鴉PieFedYesterday was the 10th anniversary of the Charlie Hebdo shooting. What is your opinion on the freedom of satire in general and the satire of religion in particular?
submitted by
oce 🐆@jlai.lu
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Hebdo_shooting
This is a sensitive topic for some people, so please do your best to have civil discussions. Let's do better than the average social media.
Deleted by author
More dehumanizing rhetoric is definitely not the answer. The attackers were human, as reprehensible as their actions were.
Satire should be staunchly defended. Some people may find it offensive and they can go fuck themselves.
Satirical publications are often the last free press able to publish in authoritarian governments and have often played a critical role in communication to weaken oppressive regimes.
We can all occasionally suffer jokes in bad taste in exchange for freedom of the press.
if it was far-right satire i would feel pretty shit about it but it should probably still be allowed (?)
Yup, far right satire should also be allowed.
Granted, the only comedy the far right knows is the one joke so it's a stretch to call it satire.
totally agree, it's always horrid hateful propaganda
Yeah the right was never good at satire, they kinda only know how to punch down and aren't creative enough to satirize well.
Not saying Monty Python were far right, but this is hillarious https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vlmGknvr_Pg
While I agree with Satire should be staunchly defended, I can’t see a way for that to happen when you hit a nerve with a greathammer repeatedly.
So as a society we can show our full stance besides satire, but showing a stance, even with millions of people, could stop them getting killed by a two radicals? It appears not.
So what should we do, put State Police in front of their door? I think police standing in front of every satire outlet would be a satire itself.
It was depressing that every newspaper in the developed world didn't print the cartoon :(
They sold millions of them here in France though but yeah you're right. Especially the Danes who backed down then and again.
In respect to their Muslim readers. Whatever you think, for Muslims, including me, it’s profane to picture Mohammad, as much it’s profane to picture Jesus fucking Peter in the ass.
Even if there’s no reasoning behind it, respecting 1.8 billion people’s sensibilities should be the niceness I’d like to see in the world.
The price of living in a free society is being ready to accept other people's speech. In the West we had an Enlightenment, so blasphemy is not against the law. Christians would indeed find a picture of "Jesus fucking Peter in the ass" offensive, but they will sigh and move on. Same for all the other world religions.
Only your religion treats offense as a justification for extreme violence. You need to think carefully about that fact.
Thank you very much for informing me about my religion and everyone else’s high and developed society.
But please take a moment to check what you embraced as “the” civilized fellows done in Gaza, breaking 4 years old kids ribs with their knees. You need to think careful about that fact.
The question was not about Gaza.
I'm offended, *very* offended actually, when Muslims (and not only) suggest that some brutally murdered cartoonists had it coming because of their "disrespect". At least as offended as you could possibly be offended by some picture. Your religion needs reform. It needs to learn tolerance.
Deleted by moderator
Oh, so when we come into some other religion’s “higher stance” is just being an illusion, a propaganda to see “colonizers superior culture” is why they have free pass on crimes towards the oppressed, suddenly it wasn’t about that, huh. Like, they would never ever do such things. Except they do massacres, daily.
I’d like to see how “developed” MAGAs or AFD people to react to Jesus and Peter published on every “developed” newspaper’s front page, as the commenter I’ve replied suggested. Run over the newspapers stands with a truck? Then step down and shoot around? Maybe they aim to kids. That’ll show’em.
Extremism is everywhere. No belief, religion or politic stance, is exempt from it. I didn’t said a thing about Hebdo, just surprised to see how people in 2025 taking worse stances than George Bush in 2004 when it’s about Islam.
Should homosexuality be banned, to respect 1.8 billion people's sensibilities?
It’s always someone comes to build a strawman whenever one mentions Muslims could have some sensibilities.
Funny, you just did the same thing with your argument about Gaza. So when somebody else uses the same approach, it's a strawman?
Ah yes. A strawman. 🤔
Christians were upset and made a lot of noise about it, but didn't kill or even beat up anyone:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecce_Homo_%28exhibition%29
Deleted by moderator
No.
Yes, collective punishment is always a good response that has never backfired.
That has nothing to do with collective punishment
Sorry, I thought you meant as a response to the murder of the Hebdo staff by the two brothers and their accomplice.
How did you mean it?
Prohibiting satire of religion is a form of blasphemy law, and blasphemy laws shouldn't exist.
You don't think a sovereign country can have a state religion if everyone in the country is part of that religion and wants it that way?
There are exactly zero countries that are so homogenous that you can say that literally everyone is of the same religion.
In the words of Sam Harris: "People were murdered over cartoons. End of moral analysis."
I'm sure there are folks here who have listened to a lot more Sam Harris than I have, but I've listened to several audiobooks and probably 40-50 hours of his podcast. He has some smart things to say about neuroscience and mindfulness, but my god he has some toxic, middle-school-ass takes on Islam. I haven't heard that quote before, but I'm not surprised he said it. He's Ben Shapiro with a PhD who makes deliberately obtuse, reductive, bad faith statements about Islam and Muslims.
For the record, I'm a white atheist. I think religion has been the source of immeasurable violence in the world. I don't think anyone should be shot over something they say or draw, but to declare "end of moral analysis" is ignorant.
Well, he may have a point there, bit this is the same guy who promotes racial screening in airports in spite of repeated refutations of the usefulness of such measures by a security expert, so...
I've listened to maybe 10-15 hours of Sam Harris and I've never heard him say that. Can you source that?
https://www.samharris.org/blog/to-profile-or-not-to-profile
Everything is and should be allowed in comedy. Religion is no exception.
I think Charlie Hebdo comics are often in bad taste and more shock value than critic, but that's no legitimate reason to massacre people.
More than the attack on Charlie Hebdo itself, which I can "understand" in the twisted sense of a religious fanatic, it was the overall ruthlessness of the attackers that shocked me. I remember vividly seeing a video of one of the attackers walking up to a wounded police officer and executing him at point-blank range.
I'm with you here, satire should be protected, killing people for satire is awful, and Charlie Hebdo have a really dumb and bad taste humor.
Doesn't make sense to me that religious people get violent because of something you say or draw.
If it would be wrong god will punish people who do it. If god doesn't it is not wrong. And if god doesn't but religious people do, that is them acting against god and thinking they know better then god. That is blasphemy and will make their god hate them.
I always thought that the reason that religious extremists are so obsessed with concepts like blasphemy and hatred for other sects and religions is because their very existence plants seeds of doubt in their minds. "If my beliefs are self evident and absolutely true then how can any other beliefs possibly exist?" They may turn it around and pose it as an attack on them "They are trying to make me doubt my beliefs."
Once I saw this guy on a bridge about to jump. I said, "Don't do it!" He said, "Nobody loves me." I said, "God loves you. Do you believe in God?"
He said, "Yes." I said, "Are you a Christian or a Jew?" He said, "A Christian." I said, "Me, too! Protestant or Catholic?" He said, "Protestant." I said, "Me, too! What franchise?" He said, "Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Baptist or Southern Baptist?" He said, "Northern Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist or Northern Liberal Baptist?"
He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region, or Northern Conservative Baptist Eastern Region?" He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region." I said, "Me, too!"
Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879, or Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912?" He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912." I said, "Die, heretic!" And I pushed him over
What
I said
Once I saw this guy on a bridge about to jump. I said, "Don't do it!" He said, "Nobody loves me." I said, "God loves you. Do you believe in God?"
He said, "Yes." I said, "Are you a Christian or a Jew?" He said, "A Christian." I said, "Me, too! Protestant or Catholic?" He said, "Protestant." I said, "Me, too! What franchise?" He said, "Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Baptist or Southern Baptist?" He said, "Northern Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist or Northern Liberal Baptist?"
He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region, or Northern Conservative Baptist Eastern Region?" He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region." I said, "Me, too!"
Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879, or Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912?" He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912." I said, "Die, heretic!" And I pushed him over
Still, doesn't make sense
😂 Beautiful reply!
Completely agree.
I find it weird when religious people don't see this. I was proselytized to not long ago by a Muslim dude from Egypt out of the blue. He tried to dismiss Christianity because there are many denominations and when I pointed out the various Muslim denominations he just said they're wrong by default because they are. Like, ok, I see your brain is forced to turn off with this topic.
It's like all this Tate sigma male influencer horseshit. If you have to say it, you ain't it.
What's this image supposed to be? All I see is CENSORED.
It's religion, it doesn't need to be logical. Au contraire.
People can behave in a way that makes sense to an outside observer without actually making any fucking lick of sense themselves.
It isn't just religious people
The whole point is just a way of not revering the prophet as a god or idol. Like Catholic saints are borderline in their focus on the religiosity of that person but the church chose to ignore it because it was popular and helped them spread their religion.
But the implication is that it only matters for people who are already Muslim. It doesn't make a difference what outsiders do.
I think most people would agree with the following: even if you feel the cartoon was in poor taste or was “punching down,” the shooting was a terrorist act that just served to reinforce the worst stereotypes about Muslims and—ironically—the offending cartoon itself.
Opinions can vary about the cartoon, but that’s the point of defending satire and free speech; what’s completely indefensible is violence that clearly isn't in the service of self-defense. People who quibble about the definition of self-defense and even skirt the idea that the terrorists in this incident had a right to do what they did, in my opinion, are likely either sophomoric contrarians or bad faith actors intentionally trying to muddy the waters, akin to some far-right militia members on conservative subreddits.
Deleted by moderator
*Removed by mod*
We pull back too much because Islamic nutjobs will get violent because you dared draw a picture that resembled their stupid prophet. By doing that, we are giving them what they want and telling other religious groups that if they get violent enough, we’ll stop to appease them too.
You can mock Jesus, Moses, Krishna and any other religious figure because their followers, at worse, are going to verbally protest, if they do anything at all. But draw fucking Muhammad and people will tell you to knock it off because we don’t want to upset the assholes who will riot and kill people because they can’t handle someone having a differing opinion. Society bends over backwards to not offend Islam out of fear.
In response, we should have doubled down. Make more cartoons, get more vulgar with it…go all in, not stopped to appease them. Some people did for a while immediately after the attack, but not enough and not long enough, imo.
On the other side, if you do double down and get vulgar then you'll find lot of racists joining in with you. That's the dilemma of criticizing or satirizing Islam while also staying away from xenophobes.
Why doesn’t the same happen for Hinduism? It’s mocked relentlessly and is predominately practiced by non-whites, perhaps even more so than Islam, but we never hear any worries of racism for it. Why do we worry for one religion and not another? What about Judaism? It’s perhaps the most mocked/satirized religion throughout history and the only one that actually shares its background with a race, but we never worry about racism towards it like Islam?
Are you sure about that? Do you even know what is happening in India ever since Modi's party got into power? Please don't talk out of your ass.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_incidents_of_cow_vigilante_violence_in_India
Oh okay I missed one example lol you got me.
What about Judaism? You left that question unanswered. If we’re really that worried about racism, I would think we’d be more cautious when it comes to mocking anything Jewish-related, wouldn’t we? But that’s not the case at all as their religion is mocked and satirized freely.
Uhm look at Zionists? Seriously?
Just because you think these religions are fine with comedy (they're not but those voices are miniscule) doesn't mean they're fine with everything you say about those religions.
Would your response be the same if an outright racist or transphobic comic was murdered? Would you spread racist and transphobic content to assert your free speech?
Not drawing cartoons is not bending over backwards. If they were trying to get women being veiled, or ban abortions or homosexuality then yeah we should tell them to fuck off. But if they're just asking to not say a word or draw something that isn't necessary to political dialog then it's fair for society to respect that. It should be enforced by being ostracized not killed though.
People shouldn't be shot for saying the n word but if someone did get shot for saying it we shouldn't all go around saying the n word because being intentionally offensive is still a dick move. Again not one that should be punished with death.
Sure, why not? I feel that way about Dave Chappelle and the crap he got for making jokes about “the t” in LGBT. We can make jokes about everyone else but as soon as it comes to transgender people, that’s off limits? No. Don’t think so. Carry on, Dave. He did exactly what I recommended here by doubling down when people made a big deal over it.
There are Christians who ask for this and it is absolutely not respected. There were protests for things like “The Last Temptation of Christ” and many other media since and instead society continues to poke fun at Jesus.
So why is it respected when it comes to Muhammad but not for Jesus despite a portion of the population asking for him to not be satirized? Is it because they’re not vocal enough? Or is it because people fear for their lives because psychos murder over a cartoon?
As in everything in life, your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins.
If you don't like the satire of Charlie Hebdo, your right is to not read it. If you don't like a comedian who makes pedo jokes, your right is to not buy their tickets. If you don't like a TV show that shows drug use, your right is to not watch it.
That's it. That's the end of your personal rights on that issue. You do NOT have the right to tell other people what *they* personally view, watch, read, etc...
If enough people share your view, that publication/comedian/show will either change or go out of business naturally because of lack of subscribers. That's how it works.
I personally find Charlie Hebdo to be racist twits. But that doesn't give me any right to kill them. I have the right to just ignore them.
What makes you think Charlie Hebdo is racist?
"Racist" is probably too strong a word, you're right.
I think "Tasteless" is more fitting. Racist would imply that they "satirise" some groups while protecting others, while Charlie Hebdo paints everyone with the same tasteless brush.
Reminds me of something my coworker was telling me about Leah Michele from the show Glee. A black cast mate accused her of being racist and the the rest of the cast essentially said “nah, she’s a total bitch to pretty much everyone”
Aka, the South Park defense.
This cover
This is a satire of right wing politics (which Charlie notably opposed) claiming that poor people make more babies to get more social welfare, with denounciation of islamist organization Boko Haram using women as sex slaves, both mixed to create absurd comedy.
Explain what you find racist about this.
Not sure what it says, but as Charlie Hebdo makes fun of everyone, and usually for a good reason, what is the problem?
I was curious too:
"Islamists" are politically far-right - paleoconservatives, theocrats, fascists.
I don't see how this is an opinion about satire or religious satire.
So they Charlie hebdo shooting was over a cartoon of the Islamic religious figure against the artists at a French newspaper.
The above comment is describing the state of mind and beliefs of the attacker.
I am aware of the charlie hebdo shooting and why they claimed they did it. But I don't see how the above statement relates to it, besides the loose connection of "islamists". Are they saying there are enough violent islamists that one should fear repercussions? Or are they dismissing the islamists' views by labeling them as paternal conservatives? It's really just a statement about islamists, and not about the freedom of satire.
So that is called "willful ignorance" and the weight of *not being able to see the relation* is YOUR burden to bear.
It correlates quite nicely and you're throwing a fit because you *disagree emotionally*.
There are paradoxes in the system, but rest assured that these religions, the Abrahamic ones and other World religions, are all conservative in their construction.
You are not going to find the answers to the paradoxes, you're not going to find the equilibrium. I'm certainly not going to give you the solutions in some obscure comment, this kind of stuff requires shelves of books and papers.
Note that if you think the satire magazine is some dangerous fascist organization posting their propaganda in order to recruit for an underground militia type organization, you have to prove that. It's not *too difficult* to prove or disprove, but that can be a skill in of itself, something all moderators everywhere should have.
Here's one of their covers satirizing French racists:
See Hamtramck, MI. They took over the local government and banned pride flags. The mayor is an Islamic Trumper. It makes no sense to me.
"I got mine here in the US, so fuck the rest of you all!"
It says a lot that there's only one religion that I'm scared to criticize.
12 people were killed for publishing a cartoon of Muhammad.
A teacher was beheaded for showing a drawing of Muhammad.
Cartoonist drew Muhammad, leading to Danish embassies being attacked and riots broke out and people died. Later, people broke into his house to try to kill him.
Cartoonist had to live under police protection because of threats.
Creators of South Park were threatened for including Muhammad in an episode of the show.
These were just a few from the FIRST PAGE of a search engine, AND outside of Muslim majority countries.
This is before even considering every other 'provocation', leading to incidences like:
Salman Rushdie being stabbed on stage
A teacher forced into hiding for showing a picture of mahammad
Deleted by moderator
It's time based. Buddhism also had a similar ban on iconic representation of the Buddha. That's why some early art will just have footprints or things like that. Islam should allow iconic representation of their prophet within 300 years.
Were Buddhists killing people for depicting Buddha?
Murdering humans over a drawing is a sensitive topic for me. Please do not expect civility when discussing ancient barbaric pre-scientific belief systems.
By that same thought process, don’t expect civility when you’re making fun of and disparaging people’s religions.
🤷🏼♂️
Just saying, you might want to think about what your advocating for and the hypocrisy behind it.
Adults who are afraid of sky Grandpa are never civil. I think your statement is intended as a roundabout threat.
There is no hypocrisy. Murdering in the name of god is not the same as being critical of religion.
I think the people's presumption that they have some right to be free from offense has done way more damage than anything.
Satire is a necessary way to call out impropriety in Democratic society. The humor softens the blow of the reality of horrible acts and makes less horrible but still bad acts easier to understand. As long as it's not saying things that are just totally without merit or using it purely to spread hate, it should be staunchly defended regardless of who is offended by it.
Example of bad satire is something like a cartoon of an LGBTQ+ person going to a psychiatrist and the psychiatrist saying it's a mental illness and their head explodes. This is pushing the narrative that being gay is something to be cured and that gay people just can't accept it. This can be considered satire, but like any type of speech it's stating something designed to harm others. Satire is meant to over-exaggerate a problem, not make up a problem that doesn't actually exist for the express purpose of hate.
Would you support killing a person who published such a cartoon?
No. I don't support the death penalty for any crimes except in circumstances where secure imprisonment is impossible and the criminal is a serious physical danger to others. I said defend satire, not punish hate speech disguised as satire which is another subject on how to do that.
Social ostracization or ridicule is an appropriate response to bad statements, not violence
A week ago I was in line to check out and there was a young woman in a hijab. When she turned to help me I saw her entire face and hands (all I could see really) had acid burns all over.
The paradox of tolerance will *never* be something I struggle with once The Fall happens. Regardless for whichever religion seeks to lynch me.
What's that?
One of the four seasons
I thought they stopped making music in the 60s.
More like 1720 but who's counting LMAO 🤣
How did you know they were acid burns as opposed to the many other things that could burn someone?
The "Paradox of Tolerance" is only a paradox if one starts with the ridiculous assertion that tolerance is a universal good.
Is it a sensitive topic? I mean satire is respected in any country with decent human rights / freedom of speech. It only triggers bigots that theoretically have bigger problems.
What a void attitude.
The Charlie Hebdo event has proven that the discussion is very neccessary, and that satire is not fully respected even in a modern western society.
I wouldn't say it's void, they were extremists. Not to take away from the tragedy of course. From my understanding the question is specifically about satire.
I'd say we've moved to wanna be oligarchs highjacking media companies in democracies for "fake news" and war crimes committed against journalists. Israel is too busy blowing up hospitals to attack foreign journalists for Nettenyohoo memes.
Didnt some journalist quit because he made satire of besos and besos being the owner of the media company didnt let it get published? Thats the reality satire faces today.
A more controversial topic would be discussing the satire of luigi that is being surpressed. (Any form of luigi speech really, but satire too).
That's because that cartoon she made was literally the truth of what's happening behind the scenes in the white house. It moved from satire into reality and that was too much for Bezos and his wealth villain buddies.
Yes, obviously for some Muslim people who would like their own religious rules to be applied to everyone, but also for some people who tend to associate satire on elements related to minorities to some form of racism against those minorities. You can find quite some of the latter in communities here such as ml. One of them shared their views on a comment below.
Obviously it's horrible to kill people over speech. Cartoons do not justify violence or terrorism.
But we also shouldn't pretend like speech is necessary or valuable just because it's offensive or that offending people to the point of violence is noble.
If someone was killed for saying the n word that would be a tragedy and should be condemned. But we shouldn't all go around yelling the n word just to assert our free speech or pretend like the guy saying the n word was a hero for doing it.
This view is ostensibly reasonable (I've been tempted by it myself). The problem is the slippery slope. As soon as someone declares, "I'm offended so pleased don't say that", you begin to get de-facto limits about what (perfectly legal) things may be said. In the case of religious offense it's doubly dangerous because religion always gets a free pass when it comes to offense.
Next thing you know, only a few very brave people are willing to say whatever (perfectly legal) thing has been established as verboten. And then they become easy pickings for extremists. This is exactly what has happened with innocuous, legal, Mohammed cartoons, among other things. It's called the assassin's veto and personally I find it much more offensive than any cartoon.
It's not a slippery slope, it's an ambiguous gray area which a lot of moral rational debates like this don't do well with. For example I think we can agree that white people shouldn't call black people n*gger, but what about negro? There are some people who will do the victim hood Olympics and say calling people black is bad too.
If we follow the free speech absolutist line then we get a bunch of white men demeaning every marginal group with horrific slurs. If we follow the no offense at all costs line then we're walking around a term for Mexican food because someone said that it's racist. We need to find some sort of middle ground and that ground is going to be very blurry, socially determined and subjective, and it won't have any easy hard rules that people desperately search for in stuff like this.
The punishment for leaving this area should just be social ostracization though, not violence or death. There shouldn't be an assassin's veto but there also shouldn't be an asshole get out of jail free card.
This all wasn't my argument though, I was arguing against the people in this thread saying we should've doubled down, published the cartoon in all major publications and done more Mohammad drawings simply to assert free speech. That's saying that speech is valuable and should be spread simply because its offensive and caused an overreaction which is the same logic as those annoying right wing assholes who say horrible shit to "trigger the libs". Offensiveness can be a means to an end but when it becomes an end unto itself then it just becomes cruelty.
This leans heavily on two very modern, and US-centric, ideas: - to insult a *group* is the worst possible form of speech infringement - that non-physical abuse can constitute "cruelty" (you didn't use the word "harm" but it's right there)
Personally I dispute these premises. I think it would be better if we stuck to something close to free-speech absolutism: easier to police; no perverse incentives to victimhood; resilience is an underrated virtue, etc.
Technically I belong to one of your "marginalized groups" but I don't see myself as a victim. My answer to insults is usually to roll my eyes rather than to break down in tears and call for Daddy to step in.
Anyway, I think this is really about the cultural zeitgeist. My ideas are going out of fashion and yours are coming into fashion. Better hope this experiment goes well.
Taboos aren't new, they've just shifted. Before they were based more on Christian morality but nowadays it's mostly from a secular multicultural morality.
If someone repeatedly called you a slur you may not break down and cry, though I don't judge those who do, but wouldn't you at least stop talking to them? Wouldn't you tell other people to also stop associating with them? I know I would and that is the social ostracization that I think should be a punishment for offensive behavior.
I don't see how you can make the case that verbal abuse doesn't harm people without completely ignoring psychology and mental health. If someone becomes depressed due to harassment are they not harmed? What if they commit suicide, is it purely their fault since they couldn't toughen up and the bully is absolved as some fucked up form of natural selection?
Even ignoring mental health words can damage your respect which is a valuable resource that is being unjustly taken. If your bosses right hand man keeps making misogynist jokes and using slurs against you and then you get passed over for a promotion because your boss doesn't take you seriously then those words cost you monetarily. Your level of respect can open or close many doors in your life and having someone degrade that which you may have worked very hard for is harmful.
The discrimination question is a valid concern. My general approach there is to have strong legislation that puts the onus on companies etc to prove non-discrimination, and leave it there. Trying to legislate outcomes is counter-productive, there are other ideals that are more fundamental than group non-discrimination. We are human beings before we are members of this or that group. Alas Americans, especially younger ones, tend not to see things this way any more!
But for this question of "emotional harm" (which is clearly what you're talking about), I think it's more complex than it looks. That somebody might be "hurt" by some non-physical "violence" is a subjective reality that we created collectively. It can therefore be uncreated collectively, if we so desire. I think that would be the better path to take.
Charlie mostly draws satire of people in power or with influence. Do you think they only do that to be offensive?
No, speaking truth to power is an important part of satire and political discourse in general. I haven't seen the original cartoon but if that's what it was then I'm all for it, though Muslims are very marginal in France and don't hold much power.
This was in response to all the people, including a lot in this thread, that also probably haven't seen the cartoon but want it published everywhere and for us to show more pictures of Muhammed. In that case people are valuing something not because of its message but because it offends and "triggers" people, which is the same rational for some of the worst right wing "comedy".
Offensiveness can be a means to an end, such as showing the corruption of the powerful, but when it becomes an end unto itself it simply becomes cruelty.
Indeed, that's why those cartoons don't target Muslims but the islamists or politicians (Islamism is a political ideology) who try to influence others.
I think what they do is really different from the people in this thread posting offensive cartoons for the sake of freedom to do so. In fact, freedom of expression is much more regulated in France than in the USA. If you post racist content with no indication that it is a satire or some other good intention, you can get condemned for racism. The former leader of the far right party Le Pen who just died yesterday have been convicted multiple times for his racism in the media.
There is a big difference between the two!!
You do not chose to be black, you chose what fairytale to believe in.
You do not try to convert other people to be black, religious try to convert others into their nonsense.
You do not kill people for stopping to be black, Islam does.
Religion NEEDS to be mocked, because it is ridiculous and it is infecting everything around us.
I wouldn't care about anyone's religious beliefs if they practiced for themselves and left everyone else alone, but they never do. They have to spread their bullshit and infiltrate governments to try to legislate their bullshit.
I agree with your sentiment although the n word wouldn't have been my choice for that analogy.
I agree with intentionally provocational speech hiding behind the 'free speech' disguise being stupid, but I think its also important to see a difference between racial slurs and discrimination based on things that people can't change, versus legitimate criticism of religion - which, although not always easy to get out of (I.e. cults, trapped family members, cultural norms) I see as still a fundamentally voluntary behaviour that you can to an extent opt out of as a belief system, as opposed to discrimination on race, sex, disability, nationality, etc.
Now of course that doesnt mean I will go into religious buildings and shout obscenities or try to have edgy atheist rants at inoffensive elderly worshippers - but the saying that "your freedom ends where mine begins" holds true for me, and I won't tolerate outward discrimination on religious grounds, the forcing of those belief systems inside secular systems like schools or courts or governments, and I think I'm well within my rights to criticise harmful and unacceptable behaviour undertaken for 'religious' grounds, which would otherwise be crimes or offences. (I.e. animal torture/sacrifice, child marriage, slavery etc.)
My opinion is that satire must hurt. Otherwise it may have no impact, then it is nothing else than cheap comedy. But it is possible that it hurts too much, so that some people cannot endure it. Society has a duty to protect the weak as well as the artists. It is a narrow line.
I'm religious, and I think that people should be absolutely free to satirize religion if they want to. What someone else believes isn't my affair, I definitely think my faith has lots of room for improvement from an organizational perspective, and there are plenty of religious ideas I think are toxic and wrong. Why shouldn't we have nuance and differing opinions? Why should anyone have the right to hurt others through their religious practices? We should be criticizing those things and calling them out and trying to make them stop, whether we practice religion or not. I think the treatment of women and queer people by a great deal of religious groups is wrong and should be criticized. I don't think government and religion should be intertwined at all. Just because I practice in a faith doesn't mean my faith is the authority on anything, but universally we should not be hurting others.
Satire should be free. Hate speech should not. People shouldn't be killed for either. I don't particularly cry when bigots die though.\
All that said, there's reasons some jokes just aren't worth telling. There's times and spaces, and for some jokes there's neither and that's ok.
Is making fun of a religion hate speech? Like religion is a choice to embrace so its kind of weird that it's a protected class, despite the pilgrims fleeing it.
Many believers seem to think so. Then again, they think it's "hate speech" to show the contradictions of their "holy" book, so...
It depends. If they have blatant hypocrisy and hatred towards others or they're manipulating laws based on their weird beliefs, or using their religion as an excuse to abuse people then yeah, it's open season on that. If you're just making fun of someone because of their funny looking hat, then you're just being an AH.
Deleted by moderator
As in most things: it depends. Your question is too broad for an answer lacking nuance. But why did you ask?
Ohh was just musing on it from a legal perspective. It's the one thing I can think of that's a decision driven protected class.
It is funny how attacks on the protected classes seem to rhyme. Homosexuality is presented as being a decision to try attack it. Gender identity is presented as being a choice to try and discredit it.
Now I'll agree that religion is a class someone can move through, from Christian to muslim, to atheist and finally Buddhist for example. But I don't think that particularly matters. Someone can realise their sexual identity later in life, then realise they are wrong and it was something else. I don't think that's them making decisions, so much as learning more about themselves and the world. So how someone can move around a religious space doesn't really interest me in terms of what it means as a protected class.
Muse away, transphobes have trodden a lot of ground if you want a head start.
Don't really understand your last sentence there. Seems inflammatory though. Religion is something you are not born with that's my point. It's akin to your favorite sports team as far as I'm concerned.
Yeah but what is hate speech when it comes to religion? For hardcore religious people blasphemy is hate speech. Like when that French teacher just showed drawings of Muhammed in historical context it was enough reason for a Muslim to kill him.
If you don't know what hate speech is I don't know what to tell you. Or are you doing the equivalent of the "what is a woman" nonsense?
I made a few statements.
Satire is fine. Agree/ disagree? I think we agree
Hate speech is not. Agree/ disagree? I don't know if we agree
Neither should come with a death penalty? Agree disagree? I hope we agree
I personally don't cry over dead bigots. A personal statement. Undebatable unless you want to call me a liar.
There's a time and space for jokes. For some jokes there's neither. Agree/ disagree? I don't know if we agree.
I think his response was clear. Hate speech can be twisted into anything you want as it's just an opinion.
I thought they were disagreeing with point two, I don't want to jump to conclusions though. Social media is full of "so you think [extreme nonsense here]" I am trying to be better than that.
I dunno. I was around for the "it's PC culture gone mad" position from yonder year. Their comment was similar to arguments made back then about racism, transphobia, homophobia, any protected class really.
Deleted by author
Honestly? That I would rather have Meta (and a bunch of Western countries, while we're at it) lift restrictions on that front first before they go against LGBT people.
I'm not on board with the idea that edgy or offensive humor is valuable in itself, but I absolutely abhor the scenario where offended conservative and traditionalist views are treated in their own terms while marginalized groups are considered needy or nagging if they ask for the same treatment.
Also not on board with comedians assuming that noting their ignorance or bigotry is the same as not having a sense of humor, incidentally. Everybody sucks, is my point.
Satire’s dead, but I’d love to see a revival of both it and serious human existence within my lifetime c:
Satire may have been instrumental in its own demise.
People see satire and are either smart enough to understand it - maybe even find it funny, or are offended by it. Those who are offended generally become more entrenched in their beliefs and those who aren't either don't see the satire for the warning it is, or do, but mostly choose not to do something about the subject.
And since people have seen what the satirised subject *could* be like, and they didn't take action, the subject might take the opportunity to move a little closer to the form it took in satire.
Given this and enough time, satire and reality can become indistinguishable.
And here we are.
I'm all for satire, but I also think this was kind of bullying in that they did something that was offensive specifically to a particular marginalized minority group.\
So it's not something that should be illegal or warrant a shooting, but I'm not exactly surprised. Just as if they published a story like "Fuck this one guy's mother" showing a drawing of some random guy's mother being fucked.* That guy doesn't then have a right to shoot them and should go straight to prison if he does - but I wouldn't be surprised and I don't think we all need to identify with the paper or anything because they were being total pricks.
*And I know the response will be along the lines of "You can't compare that drawing with a mere drawing of mohammed". But that betrays a failure to take another perspective. Who's to say that in a society even more liberal than our own, "fuck your mother" might be seen as not particularly insulting? After all, take away expectations of women being pure and you basically have "fuck your dad" which really doesn't seem too insulting, it's like sure if that's what you're into weirdo, but let me check with my dad first.
Do you think they wanted to bully the minority rather than the islamists?
What was the satire here, then? How is portraying her as a gypsy anything but racist?
Didn't really get the gypsy reference, so I looked it up, Charlie directly answered to the emotion it caused here: https://charliehebdo.fr/2018/06/societe/%E2%80%89je-ne-suis-pas-charlie-halep%E2%80%89/ (the paywall can be bypassed with reading mode). Basically, they are saying that what they did is a satire of French people prejudices against Romanian people. They often do that, they reuse the words/prejudices of the people they criticize in a satirical setting to mock it, though without knowing Charlie's culture, it's difficult to interpret. Consider it as the equivalent of "/s" at the end of a comment here.
Have we read the same article? Because that article simply claims that Romanians have an air of superiority and that it was a banal drawing and then lists a bunch of reactions from some Romanians and also brings up the fact that Halep is of aromanian descent, despite it being irrelevant. Unless they think aromanians and the romani are the same people, which they're not. Sounds unapologetic and no explanation given for the reinforcement of the romanians = gypsies stereotype.
They could've at least framed it as a "le monde" title or something to imply that it's the media framing her as such.. there's nothing there to imply those are other people's words..
So I can make a comic of Obama with some fried chicken and some watermelon at a desk with a plaque that says POTUS and just be like "it's a joke! I'm making fun of the racists!" ? That doesn't sound right to me, but whatever.
The framing is having it on Charlie Hebdo and knowing what is their style. When people take it out of this context and with no knowledge of local politics, it will easily look racist. The same happens with a satirical comment here, take it out of context and present it at a family dinner, it will not be received the same.
Let me take an up voted comment from here as an example.
Deleted by moderator
This seems to be from 1979 and I can't find any description to explain the context. But it mentions oil, so I would guess it is a satire of politicians talking about going to war with Arabic countries over oil prices. Would you have the historical context?
Deleted by moderator
The shooting wasn't merely about the freedom of satire. Not *really*. Let's complicate the story.
The Kouachi brothers were Algerian and you can't ignore the history of French colonialism in Algeria as the antecedent to this attack. This isn't just about secularism and blasphemy, that's only the surface. It's about racism and colonialism and imperialism. Don't think of this only as religious fanatics angry because infidels insulted the Prophet Mohammad, think of this as an oppressed racial group lashing out at a racist society and it being channeled *through* Islam. There's a deeper tension here than just the religious surface.
Now, as for my opinion?
Racist satire should be illegal and that racists should be put into reeducation camps to be rehabilitated.
Also! Adventurism is bad and people should get organized into a Party, not do vigilante attacks on racists.
They were both French, born in Paris. Their parents were Algerian.
You're not saying "but where are they really from" are you?..
And *why* were their parents in France and not Algeria? Why did they have to leave their homes to raise their children in France?
Because of French colonialism in Algeria! Because their country was underdeveloped and used as a source of cheap labor and resources and subjected to the horrors of a military occupation by a colonial power! You can't just isolate immigration in a vacuum without analyzing the impacts of imperialism and colonialism on migration.
The brothers went to Syria to train and attempt to fight in Iraq against the Americans. They stated their motivation was the abuse carried out at Abu Ghraib by the Americans.
Then they trained in Yemen
They were eventually assoiated with al-Qaeda in the Arabian peninsula
They expressed a desire to kill Jews, Chérif Kouachi specifically stating that he wanted to firebomb Jews
Targetting Jews is what their accomplice, Amedy Coulibaly, actually did attacking a Jewish supermarket
Kouachi stated his motivation was "avenging the prophet Muhammad" (for the cartoon) and retaliating against the "killing women and children in Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan"
Jews.. America.. a media company. Not the French state. They have never cited Algeria as their motivation. You really shouldn't be erasing their identity and narrative and substituting your own. That's quite colonial of you...
sources:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Hebdo_shooting
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypercacher_kosher_supermarket_siege
https://edition.cnn.com/2015/01/13/world/kouachi-brothers-radicalization/index.html
https://www.thenationalnews.com/world/from-orphans-to-terrorists-journey-of-the-kouachi-brothers-1.114610
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/former-teacher-of-kouachi-brothers-says-they-were-not-intelligent-enough-to-resist-extremism-9973318.html
I didn't say Algeria was the motivation, I said it was the antecedent. French colonialism is the reason their parents had to leave their homes and the reason that these men were French in the first place. It's not like this is ancient history.
Now as for hatred for Jews and America, all that too ties back to imperialism and neocolonialism. Their hatred for Jews is obviously tied to the fact that there's a Jewish-supremacist ethnostate in the middle east (that France supports) and which touts itself as representative of all Jews. Sadly, this results in blowback onto Jewish people who are not Israeli.
But they're still *French* so still pay their taxes to France which sends weapons to Israel. It's only very recently that France decided to stop sending weapons to Israel, but when these attacks happened France was fully complicit in Israeli settler-colonialism.
And most notably, France is a key American ally. America creates blowback that falls onto its allies.
Blowback is complicated, but it's undeniably the root cause. They even said so! My point: we have to analyze all of the context surrounding the attack. "French" Algeria, the War on Terror, Israeli settler-colonialism, etc etc it's all connected.
*You* are the one determined to erase their motivations by just making it about cartoons. It's *not*.
You sound really excited to put people into camps
Well we can't just kill them!
Crackkkers don't know any better, we can help them overcome their racist upbringings.
Yeah. What if we don’t take people’s right to bodily autonomy for indirectly harmful speech, or as I interpret you, beliefs they hold silently
Racism is not a right. It's a sickness.
Sick people have rights though?
The state didn't protect these cartoonists, and it won't be there for you or me either.
We are responsible for our own security, like it or not.
www.SocialistRA.org
Could you provide a source describing how the attack was related to colonialism rather than blasphemy against the prophet of Islam?
What makes you think Charlie's intentions are racism rather than mocking extremists?
Edit: added second question.
https://www.counterpunch.org/2015/01/14/laffaire-charlie-hebdo-and-western-colonialism/
These men were fighting with Western-backed rebels in Syria to overthrow Assad, which is where they learned to kill.
And it's important to note their Algerian heritage because France occupied Algeria as recently as 1962 when it gained independence from France. Their parents didn't immigrate from Algeria to France in a vacuum.
This was blowback.
Do you think they fought in Syria to promote freedom and democracy or to promote an Islamist system?
How does killing cartoonists, who are notably against conservatives, helps with decolonization? They should hit some far right journal that denies colonization crimes instead.
Go read up on what the French did in Algeria and you might understand why some Algerians might want to kill French racists.
Rofl you're too funny man.
Get real 😋
Consistently, you always choose the repressive side as you did with China in that thread about lgbt erotica authors being arrested. As a queer socialist, this is depressive to see.
Imagine not believing racists should be repressed. 🙄
Also, in case you forgot, all I did in that thread was point out that China bans *all* erotica and that it isn't specifically targeting queer authors. I just wanted to clarify something that wasn't clear in the title. I never justified China's outdated laws about erotic literature.
It is hard to make satire now when we seem to be living in an age that satirizes itself.
According to collectivistic ideology, anything can be a provocation and you are always a victim.
If so, anything anyone did is justifiable to make you angry or have any other negative emotional response, because as a victim, you are powerless.
Not only that, you, as a person, are indistinguishable from an animal as, like them, you are utterly incapable of controlling your thoughts, feelings and impulses. In essence, you have no control over your life.
Ergo it follows you are absolutely allowed to do anything in your power to stop the thing that makes you have a negative emotional response to stop existing.
You are, erm, justified.
But just you, not the others, those are assholes
You know it's okay to just not post anything right?
I don't have any issue or opinion or dog in the race with the prophet Muhammed, but those idiots made it important to say "muhammed the prophet is a giant cunt who should be laughed at and get a pie in the face" every now and then just to remind everybody how getting to talk works.
Reality keeps sliding into absurdity rendering satire mute.
Hebdo was super racist and their criticism came from a glass house. If a Nazi dies I am not losing sleep over it.
What makes you think they were super racist or Nazis?
Their cartoons were similarly racist to Nazi propaganda.
Do you mean Charlie's cartoons were as racist as Nazi propaganda?
Edge lords, but not even close to Nazis.
French culture is more racist-y than US culture, and a history of trait-blindness is starting to catch up with it and having ripples across French society.
I am legally obligated not to have an opinion
I don't.
Fuck terrorists, fuck terrorists sympathizers and fuck people who kill others over a cartoon
Deleted by moderator
Deleted by moderator
Deleted by moderator
If your group can't take a joke, your group is a joke. Especially if it is abusive imaginary parent who according to you does everything that is wrong with the world in order to "build character" and overall rules through fear only.