it wouldn't make sense to as many people. More people would probably see it as empathy with the attackers instead (at least in the US).
Maybe the appropriate compromise would be "I am Ahmed. The French Muslim cop executed on the street protecting Charlie"
|
Marine Le Pen, leader of the far right says she wants to offer to french a debate about death penalty.
|
Canada13389 Posts
On January 10 2015 07:55 silynxer wrote:
One shows solidarity with a satirical newspaper (Charlie refers to the name of the paper) and the other puts words in the mouth of a dead man that imply a moral stance with regards to the newspaper that he most likely did not share.
As soon as "Je suis Charlie" will be used by rightwing idiots to push some horrible agenda I would call that out as well (because from all I know that would run counter to what Charlie was/is about).
Well you could just as easily say "Je ne suis pas Charlie" which gets the same sentiment across.
I don't condone or support charlie Hebdo's publication. I support their right to publish, I believe that those who were shot died needlessly and senselessly, and I abhor the actions of the shooters responsible. I do not however support what charlie hebdo as a magazine publishes, but I do support their right to do so.
I think the people who died trying to protect the writers are the people who deserve the most respect of everyone. the writers shouldn't be on the tallest pedestal, because while some of the comics were satirical and on point, some were really at their core quite offensive. Not all, but some.
So its for me personally a tough thing to say and express. But I support the artists rights, not the art in that sense. I hope this makes sense?
I can understand how people can be offended and feel it is important to respect the beliefs of others and to present them in their best light. So while I believe in free speech, that belief wont overcome my other belief in respect for others and after really looking into some of what charlie hebdo is published, i can't stand by the publication enough to justify my purchase or general support of the paper itself. Though the people, and their right to say what they want, I do support.
|
On January 10 2015 08:08 GreenHorizons wrote:
While I get the point being made, I don't think you guys get how it's coming across.
You can feel however you want about it. I can agree simply making it "I am Ahmed" would be more appropriate, unfortunately people are so rampantly ignorant it wouldn't make sense to as many people. More people would probably see it as empathy with the attackers instead (at least in the US).
Maybe the appropriate compromise would be "I am Ahmed. The French Muslim cop executed on the street protecting Charlie"
"I am Ahmed" is sectarist. I'm not a muslim, why would I say I've been insulted by Charlie's caricature of Mohammed ?
That's my problem with this. We're not all muslim in France, why can't I related with Ahmed just because I didn't feel insulted ? And does the fact that Ahmed was muslim necessarily mean he was insulted by Charlie ? And is the fact that Ahmed was muslim is relevant to defining who is Ahmed ?
|
There was a lot of info in the press conference I hope there will be a written version:
- the one in Vincennes said he would kill all hostage if there is assault on the brothers
- it seems the brothers tried to get out (one was already injured the morning)
- the brothers had traps and one had a grenade on his body
- they had a RPG armed (M72 or something like that, I did not hear well)
- the GIGN used only non lethal grenades to stop them. After some time they started to have people injured and killed the brothers
- the one in Vincennes tried to trap the door with explosives but did not wire them
From one of the hostage: a woman tried to take a gun but was shot in the head in the market.
|
Charlie pointedly insulted all Muslims, not just extremists. And, all Christians, Jews, feminists, and plenty of other targets. I mean, maybe if you are none of those things you can't identify with him, but that sure covers a lot of people (many doubly).
|
On January 10 2015 08:12 Nitro68 wrote:
From one of the hostage: a woman tried to take a gun but was shot in the head in the market.
 Well, she tried
|
Canada13389 Posts
On January 10 2015 08:14 TheBloodyDwarf wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2015 08:12 Nitro68 wrote:
From one of the hostage: a woman tried to take a gun but was shot in the head in the market. Well, she tried
Really brave. I cant say I would have done the same.
|
On January 10 2015 08:14 TheBloodyDwarf wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2015 08:12 Nitro68 wrote:
From one of the hostage: a woman tried to take a gun but was shot in the head in the market. Well, she tried To me that's truly heroic. Foolish, but heroic.
I often dream about being in scenario's like that and then wake up to realise I'd probably shit my pants.
|
Russian Federation194 Posts
On January 10 2015 08:14 Yoav wrote:
Charlie pointedly insulted all Muslims, not just extremists. And, all Christians, Jews, feminists, and plenty of other targets. I mean, maybe if you are none of those things you can't identify with him, but that sure covers a lot of people (many doubly).
Some of what Muslims believe should be made fun of, along with Christians and the examples you used. Don't know why you would blame the victims for using their right to criticize idea's that are stupid.
|
On January 10 2015 08:14 Yoav wrote:
Charlie pointedly insulted all Muslims, not just extremists. And, all Christians, Jews, feminists, and plenty of other targets. I mean, maybe if you are none of those things you can't identify with him, but that sure covers a lot of people (many doubly).
Yeah and that even still fits the original text. I think it does exactly what Yoav suggests which is that it gives people who support Charlie's rights but not what they published an option to relate.
There is no doubt that Charlie ridiculed religions and Prophets or that the man died protecting those rights.
|
I live in Paris, and I got to say, this has been a couple of very scary days..
There has been and will be a lot of emotions, especially this Sunday to come. Giant "Republican Walk" are organised in every town of France. I expect gatherings like we've never seen.
|
Everybody could and might be insulted by Charlie Hebdo and they have the right to do so and they can use the courts, demonstrations, letters, open critizing what they can't do is kill them for it.
That's the problem and this type of events only benefits the extremists, the Islamic radicals and the european right-wing politicians.
The world sucks
|
On January 10 2015 08:44 shell wrote:
Everybody could and might be insulted by Charlie Hebdo and they have the right to do so and they can use the courts, demonstrations, letters, open critizing what they can't do is kill them for it.
That's the problem and this type of events only benefits the extremists, the Islamic radicals and the european right-wing politicians.
The world sucks
Actually, I think this could somehow not be beneficial to the right wing in France. This episode has brought people together. This is my hope at least.
|
On January 10 2015 08:23 ZeromuS wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2015 08:14 TheBloodyDwarf wrote:On January 10 2015 08:12 Nitro68 wrote:
From one of the hostage: a woman tried to take a gun but was shot in the head in the market. Well, she tried Really brave. I cant say I would have done the same.
Yeah. given that several others died, it doesnt seem like those who complied with the attackers faired much better. Props to her for going out with balls.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
