Charlie Hebdo and Italy earthquake drawing

[Kalis]

Je suis Charlie is a trendy politic, no different than the Ice Bucket Challenge. The "intent" behind such a message does nothing but underscore the cultural immaturity of those following it.

I am not convinced that standing up to terrorism is trendy.

I would not say the image referenced in this thread needs to be censored, but the previous images that incited the terrorist attacks definitely should have been censored.

No, it is perfectly acceptable to draw pictures of Mohammed. Or Jesus, or Buddha, or whoever.

There are certain drawings I don't like, but that does not mean people should be stopped from drawing them, I just choose not to give the people who would draw them my patronage.

Why is drawing a picture of Mohammed worthy of censorship by non-Muslims? If Muslims want to self censor and not draw Mohammed, then that is entirely their choice.

[Kalis]

Yet we were debating if you were supporting the "Je suis Charlie" movement, not if you hate terrorists. I hate terrorists too. But I did not support the Charlie movement. Why? Because I feel that, while they were victims of a crime, and they didn't deserve that, they are rather distasteful people at that magazine. For example, let's say I support full free speech. You could say that I should have supported Charlie movement because they support free speech, right? Oh, but wait, they only support free speech when it doesn't offend them! You see, when someone published an article that was interpreted as anti-semitism, the person who published it got sacked. In Charlie Hebdo this.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...kozy-jibe.html
http://anonhq.com/charlie-hebdo-fire...-judaism-2009/

So, overall. I am fully against terrorists. I think that those terrorists that went in and shot the people working for Charlie Hebdo were criminals and it's good they were punished for it. But I'm not Charlie. I never was and I never will. They are a hypocritic organization that has double standards, while yelling freedom of speech in relation to people dieing to bombs and making fun of Muhammed knowing it will anger tens of millions but then condemning someone when they make jokes of jews.
I think it's distasteful what they do, they are essentially making fun of the dead while the corpses are not yet cold... but only of the dead they don't care about. What they do is essentially hate speech. Through comics. And for that they should be banned. In my opinion.

I can understand why you would not agree that we should limit this free speech... but then I don't understand how you could support them when they themselves don't support free speech, and, unlike me, they also have double standards regarding jews versus the rest.

"Je suis Charlie" was about supporting the right to free speech, not an endorsement of the cartoonists at Charlie Hebdo.

You completely missed the point.

[Deleted]

Dark humor I guess.
This is Charlie hebdo. They survive because they shock people. That's their only way of existing.
Do we really need something that operates in this way in society?

[Deleted]

I would simply call that cultural immaturity at the least--but I would not call for that media's censorship.

See post #67 about the specific incident regarding Charlie Hebdo.

It doesn't matter if you think it's cultural immaturity or not, you've said any content that incites violence should be banned. Drawing Mohammed in a comical fashion saying something absurd or mocking Islam. If you say that should be banned, then you open yourself to ALL mockery of Islam being banned.

What's the acceptable way to mock or insult Islam, exactly?

[Kalis]

I love this. We act like we are championing the true issue: defending freedom of speech! Meanwhile an insurgent racism towards Muslims scours the western world. The trendiness of this politic makes my fucking head spin more than Trayvon Martin or Harambe.

I refuse my patronage to Charlie Hebdo by rallying around them. It's insane.

I come from a country that every year celebrates the foiling of a terrorist plot in 1605, we must be super trendy.

[Deleted]

Oh god...

We have courts because we need arbiters to uphold the spirit of the law, even with disregard to perfect phrasing. I'm not going to propose a legal draft for you on these forums. Give me a break.

I'll take that as "I don't really know what constitutes acceptable mockery of Islam vs. unacceptable mockery of Islam."

All I can conclude is that you go by the reaction of the Islamic world. So if there's riots, violence etc, you think it should be banned.

[Kalis]

I wonder how many people would call for more drones and bombs if Muslim publications were presenting drawings of the World Trade Center falling in a mocking manner.

Not that I think anyone should be blown up for a drawing, but we tend to be a bit hypocritical about this stuff. Especially since it's not like we've already been bombing them all for years now.

Hell, I wonder how the tune would change if the "Lasagna" picture were of stacked World Trade Center floors and dead Americans between them.

I don't know anyone that would call for droning people for cartoons, unless said as a joke.

[Kuntantee]

The lasagne part is rather creative.

[Kalis]

As an adult, I am able to separate issues from one another where I can properly evaluate each one when necessarily independent.

On the count of Charlie Hebdo publishing outrageously offensive imagery, I am outraged.
On the count of Charlie Hebdo suffering a terrorist attack, I am outraged.

One is clearly more outrageous than the other by an infinite magnitude.

[Deleted]

And I'll take this post as a complete and utter ignorance towards judicial governments.

Curiously, no-one has ever (in a western state that values free-speech) been arrested for depicting Muhammad, insulting Islam, mocking Islam etc. There's no precedent for what you want beyond implementing a blasphemy law.

[JohnBrown1917]

Yet we were debating if you were supporting the "Je suis Charlie" movement, not if you hate terrorists. I hate terrorists too. But I did not support the Charlie movement. Why? Because I feel that, while they were victims of a crime, and they didn't deserve that, they are rather distasteful people at that magazine. For example, let's say I support full free speech. You could say that I should have supported Charlie movement because they support free speech, right? Oh, but wait, they only support free speech when it doesn't offend them! You see, when someone published an article that was interpreted as anti-semitism, the person who published it got sacked. In Charlie Hebdo this.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...kozy-jibe.html
http://anonhq.com/charlie-hebdo-fire...-judaism-2009/

So, overall. I am fully against terrorists. I think that those terrorists that went in and shot the people working for Charlie Hebdo were criminals and it's good they were punished for it. But I'm not Charlie. I never was and I never will. They are a hypocritic organization that has double standards, while yelling freedom of speech in relation to people dieing to bombs and making fun of Muhammed knowing it will anger tens of millions but then condemning someone when they make jokes of jews.
I think it's distasteful what they do, they are essentially making fun of the dead while the corpses are not yet cold... but only of the dead they don't care about. What they do is essentially hate speech. Through comics. And for that they should be banned. In my opinion.

I can understand why you would not agree that we should limit this free speech... but then I don't understand how you could support them when they themselves don't support free speech, and, unlike me, they also have double standards regarding jews versus the rest.

Might as well ban Reddit and all of 4chan then, because some people can't handle dark humour.
Just ignore it.

- - - Updated - - -

It's not even mockery--it's just like the image in this thread: purely scandal for the sake of scandal. Who do you think the intended audience was for those images? It was a purely racist motivation.

So drawings of Mohamed should be banned? Are you sure you're not a hardline islamist yourslf?

[JohnBrown1917]

Dark humor I guess.
This is Charlie hebdo. They survive because they shock people. That's their only way of existing.
Do we really need something that operates in this way in society?

Need? No
Ban them? No.

[Deleted]

Yeah, there's no laws against racism.

Insulting, mocking, parodying, depicting, satirising Islam is not racist.

[JohnBrown1917]

Yeah, there's no laws against racism.

Drawing Mohammed is not racist, so we do indeed not have a law against it.

[JohnBrown1917]

I couldn't possibly have made that sentence any briefer, and you still strawmanned the fuck out of it.

So for what exact drawings should charlie be banned then? Because you did reference their Mohamed drawings.

- - - Updated - - -

Who is the intended audience for imagery with no meaningful dialogue and simply depicts an entire culture in a degrading, unnecessarily offensive manner?

The intended audience. In France.

People who like dark humour?

Should reddit and 4chan also be banned?
Other sites that post dark humour?



The audience means jack shit.

[Kalis]

I will grant you this point (although I would not say infinite), and I apologize for my zeal and candor regarding the issue, but I typically take a stronger stand when one side of an issue is completely silenced while the other overwhelmingly magnified.

Murdering someone is infintely worse than being offensive. There is no comparison between the two.

Charlie Hebdo's imagery is, simply put, not to be taken lightly either. I find Je suis Charlie to be an unwitting endorsement to the Muslim world that we are championing it.

If they don't like it, then they can ignore it, nobody is stopping them from not endorsing Charlie Hebdo.

There are many Muslims who want the same lives as us: to just go to work each day and enjoy a family. So they fight to get into our countries to be free to do that and find that they are despised and hated when they get here. Charlie Hebdo has helped foster that environment, even if ever so slightly. We really need a hashtag for that.

And if they come to the West, then prepare to have the piss taken out of them, just like everyone else has the piss taken out of them. Muslims are not deserving of special treatment.

[Deleted]

Who is the intended audience for imagery with no meaningful dialogue and simply depicts an entire culture in a degrading, unnecessarily offensive manner?

The intended audience. In France.

French people....?

I'm not sure what your point here is. Are you saying that if your audience interprets in a specific way then it becomes how they interpreted it?

Also, I like how you play loose with terms. You speak of "no meaningful dialogue". Are you saying all mockery, satire, parody, insult towards a topic /must/ include a certain amount of dialogue? You speak of "unnecessarily offensive". Is that a legal term? What is the valid distinction between "offensive" and "unnecessarily offensive"?

[JohnBrown1917]

What do you gain by quoting every single one of my posts with the same strawman? One is sufficient.

You have yet to explain how making jokes about Islam is against any current laws. And you clearly have no idea what a strawman is.
Drawing mohhamed is inciment for hardline muslims to attack you. The only kind of incident to violence that is banned is actually calling for violence.


But thanks anyway, feels good to argue against the lef-wing crazies for once, got sick of the far rigth crazies here, almost made we worry I was going to far to the left.
So once again, thanks!

- - - Updated - - -

Well, I gave it my best shot, with the most promising poster in the thread. I think I'll just conclude it there. Happy Saturday.

In other words, you have no arguments besides wanting stuff banned because it offends people.

[Shakadam]

Has anyone ever lied about you? Has anyone called you names (swears)? Did you ever get mad? Then you've defeated your own point.
How would you feel if someone started laughing at someone you love's funeral of the fact that they died or of how they died? How would you feel if someone lied about you commiting fraud? How would you feel if someone yelled fire in a theater when you're watching a movie and the movie would be stopped? Angry? So would I.

What does any of that have to do with what I wrote?

By that analogy; it would be like me calling you a dick, and someone else getting offended by that and proceeding to censor and demonize me for calling you a dick.

[Deleted]

Actually yeah, it's not that legally invalid. "I know it when I see it" is not terribly uncommon.

I don't see how the terms are loose. If there is a real message, a real criticism, then it has meaningful dialogue.

So is that something you want enacted into law? All mockery/insult/parody/satire towards a topic must have "meaningful dialogue"?