Satire Does Not Always Involve Humor. The Most Powerful Satire Never Does.

[MADem]

113. I cannot disagree more strongly.

If I unload a bunch of vitriol on you, call you names, insult you, your family, get vicious and personal, I hardly expect you to respond with "Bless you, my child."

I expect you to give me a piece of your mind.

We've seen the violent reactions to these sorts of publications in the past--using past behaviors to predict future ones is just NOT rocket science. It's the way most people learn.

And why should we focus on the victims? Here's why--they are DEAD. They were MURDERED in cold blood. If that's not a reason to "focus" on them, I don't know what is.

Would we be "focusing" on them if those three guys stood out in front of their offices with strongly worded signs instead of barging in with weapons? Of course not--we would likely be completely unaware of the protesters, or their "victims" because they'd be still happily working behind locked doors.

In "tragic irony" as one publication notes, the publisher himself predicted this would happen. Why is it OK for him to do this, but for people on DU to be called "victim blamers" for doing the very same thing? Here's the link:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jan/07/charlie-hebdo-satire-intimidation-analysis

Dependably provocative and indiscriminately rude, the magazine had come to embody freedom of expression by targeting Islam with its politically incorrect brand of satire. Moments before the attack, a cartoon depicting Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the leader of Islamic State (Isis), was posted on its Twitter account. The magazine’s cover this week features Michel Houellebecq’s provocative new novel, Submission, which imagines France being ruled by a Muslim president.

In a tragic irony, Charbonnier’s last cartoon predicted his own death. The latest edition of the weekly shows a gun-toting Islamic terrorist saying: “Still no attacks in France? Wait – we’ve still got until the end of January to present our best wishes.”

Charbonnier maintained that there should be no taboos in French society, and condemnation made him all the more determined to court controversy. His publication responded to efforts at intimidation by being even more irreverent or outrageous, defying the constraints of religious sensitivity or political correctness.

None of your quotes constitute victim blaming. They're opinions about an outcome that isn't in dispute. 12 people are, indeed, dead. In the USA, anyway, those cartoons would be viewed as hate speech (but hate 'speech' is protected in the USA--it's a different thing from a hate "crime" and perhaps that is a nub of confusion), and those last two quotes could be taken a variety of ways depending on context. The "victims" are dead, they can't be hurt any more. The "safe cage" comment sounds like a personal POV.

I've said, elsewhere in this thread, that the attempt to create an equivalence to "rape victims" is just not on. I don't buy the premise at all. This was an act of violent retaliation against speech that three guys didn't like, not a power trip, not a perversion, not a crime of opportunity. The speech wasn't a "short skirt" and I don't see any equivalence. It is a simplistic comparison, when the impetus behind the crime was far more complex.

In any event, if those quoted remarks are supposed to be clear-cut evidence of "victim blaming" I'm not buying that, either. That staff knew they were taking risks, they knew that idiots were out there with a mind to do them harm, and they guarded against them by working behind locked doors. They simply didn't count on the terrorists using one of their own to breach the locks.

Now, I think I have to reiterate the tired old refrains (to counteract accusations of victim blaming) that the crime was reprehensible, the victims did not deserve their fate, speech should be met with more speech and not bullets, the perpetrators should be punished to the limit of the law (and if the French law doesn't have a sufficient limit, it's high time they made one), and people should feel free to express even the most reprehensible ideas without fear of losing their lives for it, etc., etc.

You know, a funny thing about "free speech" is that it INCLUDES the right to self-censorship. Just because a newspaper chooses to not put pictures of cartoon genitalia and an anus covered by a gold star does not mean that they're "bad." They are simply adhering to their standards and practices as to what constitutes good taste. If you don't agree, don't buy that paper. Go elsewhere for your information.

Anyone with an internet connection can see those images--they are everywhere. If a newspaper doesn't want their product to display those images in homes where children are present, that's their CHOICE. And "I applaud the restraint" doesn't mean that the poster is applauding AQ at all. It just means that every news outlet doesn't need to reproduce that which is readily available at other outlets on the internet. If you truly think you're being "denied" the opportunity to see those Charlie Hebdo images, I can provide you with links to them--they're everywhere. Even HUFFPO carried them.