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.
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.
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.
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.
One of the four seasons
More like 1720 but who’s counting LMAO 🤣
My god are there people who think like this? Hahaha
“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:
deleted by creator
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.
deleted by creator
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.
deleted by creator
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.
-
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.
removed by mod
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.
“There is no gay gene, people arent born gay” it rhymes. Lately it’s being used to question trans-rights to suggest they aren’t born that way either.
All moot though, born that way, not born that way, doesn’t matter at all. It’s a way of making one protected class feel lesser than another in order to discredit them.
This was my “are we the baddies” moment, some 15 years ago btw. Someone pointed out that my anti-thiest rhetoric and the “just asking questions” I was asking were incredibly reminiscent of the other bigots. Of course, in the moment “they were wrong”, “I was right”, “yada yada yada”. But, later when I had time for some introspection, I asked myself why do anti-thiests quack like the other bigots, and more importantly why was I quacking too.
Well I’d say being anti religion is not the same. For one it’s punching up at the moment. I don’t care what you practice with yourself but growing up in a system that uses Christianity as a cudgle has really pissed me off. I also don’t agree with those morons saying homosexuality is a choice, that’s categorically false imo. To be honest I don’t feel that religion should be a protected class when I see it solely used to hurt others. I think you’re also just trying to associate me with those bigots for some weird reason and honestly I don’t appreciate it.
Is making fun of a religion hate speech?
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.
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.
removed by mod
Removed by mod
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.
It isn’t just religious people
What’s this image supposed to be? All I see is CENSORED.
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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
It’s a standup comedy bit by Emo Philips.
It’s referencing the deep divisions between creeds even though they are very similar from the outside.
😂 Beautiful reply!
It’s like all this Tate sigma male influencer horseshit. If you have to say it, you ain’t it.
Completely agree.
It is hard to make satire now when we seem to be living in an age that satirizes itself.
removed by mod
removed by mod
Reality keeps sliding into absurdity rendering satire mute.
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?
Social ostracization or ridicule is an appropriate response to bad statements, not violence
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.
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?
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.
There is no hypocrisy. Murdering in the name of god is not the same as being critical of religion.
Adults who are afraid of sky Grandpa are never civil. I think your statement is intended as a roundabout threat.
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.
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.I was curious too:
Boko Haram sex slaves angry
Do not touch our allowances!
“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.
I think the people’s presumption that they have some right to be free from offense has done way more damage than anything.
Hebdo was super racist and their criticism came from a glass house. If a Nazi dies I am not losing sleep over it.
Their cartoons were similarly racist to 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.
