General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsLet's see how intellectually honest the defenders of Charlie Hebdo are.
A hypothetical (although certainly possible)
A racist, right wing rag called "Nate Forrest" is in existence. Named after Nathan Bedford Forrest, the founder of the KKK.
Nate Forrest is notorious for racist cartoons on its cover. Imagine the worst you can imagine.... Nate Forrest has it. Portraying African Americans, Hispanics, Asians, and whoever else in the worst possible light, all on the cover, week after week.
After some time, someone decides to take action. Not justified of course (no one is defending mass slaughter), but takes action and perpetrates an unspeakable crime at the editorial offices of Nate Forrest.
The next week, Nate Forrest releases another issue, doubling down on their vulgarity. Based on sympathy from the events of the previous week, the newspaper has a record run, and sells out all over the world.
Does Nate Forrest have the right to publish? Absolutely? But how many of those DU'ers who are snarling "damn right, i'd put those cartoons on the front page of every paper in the world" would be saying the same thing in this instance?
Charlie Hebdo has a right to do what they are doing. And they are wrong. And I won't defend them.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
DonCoquixote
(13,959 posts)between hating a cartoon and sending people in with machine guns to kill people.
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)See we have free will and freedom of expression isn't that wonderful?!
I defend your right to not defend them.
I also defend their right to deface religion.
tabasco
(22,974 posts)
Dreamer Tatum
(10,996 posts)Complete and total fail.
Hassin Bin Sober
(27,461 posts)Almost made up for by the funny pic.
cilla4progress
(26,525 posts)I am a lover of all animals, especially in the equus family. This is not only cruel - that animal is no doubt in pain and afraid - but very far from funny.
See how this works? We're all offended by something: Islam (CH), satire of Islam (terrorists), etc. etc.
DemocratSinceBirth
(101,847 posts)Because I'm civilized.
samsingh
(18,426 posts)
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)Religion is an idea—a faith-based idea lacking any evidence—or a set of ideas to which one willingly adheres. Race can't be changed; religion can. All you have to do is change your mind. Think for yourself and you can be free from religion.
Secondly, it's dumb.
Not intellectually honest? Pppppppppppppppppppppppppppsssssssssssssshhhh, look in the mirror.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)You are on fire in these threads.
But with the cans, not so much!
zappaman
(20,627 posts)
philosslayer
(3,076 posts)Mocking religion is okay
Mocking race is NOT okay
Of course, your argument has a major hole. What about mocking Jews? Because Judaism is a religion AND a race.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)Religion is an ideology. Like Republicanism. They can have bad ideas that are worthy of mockery.
Jews mock Judaism all the time, incidentally (as do non-Jews, as well they should - remember that thread about an orthodox man refusing to sit down on a plane next to a woman?).
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)
randys1
(16,286 posts)I supported the ACLU defending the protest march in Skokie by the Nazi Party...
I would defend the right of "Nate Forrest" to producer their filth, you betcha.
This question from you says way more about you than the topic.
msongs
(73,752 posts)
BainsBane
(57,757 posts)or the history of European social science on race, which developed to denounce Jews as a separate and inferior race, at the same time such ideas were developing about peoples of African descent.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Fuck that.
sibelian
(7,804 posts)Get back to us.
This has become pitiful. People are dead, and not over "racism", but over a religous edict that had nothing to do with them.
HappyMe
(20,277 posts)for the people to publish their nasty racist cartoons.
If you defend complete freedom of speech, nothing is off of the table. Religion, women, men, race, world leaders, laws...it's all fair game.
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)I would not be "snarling "damn right, i'd put those cartoons on the front page of every paper in the world"
JimDandy
(7,318 posts)Non-analogous comparisons are such a waste of time.
Boreal
(725 posts)I don't agree. I can agree that religion and race, for the most part, are not analogous, but the question of protecting the freedom to attack, lampoon, satirize, or just plain dis is a relevant one.
arcane1
(38,613 posts)PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)I'm not familiar with the mind of the OP so don't know. The question posed is a valid one, imo, no matter how much people may not like it.
I would never have spent a dime on Charlie Hebdo, nor would I on the fictional "Nate Forrest", but I would defend both of their rights to be as offensive as they feel compelled to be because.
goldent
(1,582 posts)This is true, but I don't see how they are not analogous when it comes to mockery. Mockery of either can be highly offensive to people .
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)When I walk around in public unescorted by a man, many Muslims are highly offended.
Fuck em.
cilla4progress
(26,525 posts)equate the acts of terrorists with an entire religion.
So there.
ND-Dem
(4,571 posts)their religion is ok. or why anyone should be expected to change their religion so as not to be mocked or harassed.
they said the same thing in the Spanish inquisition I think: "all you have to do is convert!"
goldent
(1,582 posts)compared to mocking race, gender, etc.
ND-Dem
(4,571 posts)mockers, stalkers, bonkers
onenote
(46,139 posts)for not changing their religion?
Hate of someone because of their religion or race: both bad.
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)What the ever living fuck is wrong with you make such an accusation?
Who the fuck are you?
+ 1
onenote
(46,139 posts)is that people can change their religion.
So I have nothing to apologize for.
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)Of barbaric, misogynistic, violent religious ideas. That's what we're talking about.
Try to keep up.
ND-Dem
(4,571 posts)defense of the right to think and speak as one chooses. "just think what I tell you to and you'll be fine"
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)We do a lot of criticism, mockery and satire here. The target is a group of people and an ideology with with whom/which we disagree.
It's the same thing.
ND-Dem
(4,571 posts)yes, I know who your 'target' is.
tkmorris
(11,138 posts)It won't be just them that loses those rights. It will be EVERYONE.
Boreal
(725 posts)how many people don't get that.
ND-Dem
(4,571 posts)those they disagree with.
hypocrisy abounds
immoderate
(20,885 posts)So you won't defend them on matters of etiquette. If you don't defend their rights, you score points, how? 
--imm
philosslayer
(3,076 posts)Between defending the RIGHT to do something, and then saying it is RIGHT to do it. Get it?
Do they have the right? yes. Is it right? no.
DemocratSinceBirth
(101,847 posts)oberliner
(58,724 posts)What is the acceptable way to make fun of Islam?
Is it different from the acceptable way to make fun of Republicanism?
DemocratSinceBirth
(101,847 posts)oberliner
(58,724 posts)Are you into any of that?
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)If some clergy person says 'gays are evil' and I object to that, am I 'trolling' that religion or is it trolling me?
immoderate
(20,885 posts)I suspect it's "bad manners," and that relies heavily on individual POV. What you're calling wrong is a matter of esthetics; what you're calling right is a moral issue. You are implying a false equivalence.
--imm
NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)and I would absolutely defend their right to publish such cartoons without restrictions, just as I do the Charlie Hebdo cartoons.
Anyone who can get worked up enough over a cartoon to kill people has a few screws loose and shouldn't be running around free in society.
philosslayer
(3,076 posts)The reason behind this thread, which everyone previously has clearly not gotten, is that one can be disgusted by Charlie Hebdo's actions while at the same time agreeing with their right to do it. Frankly, i'm shocked by the number of DU'ers who are expressing glee at the fact that Charlie Hebdo continues to spew hate speech.
NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)I'm not one of the people jumping on the "I am Charlie Hebdo" bandwagon because the content disgusts me, but I absolutely defend their right to publish what they did. If free speech can be restricted for them, it can be restricted for us.
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)I will shut up when they stop.
randys1
(16,286 posts)cartoons, now more than ever.
Which will include mocking all religions, as I recall.
Tansy_Gold
(18,167 posts)And I haven't read all the posts, but. . . .
I don't recall Charlie Hebdo ever advocating physical violence against anyone. Mockery is one thing, especially if one is mocking ideas. Advocating or supporting violence and/or murder is quite another thing. An organization such as the KKK that advocates, encourages, defends, and perhaps even engages in violence is far different from a magazine that mocks, satirizes, or insults ideas.
Surya Gayatri
(15,445 posts)
bluesbassman
(20,384 posts)The reason many people are supportive of Charlie Hebdo is not that they agree with the content, rather they agree with the concept of publishing the content in spite of the terrorism inflicted upon them for publishing it. It's an important distinction because had the publication just folded up and went away the terrorists would have succeeded in their mission. I doubt however it would have improved the lot of the average Muslim by any marked degree.
Arugula Latte
(50,566 posts)A lot of sects under the umbrella of those religions spew misogyny and promote the idea that women are second, third, or fourth class citizens. Same with their treatment of gays. Fuck them. They don't deserve my respect.
cpwm17
(3,829 posts)This subject is a minefield and it requires nuance.
Religion deserves criticism, just like any other bad idea. Individuals that do bad things in the name of religion deserve criticism also.
Someone's religious label is not their race and they deserve no special protection.
But, many bigots use the religion of the targeted groups as an excuse to make what are essentially racist attacks. It's happened many times in history, with tragic consequences.
To my eyes, not knowing much of the French culture, but knowing a little of the history of Western oppression against the "Muslim World", those cartoons do appear to be racist. They seem to use negative (racist) stereotypes to condemn an entire group of people, stereotypes used by the powerful against the weak. That ain't cool.
Desert805
(392 posts)how Family Guy their style of humor is. It doesn't hurt that I enjoy Family Guy, heh.
_________________
YOU'RE TRASHING LIBERALS, and if you've read the other 100 threads on this subject, this info would have been pointed out probably 1000 times:
Charlie Hebdo (French pronunciation: [ʃaʁli ɛbˈdo]; French for Charlie Weekly) is a French satirical weekly magazine,[3] featuring cartoons, reports, polemics, and jokes. Irreverent and stridently non-conformist in tone, the publication describes itself as strongly anti-racist, anti-religious[4] and left-wing, publishing articles on the extreme right, religion (Catholicism, Islam, Judaism), politics, culture, etc. According to its former editor Stéphane Charbonnier ("Charb", the magazine's editorial viewpoint reflects "all components of left wing pluralism, and even abstainers".[5]
The magazine has been the target of two terrorist attacks, in 2011 and in 2015, presumed to be in response to a number of controversial Muhammad cartoons it published. In the second of these attacks, twelve people were killed, including Charbonnier and several contributors.
Charlie Hebdo first appeared in 1970 as a successor to the Hara-Kiri magazine, which was banned for mocking the death of former French President Charles de Gaulle.[6] In 1981 publication ceased, but the magazine was resurrected in 1992. The magazine's current editor is Gérard Biard who took over the role when Charbonnier, who had been editor since 2009, was killed.
brooklynite
(96,882 posts)I've thought about just that point. And, yes, I WOULD stand in support of publishing something ugly in response to an attempt to use violence to suppress their voice.
DemocratSinceBirth
(101,847 posts)Trolling Muslims or Jews or African Americans or Gays, et cetera Is a very bad look but it's not a capital offense. C'mon...
oberliner
(58,724 posts)At least as much as political ideologies are.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)What responses would you suggest for their invective against us?
DemocratSinceBirth
(101,847 posts)My point is really directed at gratuitously crapping on someone's deeply held beliefs. I have no desire to crap on Jesus, The Prophet Mohammed or King David.
The above statement doesn't, of course, absolve the terrorists of responsibilities. The answer to bad speech is good speech and not a bullet.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)on Jesus. Jesus himself said that belief in him was irrelevant to salvation. He said that treatment given to the least among us is equal to treatment given to him. So how his followers treat those who are in any way disenfranchised from society is equal to treatment accorded to Jesus personally. He clearly tells them that on judgement day they will say 'you know me, I believe in you' and he will say 'I don't know you, I was hungry and you refused to feed me'. And to someone who'd never even heard of him he'd say 'welcome friend when I was hungry you fed me, for what you do to the least of these my brothers you have done to me, so thanks for the meal and welcome to paradise'.
The 'believer' who mistreated others does not go to paradise.
That is the lesson the followers of that teacher should be taking to their own and living by. Instead they demand honor for themselves and they seek to limit the rights of various others. What you do to the least you do to the judge. That's Jesus. So who's actually crapping on him?
Boreal
(725 posts)And I would also say that some who attack Christians (the hypocritical and the nice ones) make the mistake of attacking the figure of Christ, I think, because they feel it will annoy those Christians they're attacking. IMO, that's stupid. As you've shown, Jesus Christ never taught anything but compassion and brotherly love so why attack that? Attack the assholes who claim to be following his lead but are not. Then again, there are people who simply hate the idea of Jesus, period, so they will attack him not to annoy Christians but because they hate any such figure associated with a God or spirituality.
Anyway, I agree with you and the first thing that came to my mind are the Ziochristian fundy freaks like CUFI.
DemocratSinceBirth
(101,847 posts)I was clearly referring to the former.
I believe I even named Jesus, The Prophet Mohammed, and King David by name.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)Regardless... welcome back!!! 
philosslayer
(3,076 posts)Its been very enlightening 
I've now learned that mocking religion is worthy of praise, while mocking race is worthy of scorn. I had no idea!
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)"I had no idea!"
You're finally beginning to sound honest and sincere...
Arugula Latte
(50,566 posts)Of course it should be mocked. It's based on mythology and nonsense. Of course people have the right to believe mythology and nonsense. But they don't have the right to be protected from criticism, satire, and mocking. Nor do atheists. Nor do Republicans. Nor do Democrats.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)How is that possible? It seems self-evident.
philosslayer
(3,076 posts)And try not to mock anyone. But obviously not everyone agrees.
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)And an art that liberals are much better at. Ever hear of George Carlin? Bill Hicks? Patton Oswalt?
oberliner
(58,724 posts)This is a site filled with progressives and filled with mockery.
Top 10 Conservative Idiots?
Arugula Latte
(50,566 posts)Religions (and the Big Three Abrahamic monotheisms in particular) are primarily anti-progressive at their cores, in case you hadn't noticed. (Yes, there are exceptions.)
We need more satire, not less.
Dr. Strange
(26,058 posts)
cyberswede
(26,117 posts)arcane1
(38,613 posts)And fooling no one.
Codeine
(25,586 posts)Religion is optional, race mandatory.
KamaAina
(78,249 posts)For one thing, Charlie Hebdo is named for Charlie Brown. Hardly the equivalent of the founder of the KKK.
And as has been mentioned upthread, religion != race.
CJCRANE
(18,184 posts)They singled people out by putting a religious symbol on them.
The same thing could happen again in any country. People could be identified by the predominant religion of their race.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)Are you going to side with two admittedly offensive, childish, and blasphemous writers or did the actors deserve it for mocking the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints?
Desert805
(392 posts)Codeine
(25,586 posts)
LiberalAndProud
(12,799 posts)They have to do with religion and gender.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026080615
And yes, I would even defend that publication's right to respond to such an attack in whatever nonviolent way they see fit. I suspect that response would make worldwide headlines. Wrong or not, my defense would be adamant, even if it involved erasing women. How's that for hypocrisy?
dilby
(2,273 posts)people would be up in their shit, because it's Arabs people are all cool with it.
DemocratSinceBirth
(101,847 posts)First of all the majority of Muslims are not Arabs. Second of all , people would been all up in their shit if the terrorists didn't kill a bunch if em. That made them a bit more sympathetic.
CJCRANE
(18,184 posts)Stereotypes can be harmful, just like the guys who killed Sikhs because of their turbans.
There's another example - Sikhs. You could say that's a religion not a race, but in practice most of its adherents have the same ethnicity.
philosslayer
(3,076 posts)And the overall point is that I fail to see how mockery of ANYTHING is progressive, and will change the mind of anyone. It seems small minded and petty to me. Again, one persons opinion.
CJCRANE
(18,184 posts)as you're pointed out (and I've tried to point out before).
1) Freedom of speech.
2) Taste.
3) Race and religion.
You can support 1) while not agreeing about 2) and 3).
As for 2), there seems to be an attitude that if you don't like the cartoons then you are somehow restricting their freedom of speech. There is a desire for everyone to appreciate the cartoons, not accepting that we all have different tastes.
Re. 3) there is a push to get everyone to accept that criticizing a religious group can never be racist or ostracize a whole group of people when in practice that has happened throughout history.
It's a complex set of interlocking issues...
sibelian
(7,804 posts)Black people do not form a social block that attends by religious demand to a belief structure requiring bigotry against gay people and women.
WHAT THE FUCK? How many more times does the total failure of these stupid analogies have to be made?
Blue_Tires
(57,596 posts)How difficult is that? As long as: 1. My taxes aren't being used to print it, and 2. That publication isn't breaking hard-and-fast universal speech rules (i.e., slander or incite to violence), why would I have a problem??
RationalMan
(96 posts)We cannot censure thought and expression regardless of how vulgar we think of the thought and expression.
This is why you see the ACLU often defending persons and causes who are diametrically opposed to the views of ACLU members. They are defending them because, no matter how you feel about the thought or expression, if it is not defended then you might lose your right.
Free speech is not without limits. You cannot yell "Fire" in a crowded theater and if there is no fire to claim 1st Amendment protection. You cannot openly incite others to violence "Let's go kidnap John Doe and hang him from the nearest tree. Let's meet at Joe's Bar at 8:00".
So there are permissible limits on freedom of speech but in your scenario, absent an open encouragement of provocation or action, I would defend Forrest's right to publish despite the fact I hate the message.
nolabear
(43,850 posts)CH is in the position of jester, who shines a light of ridicule on any and all. It's a smart and untouchable part of any civilization to be able to mock its institutions. Not its PEOPLE, who benefit rom the mockery in many ways, but the institutions.
Response to philosslayer (Original post)
closeupready This message was self-deleted by its author.
SidDithers
(44,333 posts)Sid
Bonx
(2,353 posts)Yes. Yes.
Iggo
(49,927 posts)
Inkfreak
(1,695 posts)"Not that mass murder is ok". Just be honest, say that free speech sucks and that he brought it on himself. It's what I'm seeing everytime.
Retrograde
(11,419 posts)to express their opinions of the cartoons, or to ignore them completely. Individual booksellers, printers, website managers, etc. have the right not to sell or publish them: the 1st Amendment says the government can not censor you - it doesn't guarantee an audience.
arcane1
(38,613 posts)Charlie Hebdo is named after Charlie Brown and Charles de Gaulle, not the founder of a terrorist group.
philosslayer
(3,076 posts)You can call the publications whatever you wish.
arcane1
(38,613 posts)BainsBane
(57,757 posts)Which gets at the very heart of the principle of free speech.
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)I would not be "snarling "damn right, i'd put those cartoons on the front page of every paper in the world"
BainsBane
(57,757 posts)that people support speech they agree with and not speech they disagree with. People are finding a million ways to avoid dealing with that.
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)BainsBane
(57,757 posts)Clearly people do not because they don't share the KKK values, while they supported the Charlie Ebdo cover because they have disdain for Islam. What am I supposedly not getting?
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)Weird, but true!!
Rex
(65,616 posts)We are all biased!?!? Shit, nobody told me. 
BainsBane
(57,757 posts)That's how I read some of the responses to this OP.
Boreal
(725 posts)I've seen a lot of "Charlie Hebdo attacked Islam not Muslims" types of rationalizations. Muslims are what make Islam come alive. They are inseparable. Islam is a system of beliefs and practices which Muslim brings into expression. It's absurd to try to claim otherwise. People aren't honest about it because it's not politically correct to attack Muslims but it's politically correct to attack religion. They don't have the integrity to admit they have a problem with Muslims, the people who are the expression of Islam! Charlie Hebdo couched it's attacks in humor. Brigitte Bardot did not and she was prosecuted for "hate speech" five times. So much for "free speech" in France.
BainsBane
(57,757 posts)Sometimes I feel like I'm beating my head against a wall. I'm glad someone else sees what I do.
Boreal
(725 posts)It's amazing to read the attempts to twist what the OP posted. Even shit like, "Oh, so you agree that people should be murdered for drawing cartoons!". Sheesh. Then they go on to point out women and girls being oppressed under Islam but, oh, no! they would never criticize Muslims, just the religion. haha, what bullshit.
arcane1
(38,613 posts)I'm calling it out.
BainsBane
(57,757 posts)I think it helpful for people to examine their values. Avoiding doing so is not a good thing.
arcane1
(38,613 posts)philosslayer
(3,076 posts)Since when is driving an honest conversation on a difficult topic "flamebait"?
BainsBane
(57,757 posts)when it's something people don't want to think about.
BainsBane
(57,757 posts)So am I. I don't feel bashed. i always wonder why people say "attacking Duers" when they are talking to or about another DUer. Are some people more DUers than others? Why the us versus them? Is there a set view that makes someone a real DUer, and if one disagrees they are outside of that? I think the OP is an honest effort to examine values of free speech and intellectual honesty. If religion should bear interrogation, why shouldn't ideas expressed on this website?
BainsBane
(57,757 posts)as well as my right to criticize it. I would not advocate for its republication, and I would be critical of it, as I was with Charlie Hebdo.
Predictably, we see all kinds of excuses to justify different approaches toward the two situations. I have twice been told I didn't understand free speech because I didn't share the respondent's contempt for Islam, even though my OP took great pains to make clear I supported Charlie Hebdo's right to publish their covers, even as I criticized its message. For some, protecting free speech means protecting what they believe, but not what others do. That isn't free speech at all.
NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)Actually I pretty much agree with your entire reply.
The apocalypse may be upon us.
BainsBane
(57,757 posts)but thought I'd be diplomatic and avoid saying so.
Coventina
(29,730 posts)With your false equivalency and your confusion about the difference between belief systems and biology.
Bless your little heart!
arcane1
(38,613 posts)Actually, never mind. It's not clever at all
Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)
Pooka Fey
(3,496 posts)
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)
Desert805
(392 posts)Charlie Hebdo (French pronunciation: [ʃaʁli ɛbˈdo]; French for Charlie Weekly) is a French satirical weekly magazine,[3] featuring cartoons, reports, polemics, and jokes. Irreverent and stridently non-conformist in tone, the publication describes itself as strongly anti-racist, anti-religious[4] and left-wing, publishing articles on the extreme right, religion (Catholicism, Islam, Judaism), politics, culture, etc. According to its former editor Stéphane Charbonnier ("Charb" , the magazine's editorial viewpoint reflects "all components of left wing pluralism, and even abstainers".[5]
The magazine has been the target of two terrorist attacks, in 2011 and in 2015, presumed to be in response to a number of controversial Muhammad cartoons it published. In the second of these attacks, twelve people were killed, including Charbonnier and several contributors.
Charlie Hebdo first appeared in 1970 as a successor to the Hara-Kiri magazine, which was banned for mocking the death of former French President Charles de Gaulle.[6] In 1981 publication ceased, but the magazine was resurrected in 1992. The magazine's current editor is Gérard Biard who took over the role when Charbonnier, who had been editor since 2009, was killed.
countryjake
(8,554 posts)
NaturalHigh
(12,778 posts)And the Black Panthers. And the New Black Panthers.
Free speech has to be for everybody, or it's for nobody.
Go Vols
(5,902 posts)This guy seems pretty honest about his opinion.
Ahmed Aboutaleb told NewsHour of his anger at the refusal of a number of Muslims to adapt to their new surroundings, which he said he has done after living in Holland since 1976.
"It is incomprehensible that you can turn against freedom... But if you don't like freedom, for heaven's sake pack your bags and leave," he said.
"There may be a place in the world where you can be yourself, be honest with yourself and do not go and kill innocent journalists. And if you do not like it here because humorists you do not like make a newspaper, may I then say you can f**k off.
"This is stupid, this so incomprehensible. Vanish from the Netherlands if you cannot find your place here.
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/muslim-mayor-rotterdam-ahmed-aboutaleb-tells-islamists-pack-your-bags-fck-off-live-tv-1483127
840high
(17,196 posts)isobar
(188 posts)
Avalux
(35,015 posts)See - it's kind of like this. I can't choose my race; the color of my skin color. I was born that way. I can always decide for myself the religious doctrine I choose to follow. That is a choice.
I have to draw a line somewhere, and there it is.
What you are trying to equate can't be done.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)BUTBUTBUTBUTBUT!!!!
BUT!!!
Mm they just can't open their mouths, without a big bloviating pontificating BUTTTTTTT
Oh they'll offer some brief mumbly thing about how of course no one is justifying bombing clinics shooting doctors cluck cluck cheep quack BUT of course BUT BUT BUT!!!!!!!
There's no fucking BUT, here.
BainsBane
(57,757 posts)
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)But continue falling all over your bad self to express how outraged you are that someone insulted someone else's religious belief, you know, less than a week after a bunch of people were murdered for drawing cartoons.
BainsBane
(57,757 posts)what they have published and all subsequent issues of said publication must be immune from criticism. Free speech demands dissenters keep their mouths shut, right? I would hate to destroy free speech by again expressing an opinion that wasn't popular. The horror.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Fucking hardly.
The only people being 'silent' right now, are the people who got shot.
No one is immune from criticism, and that includes the victim-blamers.
BainsBane
(57,757 posts)as opposed to what goes on in your little group? 
I'll leave you to your one-dimensional view of the universe. I have no doubt it makes life much easier.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)
What in the sam hell are you on about, here?
I'd suggest you please try to stay on topic, but I'm not into wasting my own time.
zappaman
(20,627 posts)
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)I was gonna salute Bain for her excellent and quickly-timed pivot, but alas...
BainsBane
(57,757 posts)
Rex
(65,616 posts)Because they read it in a book - once?
Rex
(65,616 posts)No big deal, plenty here hate democracy when it is inconvenient for them.
FSogol
(47,623 posts)
DemocraticWing
(1,290 posts)Nate Forrest is the name of a KKK leader, while Charlie Hebdo is a completely innocent name.
The hypothetical you describe has explicitly bigoted cartoons. Charlie Hebdo's cartoons have been proven to not be racist, if they are insensitive, it is in that they lampoon the superstitions of a religious faith. Just like satire of religion found in the comedy of Dogma, Life of Brian, the Book of Mormon musical, George Carlin, and many other instances belove among liberal Americans.
Charlie Hebdo is a magazine of the Left. Their enemies are fundamentalist religion and those who would rather shoot than laugh. If you're not one of those people, then YOU are being intellectually dishonest by defending those who attack Charlie Hebdo.
1,000 lashes if you don't die of laughter.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)nt
nationalize the fed
(2,169 posts)if these humans can't figure out how to stop insulting each other and killing themselves they'll never leave their planet. Fanning a fire isn't the best thing to do- would MLK Jr. have advised that? (*happy birthday MLK- there isn't a thread to be seen so far, that says a lot)
What alien would want to land here anyway, unless it was on Antarctica or something. What a mess.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)In 1988 in Paris, extremist Christian terrorists fire bombed a crowed cinema screening Martin Scorsese's Last Temptation of the Christ. They did so because they were offended at the portrayal of their faith and holy figures in the film. Many people were very badly hurt.
Does anyone want to suggest that these terrorists had some 'understandable' reason to set others on fire? Does anyone care to drag the quality of the film into it, or to suggest that maybe it really was 'blasphemous' and deserving of strong reactions? Should the Pope have punched Scorsese in the nose?
How does this event compare and contrast to the Paris murders? Last week's criminals were more successful, but the intent and the motive very much the same, also the set and setting, Paris over a work of creative expression.
What parameters do people suggest for the criticism of the Cinema Bombers? The Hebdo Shooters? Are they the same parameters? If not why not?
Desert805
(392 posts)countryjake
(8,554 posts)You say:
"Charlie Hebdo has a right to do what they are doing. And they are wrong. And I won't defend them."
What exactly do you mean by that?
Are you implying that it is wrong for anyone to make light of the fact that certain religious dogma is based on the thought of some guy from a millennia (or two) ago?
Or, do you think that it is wrong for someone to make light of the fact that certain religious dogma dictates that no image of that archaic fellow can ever be presented, by anyone?
Why do you think that the Charlie Hebdo mag is wrong?
philosslayer
(3,076 posts)Just because you have the RIGHT to do something, then it doesn't mean you should. I could openly mock the handicapped. I have that right. Should I? No.
If you think its right to openly mock ideas held sacred by well over 1.6 Billion people, just because you believe something differently.... well i would disagree.
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)We mock religion because of their treatment of women, LGBT and their continuous attacks on our human rights.
I could give a fuck what they do within the confines of their own doors. If they kept their archaic and misogynistic beliefs there, the bulk of us would shut up. Until then, it's on.
philosslayer
(3,076 posts)It used to be that Islamophobia was not tolerated on DU. Now its apparently celebrated. Did I not get the memo?
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)Opposing bigotry is not bigotry. I don't buy into your framing.
Tolerating intolerance is not, in fact, tolerance. It is merely the passive-aggressive enabling of intolerance.
Of course Islamophobia exists. A self-appointed vigilante killing a Sikh after mistaking him for a Muslim—he wanted to go out and "shoot some towelheads"—is an example of that fear running wild after 9/11. But criticizing the religion itself, pointing out its barbaric tenets, and explaining the penalties for apostasy are not examples of Islamophobia.
What Charlie Hebdo does is not Islamophobic. DUers criticizing and satirizing Islam is not Islamaphobia. It's simply speaking critical truths about a set of cruel, misogynistic ideas.
prayin4rain
(2,065 posts)of women and girls is that their sacred and wonderful faith/idol teaches them to be that way, makes it all that much more of a bitter pill. It's ridiculous and deserving of satire.
countryjake
(8,554 posts)
"All is Forgiven"
zappaman
(20,627 posts)CANT YOU SEE THEM!!!!!????
countryjake
(8,554 posts)My old dead mother used to say that stuff such as what the Charlie Hebdo mag produced was "lewd and vesuvius" meaning that perusing such publications could result in an eruption of thought. And that is why my parents subscribed to Mad Magazine for us all to read.
zappaman
(20,627 posts)
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Are they immune to mocking? Should the creationism museum in Kansas be off limits to satire? It's a 'sacred belief', remember.
You put "1.6 Billion people" in there like the number, itself, means something. Is there some sort of upper or lower limit on the number of people which have to hold a belief "sacred" before one is or is not allowed to make fun of it? How about Scientology? UFO cults?
And why is the 'sacred belief' of one person less special and criticism-immune, than that of 1.6 Billion? That hardly seems fair. What if I think that I'm Napoleon, or my sacred belief requires that I paddle around town wearing clown shoes and a plastic toilet on my head? What if I think Carrot Top is the one true messiah? It's my sacred belief, don't you DARE make fun of it!
Not to mention the fact that a lot of these 'sacred beliefs' require the sacred believers to enlist the rest of us in their worldviews, which often involve strict controls on what the rest of us can wear, or say, or DO whether we want a bit part in their psychodramas, or not. But we must under no circumstances question or mock those sacred beliefs, right?
countryjake
(8,554 posts)simply because she chooses to stop believing in the tenets of any religion, I not only think that it's my right, I would say that it's the duty of any rational and moral person to mock, condemn, and point out the incredibly oppressive nature of said "sacred" idea.
Your comments so far tell me that you're under the mistaken impression that a majority of the world's 1.6 Billion Muslims even still believe in such ridiculous notions as blasphemy or apostasy.
Skittles
(171,704 posts)if they believe stuff that I find offensive I will NOT remain silent - THAT IS AGREEMENT
Throd
(7,208 posts)Glassunion
(10,201 posts)at the same time. They are not mutually exclusive scenarios.
KoKo
(84,711 posts)Moving away from the important "Freedom of the Press" issue...this is an interesting take on Charlie Hebdo and how it could be interpreted differently from satire. It's a long article and even discusses the "New Yorker" Cover which had Michelle and Barack Obama portrayed as Terrorists that caused much backlash...and how that cover was different from what Charlie Hebdo was doing in the past years.
---------------------------------
Charlie Hebdo's biggest problem isn't racism, it's punching down
Within the French culture war, Charlie Hebdo stands solidly with the privileged majority and against the under-privileged minorities. Yes, sometimes it also criticizes Catholicism, but it is best known for its broadsides against France's most vulnerable populations. Put aside the question of racist intent: the effect of this is to exacerbate a culture of hostility, one in which religion and race are also associated with status and privilege, or lack thereof.
The novelist Saladin Ahmed articulated well why this sort of satire does not exactly have the values-championing effect we want it to:
In a field dominated by privileged voices, it's not enough to say "Mock everyone!" In an unequal world, satire that mocks everyone equally ends up serving the powerful. And in the context of brutal inequality, it is worth at least asking what preexisting injuries we are adding our insults to.
The belief that satire is a courageous art beholden to no one is intoxicating. But satire might be better served by an honest reckoning of whose voices we hear and don't hear, of who we mock and who we don't, and why.
Jacob Canfield put it more simply:
"White men punching down is not a recipe for good satire, and needs to be called out."
This is a culture war with real victims. Fighting on the winning side and against a systemically disadvantaged group, fighting on behalf of the powerful against the weak, does not seem to capture the values that satire is meant to express.
Charlie Hebdo is Western society at its best and worst
So if Charlie Hebdo's cartoons expressed or indulged racist ideas, and if its satire "punched down" in ways that were more regrettable than admirable, then why does it feel so uncomfortable to criticize the magazine?
It's partly because, whatever the magazine's misdeeds, they are so utterly incomparable to the horrific crimes of the terrorists who attacked it that it can feel like a betrayal to even mention them in the same sentence.
But it's also because, with this attack, Charlie Hebdo really has come to symbolize something much larger than the satire embedded with its cartoons: a resolve to maintain freedom of speech even in the face of mortal threats. While free speech is not at the risk of being snuffed out in Western countries over these sorts of attacks, it is an abstract value that is constantly under siege in the world and requires constant defense. The cartoons have become a symbol of that fight.
"Unforgivable acts of slaughter imbue merely rude acts of publication with a glittering nobility," Matthew Yglesias wrote last week. "To blaspheme the Prophet transforms the publication of these cartoons from a pointless act to a courageous and even necessary one."
And yet, raising these cartoons to something much grander does have victims. As is so often the case, those victims are society's weakest and most vulnerable, in this case the Muslim and non-white subjects of Charlie Hebdo's belittling ridicule.
"The elevation of such images to a point of high principle will increase the burdens on those minority groups," as Matt put it. "European Muslims find themselves crushed between the actions of a tiny group of killers and the necessary response of the majority society. Problems will increase for an already put-upon group of people."
The virtues that Charlie Hebdo represents in society � free speech, the right to offend � have been strengthened by this episode. But so have the social ills that Charlie Hebdo indulged and worsened: empowering the majority, marginalizing the weak, and ridiculing those who are different.
Continued (Long Article with Photo's) at:
http://www.vox.com/2015/1/12/7518349/charlie-hebdo-racist
muriel_volestrangler
(106,201 posts)saying "I had Alzheimer's in 1980 - how could you have missed it?". In questionable taste, and likely to enrage many people who hold him in great esteem - and many would say that publishing it is going to make their 'side' look bad, and would not publish it themselves. Some RW nutcase murders several people in the magazine, and, the next week, their cover is a cartoon Reagan saying "there you go again ...".
They'd have the right to publish, and I think people would support it and re-publish that cartoon.
BainsBane
(57,757 posts)How is that a reflection on intellectual honesty? It misses the point completely.
muriel_volestrangler
(106,201 posts)and it's just a question of whether you cross a line of propriety when doing so. Drawing an Alzheimer's sufferer drooling would be tasteless.
BainsBane
(57,757 posts)or an entire people. At any rate, it's the issue the OP wants to examine. Your example doesn't get at that.
muriel_volestrangler
(106,201 posts)It attacks religions, but they're not people. They're ideas.
http://www.jesusandmo.net/2015/01/14/small/
This is why I think the OP analogy is inaccurate.
countryjake
(8,554 posts)BainsBane
(57,757 posts)as recent news reports show. http://news.yahoo.com/charlie-hebdo-reaches-global-audience-dismays-muslims-135610795.html Islam is linked to it's ethnic, social, and geopolitical context. It is inseparable from its believers, who give it life. To pretend otherwise is disingenuous. Another poster in this thread put it well. http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6091592 I seriously doubt many, if any, Muslims buy the ruse. They know what they are facing.
People are clearly upset about having to confront that issue, hence the charges of flamebait and refusal to deal with the question. Their views must remain unexamined.
muriel_volestrangler
(106,201 posts)such as hundreds of millions of Muslims, worldwide, wanting adulterers to be stoned to death, or the death penalty for leaving Islam: http://www.democraticunderground.com/121879248
Or the belief that women are second class people who must get married and obey their husbands, which is widespread and very much embedded in the religion.
Union Scribe
(7,099 posts)as big-nosed Arabs? Because that's a religious trait? No, of course not.
muriel_volestrangler
(106,201 posts)The cover before the bombing:
which is a cartoon of a well-known non-Arabic, non-Muslim writer:
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)
Warpy
(114,614 posts)There is a right for individuals to express themselves in speech, in publication, and in religion.
That is all.
HERVEPA
(6,107 posts)
Whiskeytide
(4,656 posts)... how many posters can't seem to grasp that one can support, laud, advocate for, seek to preserve and hold in high esteem another's right to say something but still...
... vehemently disagree with, oppose, criticize and call bullshit on what they say.
That is the core concept of "free speech".
If you don't get this, then what you're looking for is "free speech as long as I agree with it and don't find it distasteful". Otherwise known as not free speech.
Glassunion
(10,201 posts)"Everyone is in favor of free speech. Hardly a day passes without its being extolled, but some people's idea of it is that they are free to say what they like, but if anyone else says anything back, that is an outrage." - Winston Churchill
Lex
(34,108 posts)It really is a WTF thread.
Surya Gayatri
(15,445 posts)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026088156
“Je ne suis pas d'accord avec ce que vous dites, mais je me battrai jusqu'à la mort pour que vous ayez le droit de le dire” ...
Voltaire’s "Treatise on Tolerance", originally published in 1763, is flying off bookstore shelves across the country, French media reported on Wednesday.
...
Voltaire is better known for his satirical work "Candide", and is often quoted as saying, “I disapprove of what you say but I'll defend to the death your right to say it”, even if the maxim was actually an interpretation by his British biographer. It seems he actually said something similar in a 1770 letter to Abbot le Riche: “I detest what you write but I would give my life so that you can continue to write it.”
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Unfortunately, too many.
If nothing else, I have learned over the past few days, their "right" to "free speech/freedom of expression" is valued more than human dignity.
BainsBane
(57,757 posts)I think in some, if not many cases, it's the right to publish speech they agree with.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)prayin4rain
(2,065 posts)Taking away a person's voice, their right to express themselves, is one of the worst indignities that can be bestowed.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Desert805
(392 posts)do not "mock human dignity" by definition.
While every opinion is valid, yadda yadda yadda, it's hard to remember that in the face of folks conjuring up their own "facts" (about a publication they just heard of a week ago) to fit their (well intentioned) narrative.
Whiskeytide
(4,656 posts)... in any way should never, ever get a pass from progressives. We should call it out, condemn it, mock it, educate against it, flip it off and generally make its existence a living hell.
But that is very different from prohibiting it.
The OP's scenario is a somewhat like the "nuclear bomb planted in the city" scenario used to justify torture. You shouldn't make policy based on the worst case scenario you can imagine.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)similar to people who practice incest and a month later he was praying for the Inauguration at Obama's invitation and the bulk of this website utterly bullied LGBT people for so much as objecting to such denigrating language being given a place of honor.
So all of this posturing by people who claim to be all passionately opposed to any denigration of anyone to the point of pondering violence rings less than authentic to me. There are threads every day on DU about some horrible degrading thing said by some preacher or political figure about LGBT people, never see any of these passionate posters speak in objection to that, they are never in those threads, few ever are. When straight people do comment, they mock the fuck out of the bigoted preacher, like they should. But no one waxes on about denigration and how objectionable it is, no one organized among the churches to stop it.
Pope Francis, people love him, but his speech about gay people is offensive. It just is. His Bishops are even worse.
You say 'never, ever get a pass' but it constantly, always does. It is given a VIP pass and asked to be on stage with the new President, no less.
So clearly some people have far more rights to not be insulted than others. Or something. It's hard to follow a bunch of hypocritical nonsense.
Union Scribe
(7,099 posts)Either the "my right to be offensive uber alles" crowd is shockingly hypocritical or, worse, they really have no higher priority than that. I just read your post about this in the AA group and really liked your point about how free speech has somehow become an idea detached and immune from both self-censorship and criticism from those offended.
Codeine
(25,586 posts)There's a difference between castigating and satirizing a belief system and racism.
mike_c
(37,051 posts)You know, when I was a kid the ACLU taught us that "I might hate what you have to say, but I'll defend your right to say it" isn't just an abstract ideal. In fact, as an ideal it isn't worth a damn until it's more than abstract. It's meaningless until you stand up for the right of neo-nazis to march down the streets in Jewish neighborhoods, or for the KKK to rally and spew their bile. The rubber meets the road when you're faced with ACTIONS rather than rights in the abstract.
If you've read this far, I will say that I think your example is a bit contrived. It's one thing to defend someone's right to free speech, even if offensive, but quite another to urge them to be more widely offensive. Newspapers print Charlie Hebdo covers because they're news, presently. Defending their right to do so is more a matter of press freedom than freedom of speech, and I wouldn't urge them to do so unless there was relevant news to report.
Rights don't mean shit unless the actions they permit are fully protected by the society that says it recognizes those rights.
Surya Gayatri
(15,445 posts)http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026088156
“Je ne suis pas d'accord avec ce que vous dites, mais je me battrai jusqu'à la mort pour que vous ayez le droit de le dire” ...
Voltaire’s "Treatise on Tolerance", originally published in 1763, is flying off bookstore shelves across the country, French media reported on Wednesday.
...
Voltaire is better known for his satirical work "Candide", and is often quoted as saying, “I disapprove of what you say but I'll defend to the death your right to say it”, even if the maxim was actually an interpretation by his British biographer. It seems he actually said something similar in a 1770 letter to Abbot le Riche: “I detest what you write but I would give my life so that you can continue to write it.”
____________
Gotta respect my fellow French citizens and their wise choices. Not for nothing did Sunday's massive rally march right down "Boulevard Voltaire" from Place de la République to Place de la Nation.
Whereas Bush told Americans post 9/11 to go shopping, the French run to their libraries. LOL!
Seeking the sage counsel of a 300-year-old Enlightenment philosopher is their priority. LOVE 'EM!!!
Desert805
(392 posts)Right off the bat, you name the magazine after Nate Forrest, blah blah blah, as if the very name Charlie Hebdo was synonymous with the equivalent of the KKK... and then you dug deeper into your apples to oranges comparison.
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)Yup. Every fucking day of the week.
There. That wasn't so hard.
ismnotwasm
(42,674 posts)DFW
(60,182 posts)Anybody wanna take bets on THAT happening?
Me neither.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)those who fail to understand it. It's usually hilarious to see, but in this case it's mostly very sad, seeing people act like such idiots that they claim to oppose the message of cartoons they would strongly agree with if they understood the messages.
The people who ask LGBT people to endure denigrating rhetoric for the sake of mere politics then turn around and claim empathy with those who kill because someone insulted their religion are hypocrites displaying how homophobic they are. No empathy for us, all empathy with killers.
Lex
(34,108 posts)and yet I think the speakers have a right to speak it, draw it, or whatever.
Starry Messenger
(32,381 posts)We can even question the need to punch down in such a manner.
Those racist publications already exist in the US, I'm sure.
Even though I hate racist "satire", suppressing speech leads down a bad road.
I'm a Communist, and this country did just that to our organization, and I'm sure tons of people even here find what we have to say obnoxious to them. Hopefully they'd defend our right to speech though.
cyberswede
(26,117 posts)I wouldn't buy their magazine, though - before or after.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)Abortion, rape, mass gun killings. If there were cartoons out there making fun of rape victims or the Sandy Hook shooting victims I have a strong feeling people's response would be different. Everyone can say they would react in defense of freedom of speech but eventually everyone has some speech they find so horrid they would not defend the right to publish it.
goldent
(1,582 posts)Great explanation of what the OP was trying to say.
REP
(21,691 posts)
ohheckyeah
(9,314 posts)"Nate Forrest is notorious for racist cartoons on its cover. Imagine the worst you can imagine.... Nate Forrest has it. Portraying African Americans, Hispanics, Asians, and whoever else in the worst possible light, all on the cover, week after week. "
And yet life goes on and the sun continues to rise and set.
bluestateguy
(44,173 posts)they have killed many thousands of people over the years.
the french magazine does not fall into the same context.
so i reject this analogy.
Cerridwen
(13,262 posts)is non-existent and it was nothing more than a publishing house.
Let's hypothesize that though it's most known for it's anti-black publications it did not also include antisemitism, anti-Catholicism, and anti-Republicanism, and viewed public education as a Papal plot to indoctrinate the American populace into Catholicism.
Let's equate our hypothetical publishing house of racist hatred with a publishing house with which we don't agree and call them equivalent regardless of any historical evidence to the contrary.
What was your point about intellectual honesty?
LostOne4Ever
(9,752 posts)[font style="font-family:papyrus,'Brush Script MT','Infindel B',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]Does that mean I agree with said racist message?
Nope. No more so than the ACLU did when they defended the KKK's rights to free speech. [/font]
Skittles
(171,704 posts)that about says it all
philosslayer
(3,076 posts)Should I be upset that the cool kids didn't like what I wore to school today?
Skittles
(171,704 posts)philosslayer
(3,076 posts)THAT'S your best retort? A big ol' LOL? Were you texting your BFF while you were at it? I'm starting to think you really ARE in 7th grade.
Skittles
(171,704 posts)done here; your silly OP was soundly trashed an you know it.....bye bye now!
ucrdem
(15,720 posts)
AuntPatsy
(9,904 posts)
Prophet 451
(9,796 posts)Apparently, it's now expected for anyone's faith to be attacked and if you object or are hurt, it's your fault for holding that faith.
As far as Charlie Hebdo goes, I'll defend them. But I won't like them. I'm taking Voltaire's point that I disapprove of what they say but will defend their right to say it.