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

[LostOne4Ever]

206. Its more than one post

Here are some that contain posts victim blaming:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1218176134
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026051556
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026053480
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026058743
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026056100

And from today:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026062556

Here are some quotes I see as victim blaming:

"It was careless, at the very least, to carry on in the way they did, with decidedly insulting cartoons and knowing full well that violent reactions might occur.

They don't live in a bubble, there are innocent people around them would could, and did, suffer from the blowback. "

I don't care what their so-called mission may be,

I am rational, and I don't taunt anyone, ever. And I am not dumb.

I'm working through this; but, ...

I'm coming to ...

With rights comes responsibility ... My right to deliberately piss you off, does/should not protect me when you get pissed off.

It seems many want the right, without having the responsibility of considering others (i.e., watch their tongue or owning the result).

That seems more than a little narcissistic to me.

"I disagree. The cartoonists at Charlie Hebdo were just crude provocateurs

There was little of value from a criticism standpoint. Only insults.

I don't see how this is even a freedom of speech issue. Those who carried out this attack weren't the government or any accepted group with influence among the PTB. It was more a question of trolling, and how violent the craziest group would get in the aftermath.

IMO the cartoonists at Charlie Hebdo did not die as free speech martyrs. The cartoonists were no different than a guy who goes to multiple bars and insults every man's mother, and who eventually finds the one guy mentally unstable enough to pull out a gun and go postal over an insult.

They were scarcely more sophisticated than internet trolls."

And one of the most recent one:

"Add them to the three innocents who died on Wednesday:"

[div class="excerpt" style="background-color:#dcdcdc; padding-bottom:5px; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-bottom:none; border-radius:0.4615em 0.4615em 0em 0em; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #999999;"]MADem[div class="excerpt" style="background-color:#f0f0f0; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-top:none; border-radius:0em 0em 0.4615em 0.4615em; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #999999;"]I will reiterate--assessing RISK is not the same as victim blaming. There was risk. Great risk--and now is as good a time to talk about it as any. Anyone who pretends that discussing risk is somehow "unseemly" is whistling in the dark. The dead are past caring and they understood the risk better than people on DU seem to. Even the publisher--who was gunned down--not just understood it, but articulated it. I find it odd that people are denying what is so painfully obvious.

Depends entirely on how you go about asserting risk. Saying that going into City A carries a 23% chance of getting mugged is different from saying "They should have known better than going to city A, crime is sky high there." One is asserting risk, the other is victim blaming. It is about assigning accountability. The former is a statistic, the latter is putting responsibility on the victim for getting mugged.


[div class="excerpt" style="background-color:#dcdcdc; padding-bottom:5px; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-bottom:none; border-radius:0.4615em 0.4615em 0em 0em; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #999999;"]MADem[div class="excerpt" style="background-color:#f0f0f0; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-top:none; border-radius:0em 0em 0.4615em 0.4615em; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #999999;"]The publisher's very last cartoon before he was gunned down "poked the hornet's nest." It noted there hadn't been any terrorists with machine guns attacking in France yet, and predicted that there'd be an attack before the end of January.

The guy was right--he might not have sensed that the attack would be against his offices, but he was right about there being an attack using AK-47s in January.

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-editor-of-charlie-hebdos-last-cartoon-is-tragically-prescient-2015-1

Now, then--is it "victim blaming" when the victim, himself, notes the absence of an attack in France, indicates the possibility of one in this very month, through a cartoon of a terrorist with a machine gun? This is a victim who indicated that he didn't fear retaliation--not that he didn't anticipate it, find it possible, or rule it out-- but he didn't fear it. He had done a risk assessment, and he was willing to shoulder the risk--but he didn't deny there was risk.


Again, its about assigning responsibility. Saying that based on X evidence there is a high likelihood of Y happening is different from saying, "Of course you got stung you poked the hornets nest!" The victim never laid accountability at his own feet.


[div class="excerpt" style="background-color:#dcdcdc; padding-bottom:5px; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-bottom:none; border-radius:0.4615em 0.4615em 0em 0em; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #999999;"]MADem[div class="excerpt" style="background-color:#f0f0f0; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-top:none; border-radius:0em 0em 0.4615em 0.4615em; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #999999;"]I haven't seen any "victim vilifying" either--not a single post "vilifying" any of the dead. I've seen plenty that have a lot to say about the perpetrators, though, with some advocating return of the death penalty to France. Is that "perpetrator vilifying" to convict the gunmen ahead of a trial, or is it just applying common sense opinion to a tragedy?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026055795
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026060142
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026054888
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026054516

And I was able to recover this one:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1218176073
http://imgur.com/KfE5sqx

Some quotes again:

"Western satire is the only kind of satire acceptable in the world and all the world must accept the

slanderous cartoons as great satire, not hate speech, and must also laugh and understand no harm or hate was meant. I have yet to read about one person who thinks the satire funny, isn't that the point of satire? So what was funny about these vulgar csrtoons?

How would anyone get slander or hate speech from those harmless drawings insulting a religion using gross sexual drawings and pornographic imagery of the prophet of Islam?

"The future must not belong to those that slander the prophet of Islam".

President Barrack Obama, September 25, 2012.

The magazine may not have been a hate speech factory, debatable, surely it was slander of the prophet of Islam."

"It is a response to all of the posts which insist

that in order to condemn the murderers it is necessary to unite with the victims.

My reaction would be the same if the KKK had been the target of the attack. Murder is wrong - and I would similarly reject near universal calls to support anything the KKK said or did in order to condemn anyone who murdered them.

That concept is nonsense, and it deserves a response.

Believing two actions to be morally wrong does not mean I believe them to be equally wrong."

"Take a look at the cartoons

They are very reminiscent of hateful propaganda against other groups from particularly ugly chapters in human history.

And I have not seen one person on this forum claim they are justification for murder."

You can see the one from imgur.

All of this immediately after the people there died.

[div class="excerpt" style="background-color:#dcdcdc; padding-bottom:5px; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-bottom:none; border-radius:0.4615em 0.4615em 0em 0em; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #999999;"]MADem[div class="excerpt" style="background-color:#f0f0f0; border:1px solid #bfbfbf; border-top:none; border-radius:0em 0em 0.4615em 0.4615em; box-shadow:3px 3px 3px #999999;"]These guys in that office DIED because they refused to modulate their viewpoints. I think it's funny as hell, frankly, that people here are accusing people discussing this tragedy of "victim blaming" and trying to silence them for expressing their views about the tragedy, the cartoons, the judgment in publishing them. It's a bit convoluted, really. "No one is allowed to opine about the advisability or inadvisability of censorship of viewpoints....you are being CENSORED from conversations of that nature!!" I don't think those guys died so people on DU can say "Stop saying that!"


And the bolded is exactly what I mean by victim blaming. You are placing accountability on the victims of this tragedy. That is wrong. They DIED because extremist wanted to kill them. Full and utter accountability is upon them for that act.

Accusing people of victim blaming is not trying to silence people. Its accusing people who are blaming the victims of victim blaming. Convincing someone into reconsidering their position or raising doubts about their assertions to the point that they refrain from replying is also a part of free speech.

Or do you think that liberal activists who accuse conservatives of victim blaming are trying to silence them? That they are against free speech? I think that obviously is not the case.

To silence you, that would be like us petitioning skinner to ban all posters critical of Charlie or those supportive. I am not doing that and I know of no poster on DU that has even attempted that.

All that said about silencing, we have gotten off on a tangent. The point of our conversation was that there IS victim blaming against charlie going on at DU. That does not mean that those doing it condone the violence, but it is happening and that is why the OP has asked people nicely not to do it.