Attack on French satirical magazine who posted jokes about the prophet Mohammed - 12 killed

[Amir]

People can be sentenced up to 7 years for tweeting in support of the attackers:

http://www.numerama.com/magazine/31818-charlie-hebdo-jusqu-a-7-ans-de-prison-pour-les-messages-d-apologie.html

I think they're terrible people for celebrating these deaths, but the massive irony of arresting people who are celebrating the deaths of people who promoted free speech isn't lost on me.

:/

[magisme]

Because it's not really about free speech.

[Len Cnut]

How's it good in any level when a "terrorist" or whoever gets killed? How does it make the situation any better than them being locked up away from endangering society?

Also, why are people always happy when an assailant, be it some kid who kills other kids at school or a "terrorist" who dies.. even if one genuinely hated them wanting them to suffer as much as possible, why wouldn't they want them rather interviewed.. like get inside their heads and get some insight over their mentalities and use it to prevent same kind of shit happening over and over.. or is the feeling of getting to know they've died somehow so much more satisfying?

I was gonna say something similar upon reports of the deaths but i felt like Soulmonster was getting ready to call Interpol

Well, the freedom of expression obviously doesn't cover those with mutilated genitals.

I actually see you two more likely to get into a state of common understanding and agreement than either of you and any of the "good riddance!!!!111!111!!!!" people.

Im only messing about, he's great really. We dont agree all the time but i dont believe he comes from a bad place with what he says.

Condemning the killing of innocents; being skeptical to warfare and in particular how the west have interferred in other countries; believing in welfare for all; a supporter of the foundations of democracy including the rights to free speech, religion, free press; trying to raise awareness of long-term effects of escalating human population because the alternative is worse; wanting extended rights for animals; being opposed to discrimination and racism; takes equal rights for women for granted, takes equal right for homosexuals for granted; wants to share the resources of the world more equally between people; a supporter of organizations like doctors without borders, red cross, etc; and working professionally to grant poor people across the world access to expensive medicines. That's as far as I can remember the extent of my political views as previously expressed on this forum. Good thing it doesn't come from a bad place then!

Who said i was talking about politics?

People can be sentenced up to 7 years for tweeting in support of the attackers:

http://www.numerama.com/magazine/31818-charlie-hebdo-jusqu-a-7-ans-de-prison-pour-les-messages-d-apologie.html

I think they're terrible people for celebrating these deaths, but the massive irony of arresting people who are celebrating the deaths of people who promoted free speech isn't lost on me.

:/

Hate to say i told you so.

[Amir]

People can be sentenced up to 7 years for tweeting in support of the attackers:

http://www.numerama.com/magazine/31818-charlie-hebdo-jusqu-a-7-ans-de-prison-pour-les-messages-d-apologie.html

I think they're terrible people for celebrating these deaths, but the massive irony of arresting people who are celebrating the deaths of people who promoted free speech isn't lost on me.

:/

Hate to say i told you so.

But like I said before, 2 wrongs don't make a right.

Will Self seems to be on your side:

http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/will-self-charlie-hebdo-attack-the-west-satire-france-terror-105

I don't agree with his definition of satire, or his classification of one side being stronger than the other.

Yes, I think it's hypocrisy on the part of the French government. Along with making it illegal to refute the Armenian Genocide (even as someone who believes it happened, I find it absurd to lock someone up for denying a historical event).

Edited January 9, 2015 by Amir

[Len Cnut]

Two wrongs don't make a right is what you say when you wanna divert attention, it doesn't require stating, it's obvious. My point was a very simple one and was never and has never been about justifying the terrorist, i tire from repeating this over and over and over and over and over and over and over.

[Amir]

Two wrongs don't make a right is what you say when you wanna divert attention, it doesn't require stating, it's obvious. My point was a very simple one and was never and has never been about justifying the terrorist, i tire from repeating this over and over and over and over and over and over and over.

Where did I say that you were justifying the terrorist in that post? I said I was aghast at the action being taken against tweeters considering the purported claim that this is about freedom of speech.

I've maintained that I believe in freedom of speech, regardless of how hateful or hurtful it might be to certain people. That includes cartoons mocking religious figures, and extends to celebrating deaths of people.

[Len Cnut]

it's something you've been saying pretty consistently every time i have a criticism for that side of the fence, if i've misunderstood something i apologise.

Also, to clarify, i believe in freedom of speech too...but i believe in taking responsibility just as much.

[Amir]

it's something you've been saying pretty consistently every time i have a criticism for that side of the fence, if i've misunderstood something i apologise.

I didn't say you were supporting terrorism, but that you seemed to think the retaliation was, if not justifiable, then at least to be expected in the same sense of being attacked after provoking an animal or something similar. But you agree that the people who commit the acts are nutters, and my point is that nutters latch onto different things at different times. Be it in Ireland over the Troubles, in Glasgow over Celtic v Rangers, in Aurora because of The Joker, I don't think you can ever predict what a nutter is going to do.

[Len Cnut]

Just to clarify not justifiable, on any level. To be expected? To a degree, yes but not in anyway an absolution for the crimes themselves. My whole problem, to condense it right down this could've possibly been avoided and, in being avoided, made absolutely no difference to the free speech that we apparently enjoy in our part of the world. Thats about the size of it, those 12 peoples lives matter more to me than a cartoon that is designed to poke fun at a bunch of people.

I don't think refraining from putting certain satirical cartoons, today in 2015, amounts a big enough of a retarding of free speech to warrant putting them out there at the risk of human casualties, i just don't. I don't think, had those cartoons NOT been put out, our way of life would've been any fucking different. The birds would still tweet, the ground would still be beneath our feet and the sky would still be big and blue above us. All that there wouldn't've been is those 12 people dead.

And as far as this nutter thing, point taken but at the same time it's a good idea to maybe not give nutters more of a cause. They're not THAT insane are they, i mean it's not totally fucking random, it's not the fuckin' beltway sniper here. There are ways to fight, there is a time and a place to fight and this, i don't think, was worth it. Now you can disagree with me all day long but it is my belief that nothing positive has been achieved by anyone.

And furthermore, i worry about supposedly sane individuals that are willing to write off 12 human lives offhand because it fits into their way of how they would like the world to be, i do not agree with that at all, they are not martyrs, they have not served a positive purpose is dying, they were human beings with lives and loves and family that are no longer there anymore because of a cartoon whoose entire purpose was to wind the other side up basically. Which is what satire amounts to really, in a way, taking the mickey.

In the field of battle is something else, to defend your family is something else...but over a cartoon, cuz you were taking the piss? Thats tragic. Now i don't disagree with the governing principle behind a lot of the satire...at all...but the nature of it, the manner of it, is counter-productive, there are better ways to change hearts and minds than taking the piss, if that is your intention.

You can't just say 'it's satire!' and suddenly the shit is all justified. Different ways and methods work in different places. I.e. peaceful protest worked when Gandhi wanted England out...would it have worked on the part of jews against Hitler d'ya think? Satire, taking the mickey, is not gonna work with these kinds of people, it's not gonna have any beneficial effect on the situation, it's only gonna wind them up.

To which I suppose the response is who are they that they should be exempt from a wind up? To which my response is what do you feel your purpose is in this situation? To help, to make the world a better place, to try and fix shit between the parties involved...or is it piss-taking with a view to exacerbating? Sometimes it's valuable to look beyond your rights and consider the purpose of your exercising 'x' right in a given situation, what am i doing, why am i doing it, what purpose is it gonna serve, as opposed to 'i have the right so i'm just goin' to, full stop', to me thats really immature and juvenile in terms of the mentality...just like crazy fuckers who go out and kill people cuz having the piss taken out of em makes their cheeks all flushed...but then all you end up with is juvenile meeting juvenile (although thats really too small a word for those fuckers but you get what i mean i hope) and then you end up with this? So was it worth it?

Free speech is an amazing concept and one of the most valuable aspects of our society...but that doesn't mean that every instance of free speech exercised is as important or necessary as the other, thats just stupid. And dangerous.

In short, i don't think what basically a piss take was worth 12 (more if i'm not mistaken?) lives. Not at all. The principle of free speech, yes, totally important but i also don't believe that choosing not to express a certain thing for the greater good is the same as forfeiting the right or not having the balls.

[Dan H.]

Just to clarify not justifiable, on any level. To be expected? To a degree, yes but not in anyway an absolution for the crimes themselves. My whole problem, to condense it right down this could've possibly been avoided and, in being avoided, made absolutely no difference to the free speech that we apparently enjoy in our part of the world. Thats about the size of it, those 12 peoples lives matter more to me than a cartoon that is designed to poke fun at a bunch of people.

I don't think refraining from putting certain satirical cartoons, today in 2015, amounts a big enough of a retarding of free speech to warrant putting them out there at the risk of human casualties, i just don't. I don't think, had those cartoons NOT been put out, our way of life would've been any fucking different. The birds would still tweet, the ground would still be beneath our feet and the sky would still be big and blue above us. All that there wouldn't've been is those 12 people dead.

And as far as this nutter thing, point taken but at the same time it's a good idea to maybe not give nutters more of a cause. They're not THAT insane are they, i mean it's not totally fucking random, it's not the fuckin' beltway sniper here. There are ways to fight, there is a time and a place to fight and this, i don't think, was worth it. Now you can disagree with me all day long but it is my belief that nothing positive has been achieved by anyone.

And furthermore, i worry about supposedly sane individuals that are willing to write off 12 human lives offhand because it fits into their way of how they would like the world to be, i do not agree with that at all, they are not martyrs, they have not served a positive purpose is dying, they were human beings with lives and loves and family that are no longer there anymore because of a cartoon whoose entire purpose was to wind the other side up basically. Which is what satire amounts to really, in a way, taking the mickey.

In the field of battle is something else, to defend your family is something else...but over a cartoon, cuz you were taking the piss? Thats tragic. Now i don't disagree with the governing principle behind a lot of the satire...at all...but the nature of it, the manner of it, is counter-productive, there are better ways to change hearts and minds than taking the piss, if that is your intention.

You can't just say 'it's satire!' and suddenly the shit is all justified. Different ways and methods work in different places. I.e. peaceful protest worked when Gandhi wanted England out...would it have worked on the part of jews against Hitler d'ya think? Satire, taking the mickey, is not gonna work with these kinds of people, it's not gonna have any beneficial effect on the situation, it's only gonna wind them up.

To which I suppose the response is who are they that they should be exempt from a wind up? To which my response is what do you feel your purpose is in this situation? To help, to make the world a better place, to try and fix shit between the parties involved...or is it piss-taking with a view to exacerbating? Sometimes it's valuable to look beyond your rights and consider the purpose of your exercising 'x' right in a given situation, what am i doing, why am i doing it, what purpose is it gonna serve, as opposed to 'i have the right so i'm just goin' to, full stop', to me thats really immature and juvenile in terms of the mentality...just like crazy fuckers who go out and kill people cuz having the piss taken out of em makes their cheeks all flushed...but then all you end up with is juvenile meeting juvenile (although thats really too small a word for those fuckers but you get what i mean i hope) and then you end up with this? So was it worth it?

Free speech is an amazing concept and one of the most valuable aspects of our society...but that doesn't mean that every instance of free speech exercised is as important or necessary as the other, thats just stupid. And dangerous.

In short, i don't think what basically a piss take was worth 12 (more if i'm not mistaken?) lives. Not at all. The principle of free speech, yes, totally important but i also don't believe that choosing not to express a certain thing for the greater good is the same as forfeiting the right or not having the balls.

[Amir]

Malala could have avoided getting shot in the face if she didn't want to go to school.

OK, so drawing cartoons is a little more juvenile and less noble than standing up for the rights of women to receive education, but the root conflict is still there.

Yes, not all speech is of equal importance, but what if instead of over cartoons they had been killed for a critical scholarly analysis of Islam? I already gave an example of someone being attacked for reading the Qur'an to non-Muslims, it's not a hypothetical.

If there were no killings over the cartoons, there wouldn't be a tragedy. Yes, there's that quote going around from one of the cartoonists about wanting to die standing up than on his knees, but do you think all 12 victims wanted to be martyrs? I said before there were no killings after the Jyllands-Posten controversy, is your view regarding those cartoons the same as these ones?

A cartoonist draws cartoons. They're not diplomats. Perhaps they could go through every single possible outcome and retaliation that they can think of when drawing cartoons, but that's a lot to ask of them. How many people talk shit without really thinking about what they're saying? 99.99999% of them don't get shot in the face for it.

What if some people found those cartoons funny? Is that not a positive achievement, bringing joy into somebody's life? What if one Muslim looked at them and laughed, and started rethinking his views? Is it just a question of maths, of utilitarianism?

I don't know.

I've taken the piss out of Islam a whole bunch of times on this board. Would it be OK if I got shot in the face because someone saw one of my posts and decided to do something about it?

Does one cartoonist's work negate the efforts being made by others to engage in dialogue? Why should everyone engage in dialogue in unison? I'd like it, but it's absurd to expect everyone to feel the same way. If the nutters choose to ignore the olive branches being extended by some to them and instead to focus on those taking the piss out of them, whose fault is that? These aren't monolithic entities, Charlie Hebdo doesn't represent the entirety of the West, and those murderers do not represent the entirety of the Islamic World.

How would you even know you have the right to take the piss if you never do?

[MB.]

I believe that those extremists would have found another target if Charlie Hebdo was not there. They choose this, cause of the cartoons, but that could also have been something else. Like another Newspaper, the Moulin Rouge (Western decadence or whatever) or a jewish museum (like the guy did in Belgium).

You can say, don't publish the cartoons, it's not worth it. But there is always a (in their eyes justified) target for guys like that to find. As proven today in the jewish supermarket. Cause that's what Al Qaida and IS are asking people to do, certainly as long as we keep on butting in in the middle East. Some boys unfortunately listen to that.

So what more can we change in our society to not be a target. No nude magazines, no bars? They will find something no matter what.

Edited January 10, 2015 by MB.

[Len Cnut]

Malala could have avoided getting shot in the face if she didn't want to go to school.

And now you're being juvenile, by employing sarcasm, a form of humour. And my point is that perhaps it isn't always the time and place for a joke, despite the right being ever present, is that that difficult a concept? Luckily for Malala she's lived to become a propaganda tool.

OK, so drawing cartoons is a little more juvenile and less noble than standing up for the rights of women to receive education, but the root conflict is still there.

Exactly, the root conflict is always there and you must bear that in mind when you act cuz it's something that some people take very seriously.

Yes, there's that quote going around from one of the cartoonists about wanting to die standing up than on his knees, but do you think all 12 victims wanted to be martyrs?

I respect them enough even in death not to speak on their behalf or speculate what they would think, how would i know?

A cartoonist draws cartoons. They're not diplomats.

It's a little more than that Amir, it's political satire, we're not talking about fingerpaints on the creche wall here, they're a bit more than just cartoonists.

Perhaps they could go through every single possible outcome and retaliation that they can think of when drawing cartoons, but that's a lot to ask of them. How many people talk shit without really thinking about what they're saying? 99.99999% of them don't get shot in the face for it.

How many times man, where do you see me justifying the terrorists? Over and over again I've said it, Jesus I said it in the last effing post, it's getting comical now, do you want me to mime that shit out to you, get a tattoo somewhere, whisper it in your ear after sex? What can i do to get you to accept that and if you say stop sticking up for the terrorists i swear I'm gonna come over and I'm gonna steal all your socks.

What if some people found those cartoons funny? Is that not a positive achievement, bringing joy into somebody's life?

Well they'll have to do without a laugh that day if it means 12 people get to live.

What if one Muslim looked at them and laughed, and started rethinking his views? Is it just a question of maths, of utilitarianism?

You got a point with the re-thinking views I guess.

I've taken the piss out of Islam a whole bunch of times on this board. Would it be OK if I got shot in the face because someone saw one of my posts and decided to do something about it?

You're doing it again, is it like a tic or reflex you can't help? Cuz if it is I'll stop mentioning it, i feel bad now

Does one cartoonist's work negate the efforts being made by others to engage in dialogue?

It can contribute, yeah.

If the nutters choose to ignore the olive branches being extended by some to them and instead to focus on those taking the piss out of them, whose fault is that? These aren't monolithic entities, Charlie Hebdo doesn't represent the entirety of the West, and those murderers do not represent the entirety of the Islamic World.

How would you even know you have the right to take the piss if you never do?

Whoose talking about never? I'm just talking about picking your shots, why is that not REALLY obvious to you by now? Prudence, using your loaf, knowing types of people, current climate, the world around me, whats gonna work and whats not, whats sensible at this moment thats gonna lead to good things and what might have a good chance of resulting in me getting fucked up when living until my 70s is a really cool and healthy concept etc etc etc etc, millions of other things that occur in a rationale person head when weighing up the pros and cons of what is in front of you and what repercussions certain actions might have. Do you know what comes along with a platform like that? Responsibility.

Now...get this through your head cuz honestly man, it's getting boring. I'm not justifying or condoning the terrorists. They are simply wrong. And in the first instance and obviously totally and completely and 100% at fault. OK? No argument ever about that. In terms of yesterday, the tragedy is 100 bajillion percent no one elses fault but the terrorists cuz they held the guns that shot the bullets that did the fucking murders...over cartoons. I swear part of my soul died tonight when i think that i actually had to spell that the fuck out to you like that Weep Amir, you should effing well weep lad

But...here, as with every single happenstance on this planet, there were a number of different agents involved and, as with everything, they could've done something different to avoid this happening. Because that is my primary problem, that is what agrieves me today, that 12 people are dead. Now...pointing that out apparently is me signing a membership form for Al sodding Qaeda

And i do think, yes, for those cartoonists, making that cartoon was a bad move. Am I wrong? I mean they've lost their lives over it for crying out loud, thats about as bad as you can get and i hope to God that isn't coming out flippant because I'm not being.

I do think an awareness of the parties in question and how they work and what their sensitivities are and which course of action with them would result in positive results and what would cause negative, might've saved their lives. For example, there are certain sorts of things or jokes that are cool with black folks and some that are kinda poor taste or could end up causing you some shit. Same with English, American, it's just basic common sense and MAYBE a smart idea would've been that the muslim world don't really respond that well to ridicule of their faith, their beliefs, it might cause some shit. And everybody has it, there's places you don't go with Americans, English, Pakistanis, Jews, I'm mixing nationalities and religions here but you get my point. Some times the world ain't ready for some shit and it's clever to not push the envelope on that day.

But then this is satire right? Which means they're taking the mickey, so it's on purpose, it's deliberately going for what they KNOW to be a sore spot. A sore spot that has violent repercussions. Buuuuuuuuuuut you do it any way cuz you have the right. And now 12 people are dead. I'm being logical and rationale here, not condoning anyone, you don't have to be absolving the terrorist to hold the position I'm stating here.

Its like it reminds me of a story Muhammad Ali told (sorry! bear with me though!) Him and his friend Bundini are on the road, hungry, stop at a truck stop for some food but it says whites only, so Ali's like OK I'm going up the road but it's the height of integration and sit ins and Bundini's like fuck that, no, lets go in but Ali's like well i ain't goin'. But Bundini does and he gets his arse kicked, chucked out and Ali says i told you so and they go up to a blacks only and munch up and have a great time, THAT was a bad move on Bundinis part, no? Now cuz i said that don't mean to say I'm goin' 'oh yeah, whites only, kick the blacks out!' and supporting Jim Crow and segregation I'm just saying there, on that day, in that political climate, that was a bad fuckin' move on Bundini's fault and it resulted in his getting his arse kicked, how is that wrong to say? It could've been avoided by a little prudence, bit of sensitiveness. Now the two obviously are not comparable (thought I'd clear it up!) but the idea of it being a bad move that could've been avoided is what it is.

Edited January 10, 2015 by Len B'stard

[Amir]

OK, so it's not pertinent to release cartoons today. But like MB said, what if tomorrow some nutters go shoot up a newsagents because he's selling Maxim and FHM? They're not high literature, and they're already controversial, so I suppose we could stop printing them for fear of violent reprisals. Next week a lady is beat up for baring an ankle, so people start being prudent and make sure they're always wearing high socks.

I know you and Mags aren't condoning terrorism. I know you're not proposing legislation of any sorts to limit free speech. I know you're advocating personal responsibility and prudence. I know that the real world isn't all rainbows and sunshine and that there is ever-present danger. But your Mohammed Ali anecdote brings up the point of fear, and living in a climate of fear.

The whole thing about a War on Terror is that it's like declaring a War against Evil, or any emotion or sentiment. It's ridiculous and you'll never win. Ali knew of the very real danger of being attacked by racists at the time. Bundini took a gamble, and got beat up. But it seems the decision to say whether an action is prudent or not can only be decided after the fact, because if Bundini had somehow changed the minds of some of the people in that restaurant and made them change their views, then it wouldn't be so silly after all.

It's freedom to do what you like vs. security, and while I do find it hard to align myself to the extreme of almost-total freedom with minimum security but greater loss of lives, I also don't feel comfortable with the option of living a life of zero risk but maximum security. You can say it's not a choice, that this is the world we live in and the choices have been made for us by other agents, but then how is change effected? Yes, perhaps the cartoonists' drawings weren't the greatest battlefield for freedom of speech, maybe Bundini didn't make the biggest leap forward in Civil Rights that day, but how can you quantify the effect? And how do you know when you can make a difference? How is Bundini walking into a whites-only restaurant different than Rosa Parks refusing to give up her seat to a white man?

I'm not saying I disagree with you that life is precious, but I'm trying to come to the point of asking when is quality of life greatly affected? You said people who find those cartoons funny could have gone without their chuckle that day, but I guess my point is saying that how much should we be victims to outside agents? Obviously everyone is to some extent but part of my point is that as there are so many agents like you say, that you can't be expected to avoid every potentially dangerous one.

[Is0tope]

Im only messing about, he's great really. We dont agree all the time but i dont believe he comes from a bad place with what he says.

Somehow from between the lines of what you two write I can sense a mutual respect.

How I see it all right now, simplifying it to its core, is that main ideological "camps" about this issue are like;

Fear of the society letting things slide (complying with sensitivities) in a way where one has to be afraid of getting killed over lesser issues than this and therefor condemning any violation in order to fight against that. This camp cares more about the possible future level of the quality of human life and is considering the cartoonists as martyrs for that.

VS.

Direct action-reaction "you-know-what's-gonna-happen-if-you-do-that,-take-responsibility" approach and greater consideration for the immediate damage, death of human beings.

---

So kinda like responding with fighting or in pacifistic manner..

This is where it boils down to whether human life itself or the quality of it is more important. Both camps thrive to reduce the amount of the amount of pain mankind has to deal with but with different approaches. Am I making any sense here?

I'm sure there are simple terms used as tools in philosophy describing what I had to explain which I just don't know really. I feel dumb .

EDIT: haha, I think Amir pretty much said the same things I did while I was writing this but in much better and more comprehensible way..

Edited January 10, 2015 by Is0tope

[Amir]

Both camps thrive to reduce the amount of pain mankind has to deal with but with different approaches. Am I making any sense here?

Yes.

[Is0tope]

Both camps thrive to reduce the amount of pain mankind has to deal with but with different approaches. Am I making any sense here?

Yes.

Thanks. I was genuinely asking because I've had a few drinks and my sense of judgement is a bit blurred.

[magisme]

You keep pushing this slippery slope that is just not there, Amir. The cartoons were having a very specific go at the religion in a way that is condemned by that religion. This cannot be compared to Maxim and shit like that.

It's pretty much the mirror image of the "God Hates Fags" and "Baby Killers!" crowd. Sure, you have a right to say it, but you're a cunt if you do.

[magisme]

Side question: I've been looking through some of Hebdo's cartoons. RIP, but did the guy ever do one that was the least bit clever or insightful or thought provoking? Everything I've seen so far is really lowest common denominator shit.

[Amir]

You keep pushing this slippery slope that is just not there, Amir. The cartoons were having a very specific go at the religion in a way that is condemned by that religion. This cannot be compared to Maxim and shit like that.

It's pretty much the mirror image of the "God Hates Fags" and "Baby Killers!" crowd. Sure, you have a right to say it, but you're a cunt if you do.

But that religion condemns a lot of things, from depictions of the Prophet (offensive or celebratory) to pornography, so how can you say the slippery slope isn't there? What do you think the protests about the Satanic Verses were about back in '89? Do you think 99.999% of them even read the book? They just saw a book with the title of "Satanic Verses" somewhat pertaining to a legend that Mohammad was under the influence of the devil upon receiving certain verses he thought were from God, and then they decided that Salman Rushdie must die.

Side question: I've been looking through some of Hebdo's cartoons. RIP, but did the guy ever do one that was the least bit clever or insightful or thought provoking? Everything I've seen so far is really lowest common denominator shit.

The French think they're a lot cleverer with their humour than they actually are. Friend and I were discussing how we always meet French people who say "Oh, you just do not understand zee French sense of 'umour, it is too sophisticated for you Anglo-Saxons", when really it's just shit. Watched about 5 minutes of some farce where the joke is that a conservative Catholic couple see their daughters married off to a Muslim, a Jew, a Chinese man, and finally a black man. I couldn't take how groanworthy it was and had to leave. That's like 90% of French farces. Their stand-up comedians resort to physical comedy most of the time.

But their food is great, their language is beautiful and their women are wonderful, so I love them.

[Dazey]

You keep pushing this slippery slope that is just not there, Amir. The cartoons were having a very specific go at the religion in a way that is condemned by that religion. This cannot be compared to Maxim and shit like that.

It's pretty much the mirror image of the "God Hates Fags" and "Baby Killers!" crowd. Sure, you have a right to say it, but you're a cunt if you do.

But that religion condemns a lot of things, from depictions of the Prophet (offensive or celebratory) to pornography, so how can you say the slippery slope isn't there? What do you think the protests about the Satanic Verses were about back in '89? Do you think 99.999% of them even read the book? They just saw a book with the title of "Satanic Verses" somewhat pertaining to a legend that Mohammad was under the influence of the devil upon receiving certain verses he thought were from God, and then they decided that Salman Rushdie must die.

Side question: I've been looking through some of Hebdo's cartoons. RIP, but did the guy ever do one that was the least bit clever or insightful or thought provoking? Everything I've seen so far is really lowest common denominator shit.

The French think they're a lot cleverer with their humour than they actually are. Friend and I were discussing how we always meet French people who say "Oh, you just do not understand zee French sense of 'umour, it is too sophisticated for you Anglo-Saxons", when really it's just shit. Watched about 5 minutes of some farce where the joke is that a conservative Catholic couple see their daughters married off to a Muslim, a Jew, a Chinese man, and finally a black man. I couldn't take how groanworthy it was and had to leave. That's like 90% of French farces. Their stand-up comedians resort to physical comedy most of the time.

But their food is great, their language is beautiful and their women are wonderful, so I love them.

That sounds like pretty much every British sitcom from pre 1980.

[netcat]

it is really beyond my understanding how can people put an equals sign between drawing a disrespectful cartoons and murders. and then say they don't justify acts of terrorism

[Dazey]

it is really beyond my understanding how can people put an equals sign between drawing a disrespectful cartoons and murders. and then say they don't justify acts of terrorism

I think Lenny's point is that if you walk up to the biggest guy in the pub and call him a cunt you can probably expect to get slapped. I'm not saying that's my opinion but it's about being aware of the potential consequences of your actions. Personally I agree with Amir on most of what he's said. It is a free speech issue in general but Len and Mags' arguments also aren't without merit.

[netcat]

i also agree with Len when he says the problem must be resolved through compromise. with moderate Muslims i mean. in order to helps them put aside the grudges they hold against their governments and present a united front against terror together with other people. it might include a ban on the caricatures of the Prophet if necessary. and a permission to wear burqas, idk (have no idea why they were banned in the first place). although when someone says like X is an asshole and i don't justify him, but Y should have seen it coming, because such and such, i think he does justify an asshole and i can't agree with that

Edited January 10, 2015 by netcat

[SoulMonster]

it is really beyond my understanding how can people put an equals sign between drawing a disrespectful cartoons and murders. and then say they don't justify acts of terrorism

I think Lenny's point is that if you walk up to the biggest guy in the pub and call him a cunt you can probably expect to get slapped. I'm not saying that's my opinion but it's about being aware of the potential consequences of your actions. Personally I agree with Amir on most of what he's said. It is a free speech issue in general but Len and Mags' arguments also aren't without merit.

If their argument is that if you choose to offend you might get hurt, then I don't think anyone is disagreeing Even Charlie Hebdo didn't disagree with that, they did what they did knowing the potential consequences; and that's why they will release a new issue in a few days even after this horrible massacre. They think that the work they do is worth the risk, that criticising powerful structures in our society through satire is so important that they are willing to do it even when facing potential death. They also know that if other comedians, other newspapers, other people weren't so afraid to offend Islam and so afraid to criticise things that deserve criticism, then they wouldn't stand as alone and be such an obvious focal point for extreme terrorism. I happen to agree with Charlie Hebdo on this. I might not have the guts to do what they do, nor be in a position to do it, but I applaud them for their courage and mission (although I might disagree with HOW they do it, I really haven't seen enough of their caricatures to have an opinion of that). And THIS is not something I have seen neither magisme or Lenny do.