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.
Reality keeps sliding into absurdity rendering satire mute.
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.
The “Paradox of Tolerance” is only a paradox if one starts with the ridiculous assertion that tolerance is a universal good.
How did you know they were acid burns as opposed to the many other things that could burn someone?
once The Fall happens
What’s that?
My god are there people who think like this? Hahaha
One of the four seasons
I thought they stopped making music in the 60s.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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?
Why doesn’t the same happen for Hinduism?
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.
What about Judaism?
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?
Society bends over backwards to not offend Islam out of fear.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Everything is and should be allowed in comedy. Religion is no exception.
“Islamists” are politically far-right - paleoconservatives, theocrats, fascists.
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!”
I don’t see how this is an opinion about satire or religious satire.
The law cannot protect anyone unless it binds everyone; and it cannot bind anyone unless it protects everyone. – Frank Wilhoit
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:
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.
But I don’t see how the above statement relates to it
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.
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.
Even a scientist on the bleeding edge deals the game of life in error bars. Absolutes do not exist anywhere except idealized fantasy. Anyone driven to violence because of belief is not human;/only primitive animal.
More dehumanizing rhetoric is definitely not the answer. The attackers were human, as reprehensible as their actions were.
Removed by mod
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?
