Media Solidarity for Charlie Hebdo?

c_man

conorh91 wrote: »

Just so we're all aware what social-media outrage/AH posters presently demand, is it necessary to think that the cartoonists were virtuous in all of the content they published?

No, of course not. Now answer me this, are all people who published these cartoons bigots? Which is what the post I quoted said.

conorh91

c_man wrote: »

Which is what the post I quoted said.

Then there is a difficulty with English comprehension.

The bigots publishing these cartoons can refer to an indeterminate number of bigots within a wider pool of cartoonists, just as the idiots on boards.ie can refer to an indeterminate number of idiots within a wider pool of users.

Lau2976

conorh91 wrote: »

Because they disagree with gratuitously offending minorities?

Just because the right to offend is crucial to a democratic society, it does not mean that there is a duty to offend, nor to appropriate controversial political opinions with which you disagree, in support of those who have been silenced.

If I were murdered for gratuitously publishing the word Nígger, should the Irish media run Nígger headlines in my defence?

Should people march down O'Connell street carrying banners that read Nígger?

That would be an absurd distortion of freedom of expression.

Usually I would agree and say just because you can doesn't mean you should.

But in this instance media, who have stated they were printing the cartoon, have now undermined any social repercussions which people considering this type of action in the future may have considered.

By not printing the ad, they have unconsciously sent out the message that, while the behavior isn't condoned, it will get the desired results.

conorh91

Lau2976 wrote: »

By not printing the ad, they have unconsciously sent out the message that, while the behavior isn't condoned, it will get the desired results.

If Fred Phelps had been shot-dead by a sniper defending LGBT rights, would you walk down your local street proclaiming God Hates Fags?

That's the type of mentality we're dealing with here.

c_man

conorh91 wrote: »

Then there is a difficulty with English comprehension.

The bigots publishing these cartoons can refer to an indeterminate number of bigots within a wider pool of cartoonists, just as the idiots on boards.ie can refer to an indeterminate number of users within a wider pool of users.

You know, you seem like a real nasty person. Possibly the only poster on AH/boards forums I frequent, that I would say that about. On any thread you pop into, you seem mean and vindictive and out to insult. Call me an idiot if you want, don't hide behind veiled hand waving and italics.


Do you agree with the following, the clear implication of which is that the republishers of the cartoons are bigots?

So it's all well and good wanting to publish the cartoons as an act of solidarity with the victim and to oppose the attackers, but what seems to be lost on people (not you btw) is that it offends the ordinary Muslim who understands that it's not worth killing over and gets on with their everyday life while ignoring the bigots publishing these cartoons.

HerrScheisse

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"

An idea expressed 300 years ago. Think about that for a moment, the time of divine right of kings. which we now scoff at, thanks partly to Voltaire.

This quote is French society in a nutshell. Europe too. Perhaps mankind? If not, why not?

conorh91

c_man wrote: »

Do you agree with the following

I agree with the statement in the sense that some of the cartoonists had a pretty unpleasant outlook on community living.

Interestingly enough, I heard a French journalist on BBC news during the week defending the right to free expression, yet saying a similar thing. She felt one of the dead men was a sexist, for how he would portray women.

Was she correct? Possibly. Does that justify his death? No and she never claimed so.

Do i think some of these men were bigots? Possibly. Does that justify their deaths? No. Nobody here has claimed so.

HerrScheisse

Please define the difference between satire and bigotry. Surely satire is a technique to encourage critical thought, whilst bigotry is dogmatic by nature an intended to stifle individual decision. Rather contradictory to call the cartoonists both, when they spared nobody.

biko

It's satire against everyone else but bigotry when it's towards islam.

HerrScheisse

And the bitterest irony to see freedom of expression acting against itself. There is no worse censorship than self censorship.

conorh91

HerrScheisse wrote: »

Please define the difference between satire and bigotry

Bigotry and satire are enclosed within their own definitions by a line of reasonableness.

Reasonableness is a subjective line drawn in the sand.

Therefore any attempt to differentiate the two concepts in a way that is agreeable to those advocating such contrasting viewpoints is futile.

For some people, Muslim, black, Irishman, and Irish famine jokes will always be reasonable. For others the same joke stops short of reasonable judgment. If people were capable of agreeing on a definition of 'reasonable' judgment, this very forum would probably cease to exist.

biko

The Swedish left party is tonight holding a march...

...against islamophobia.

HerrScheisse

conorh91 wrote: »

Bigotry and satire are enclosed within their own definitions by a line of reasonableness.

Reasonableness is a subjective line drawn in the sand.

Therefore any attempt to differentiate the two concepts in a way that is agreeable to those advocating such contrasting viewpoints is futile.

All lines in the sand are man-made. Are you a man? Then choose a standpoint or opinion without the use of non-committal semantics and words such as "possibly". If it is so futile, then why bother airing your opinion, might I ask? Boredom, social isolation or alienation perhaps?

HerrScheisse

biko wrote: »

The Swedish left party is tonight holding a march...

...against islamophobia.

How about a march against political murder. Held before in the 70's, 80's and 90's for various causes, but never had a religious tint. Once religion is involved, and which has goals to shape society, there are strangely no more political marches. PC my ass.

conorh91

HerrScheisse wrote: »

choose a standpoint or opinion without the use of non-committal semantics and words such as "possibly"

I haven't followed the careers of each Charlie Hebdo illustrator in sufficient detail to claim that any one of them is a bigot. From the cartoons I've seen, I think some of them might be bigots. Or indeed sexist. They might not. Did you have a point?

HerrScheisse

Goodnight dear fellows, and sleep deep and soft, I shall stop the night for I fear I will have nightmares of my head falling with with a deep thud on a dirty wooden platter amidst the clammer of a pasty faced freckled Irish crowd, should I continue commenting under present journalistic acquiescence toward the murderers of freedom of expression in Paris.

HerrScheisse

conorh91 wrote: »

I haven't followed the careers of each Charlie Hebdo illustrator in sufficient detail to claim that any one of them is a bigot. From the cartoons I've seen, I think some of them might be bigots. Or indeed sexist. They might not. Did you have a point?

Yes I did. Brave journalists that spared nobody. Criticism regardless of consequence. Freedom of thought. I support them outright regardless in the principle of freedom of expression.

I can only imagine what their families are going through. If Jihad may claim martyrs, then so may Western Civilisation, and the journalists of Charlie Hebdo are their representatives.

Do you have a point?

conorh91

HerrScheisse wrote: »

Brave journalists that spared nobody. Criticism regardless of consequence. Freedom of thought.

Again, I'm not opposed to those things. I just believe it is possible that a person can fit roughly into those categories and not be some sort of martyr.

All i am saying is that I approve of their right to their free expression, and I disagree with the content of some of their cartoons.

I assume Ahmed the dead Muslim policeman who was shot in cold blood, while defending the cartoonists' lives, felt similarly, as it happens.

Is that difficult to understand?

HerrScheisse

conorh91 wrote: »

You have missed the point.

It is axiomatic that newspaper editors and private individuals should never publish statements or carry banners which they consider to be unwise or unreasonable.

Therefore my question is this:

In my hypothetical example, is it wise or reasonable to carry banners that say "Nígger"?

What has that philosophical exercise got to do with the murder of twelve, and injury of more?

conorh91

HerrScheisse wrote: »

What has that philosophical exercise got to do with the murder of twelve, and injury of more?

By asking whether terms that we find offensive should be republished in the defence of free expression.

I gave another example of Fred Phelps being shot.

Would you personally walk around with a God hates Fags billboard, if someone had hated Fred Phelps enough to shoot him dead?

I hated Fred Phelps' intolerance as much as you probably did, but I wouldn't adapt his opinions just because he died.

That would be really stupid, would it not?

HerrScheisse

crockholm wrote: »

In solidarity with Charlie Hebdo,I will make a joke of something which may be a taboo, I have a Child with Cerebral palsy.Funny thing about it is his initials are C.P.,sometimes when he looks at me,it looks like he is giving me gang signals with his hands.

That actually took a lot to write,as it is so Close to home,but there is no reason why this,or anything similar should be off-topic.Don't let them win.

Allez Charlie!

Fvck me! Bravo et merci

HerrScheisse

conorh91 wrote: »

Again, I'm not opposed to those things. I just believe it is possible that a person can fit roughly into those categories and not be some sort of martyr.

All i am saying is that I approve of their right to their free expression, and I disagree with the content of some of their cartoons.

I assume Ahmed the dead Muslim policeman who was shot in cold blood, while defending the cartoonists' lives, felt similarly, as it happens.

Is that difficult to understand?

Not difficult to understand from a troll intolerable. Happy tonight? Happy tomorrow my dear friend?

HerrScheisse

conorh91 wrote: »

Again, I'm not opposed to those things. I just believe it is possible that a person can fit roughly into those categories and not be some sort of martyr.

Is that difficult to understand?

My dear friend, they did not choose to be martyrs.

conorh91

HerrScheisse wrote: »

Not difficult to understand from a troll intolerable. Happy tonight? Happy tomorrow my dear friend?

OK. I am pretty sure I'm more sober than you are. Goodnight now.

HerrScheisse

conorh91 wrote: »

Again, I'm not opposed to those things. I just believe it is possible that a person can fit roughly into those categories and not be some sort of martyr.

All i am saying is that I approve of their right to their free expression, and I disagree with the content of some of their cartoons.

I assume Ahmed the dead Muslim policeman who was shot in cold blood, while defending the cartoonists' lives, felt similarly, as it happens.

Is that difficult to understand?

From the video I seen on Liveleak, I would assume he was thinking of his family in his last seconds. May his God bless him, poor man.

HerrScheisse

conorh91 wrote: »

OK. I am pretty sure I'm more sober than you are. Goodnight now.

I sincerely doubt you are more sober than me. Your answers would so attest.

Merku

Anyone calling Charlie Hebdo's journalists bigots is sadly missing the point of what they were doing. This is what they were fighting against.
They had an agenda against racists, faschists, extremists and small minded people not against Islam or the muslims, nor against catholics or jews.
Some people took these cartoons at face value, ignoring the fact they were caricatures, therefore not to be taken at face value. They are all about "le second degré" which mean they shouldnt be taken seriously. They are made to open debates which very often are completely absent from the public domain.
They knew they would offend some people even if their intention wasnt to offend them but more to provoke a discussion.

I would not always agree with what they did but that was the point which Cabu made in an interview a couple of years ago. If everybody agreed with everything they were doing, something would be really wrong.

Zebra3

Merku wrote: »

Anyone calling Charlie Hebdo's journalists bigots is sadly missing the point of what they were doing. This is what they were fighting against.
They had an agenda against racists, faschists, extremists and small minded people not against Islam or the muslims, nor against catholics or jews.
Some people took these cartoons at face value, ignoring the fact they were caricatures, therefore not to be taken at face value. They are all about "le second degré" which mean they shouldnt be taken seriously. They are made to open debates which very often are completely absent from the public domain.
They knew they would offend some people even if their intention wasnt to offend them but more to provoke a discussion.

I would not always agree with what they did but that was the point which Cabu made in an interview a couple of years ago. If everybody agreed with everything they were doing, something would be really wrong.

The reality of life at the open minded freedom loving Charlie Hebdo.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/4351672/French-cartoonist-Sine-on-trial-on-charges-of-anti-Semitism-over-Sarkozy-jibe.html