Breaking news: terrorists attack French publisher, 11 dead.

[MichaelEmouse]

Camille,

Let me make sure I get it right:

Charlie Hebdo is powerful. Muslims are powerless. Is this your position?

If so, is it the fact that Charlie Hebdo is French/Western/white that makes it more powerful than Islam and Muslims? Is anything that is Western/white more powerful than Islam and Muslims?
From the cartoon:

"But perhaps when we tire of holding up our middle finger we can try to think about why the world is the way it is…

and what it is about Muslims in this time and place that makes them unable to laugh off a mere image."

Since 610 CE, when was the last time Muslims were able to laugh off a mere image of the same kind as the Charlie Hebdo drawings?

If Muslims had more power relative to the West, would violent punishment for blasphemy be less common?

[camille]

You’re still not getting it.

It’s not strictly based on what country you’re in. Here in the US, who would likely be more successful satirizing “black people vs. niggers”, Stephen Colbert or Chris Rock? Is Stephen Colbert not allowed to do so? Is he not talented enough to do so? Is he a coward for not doing so? Would he be a coward if he did do so?

No, he doesn’t because it just wouldn’t go over as well, and then the point would be lost.

Comedy without a point is just ridicule for the sake of ridicule.

[get_lives]

Let’s see some examples of actual self-satire in Muslim cultures, hmm? Bet you can’t find many.

the religion has gone rabid. It cannot be reasoned with. IMHO

[camille]

Michael, let me ask you something: Going back to my Molly Ivins quote about satire, do you disagree with her general premise, or are you just saying that it doesn’t apply to the Charlie Hebdo cartoons because you don’t believe there is a power disparity?

[MichaelEmouse]

I largely agree with Ivins.

I am saying that it (largely) doesn’t apply because 1) Mocking an idea isn’t mocking people, though it can be. Here, I think Charlie Hebdo mocked the idea and also mocked the people most likely to take personal offense at it, just as it did other religions.

2. Just as all Muslims don’t oppress women by virtue of being part of the Ummah, Westerners aren’t the more powerful party by virtue of being Westerners. although it is definitely one factor to their advantage. NATO and some Western governments have a lot of power over Muslims. Charlie Hebdo isn’t one of those governments.

If it were the other way around and some Muslim countries had invaded Western ones, a newspaper in a Muslim country couldn’t be said to inherit the power of the entire Ummah because of that.

[camille]

@MichaelEmouse

Since 610 CE, when was the last time Muslims were able to laugh off a mere image of the same kind as the Charlie Hebdo drawings

They aren’t required to laugh, are they? Charlie Hebdo was sued over 10 times for anti-Catholic cartoons, and they fired a cartoonist in 2009 for not apologizing for an anti-Semitic remark after there was some outrage, so it’s not like other groups are laughing at themselves. The only goal is that it doesn’t come to violence, right?

[MichaelEmouse]

@camille

They aren’t required to laugh, are they? Charlie Hebdo was sued over 10 times for anti-Catholic cartoons, and they fired a cartoonist in 2009 for not apologizing for an anti-Semitic remark after there was some outrage, so it’s not like other groups are laughing at themselves. The only goal is that it doesn’t come to violence, right?

Not required to laugh at all. Some cartoons lampooning the staff of Charlie Hebdo for being a bunch of crass old farts would have been in order.

I mentioned laughing because the cartoon you linked to did. No one who is the least bit reasonable requires that Muslims laugh when someone takes the piss at their religion.

[camille]

@MichaelEmouse

I largely agree with Ivins.

I am saying that it (largely) doesn’t apply because 1) Mocking an idea isn’t mocking people, though it can be. Here, I think Charlie Hebdo mocked the idea and also mocked the people most likely to take personal offense at it, just as it did other religions.

2. Just as all Muslims don’t oppress women by virtue of being part of the Ummah, Westerners aren’t the more powerful party by virtue of being Westerners. although it is definitely one factor to their advantage. NATO and some Western governments have a lot of power over Muslims. Charlie Hebdo isn’t one of those governments.

If it were the other way around and some Muslim countries had invaded Western ones, a newspaper in a Muslim country couldn’t be said to inherit the power of the entire Ummah because of that.

Okay, thanks, I have a better idea where you’re coming from. I think there is a perception disparity going on here, because I really don’t see Muslims as having power parity with Westerners at this point in time, as you and Senor Beef seem to. And I doubt that many of the young people of North African Muslim descent living in France perceive themselves as being on equal footing in French society. Are they mistaken? Charlie Hebdo isn’t the government, but they could be perceived as a reflection of the sentiments of French society, no?

[crowmanyclouds]

@Kobal2

{…} There’s no necessary contradiction here either. I don’t wish to speak for crow, but I for one don’t deny the absolute right of Charlie Hebdo (or anyone else) to say or print whatever they like no matter how rabidly idiotic, mean, pointlessly inflammatory and unhelpful.

I also really wish they wouldn’t. Because it’d be idiotic, mean, pointlessly inflammatory and unhelpful.

I don’t really have a problem with it being idiotic, mean, pointlessly inflammatory and unhelpful, except for it’s potential to make even more terrorists.

I also really wish they wouldn’t. Because I think it’s a good way to get yourself killed, and worse it’s a really great way to other people killed. If that’s the hill you want to die on great! I would prefer to decide what hill I die on for myself.

Also the simple fact the Charlie Hebdos of the world seem to be doing a much better job of getting people killed than getting Muslims to “see the light” suggests it ain’t the best way to get what we/they really want.

@camille

{…} Don’t put words in my mouth, asshole. Try to reply to what is actually being said. {…}

Lot of that going around!

@Fuzzy_wuzzy

{…} I quoted a post in which you said we shouldn’t do or say anything that might radicalise the “not yet bad” Islamic guys. {…}

Is it possible in your world to express an idea and not endorse it?
I NEVER SAID WHAT I PERSONALLY THINK WE SHOULD, OR SHOULD NOT, BE DOING!

@Fuzzy_wuzzy

{…} Do you r*eally *believe the Furman quote is radicalising but the Mohammed cartoons are not?

NO, I think Mark Fuhrman’s quote reveals Mark Fuhrman’s fundamental misunderstanding of the situation. We are not at war with ISLAM we are at war with terrorists, all terrorists, regardless of their religious beliefs.

If some Catholics declare war on the world is the world at war with Catholicism?
When Christian Germany declared war on the world did the world got to war with Christianity or Germany?

I fear such subtle distinctions are to much for your small lizard brain.

CMC fnord!

[SenorBeef]

Alright, the idea that satire is always a power play between the weak and the powerful is faulty. It can be attacked in all sorts of ways.

Much of satire is an attack on the tropes and conventions of a society, not directed at any particular people or ideologies. It’s really anything to do with the weak attacking the strong.

Religion is not weak. If you attack religion as a whole, by attacking all religions, as Charlie Hebdo routinely did, then you’re a very weak power in the world (non-religious) against the overwhelmingly dominant power in the world (religious). If this is the case, it makes no sense to say “only religions that are dominant where the cartoon artist lives are fair game”. There is no evidence that I’ve seen presented that Charlie Hebdo was biased or specifically only went after any particular religion, and plenty of evidence that they went after everyone.

Islam in particular are not weak. They are one the world’s most followed ideologies, with well over a billion followers. There are entire states that are effectively Islamic theocracies. That makes it one of the most powerful driving forces in the world. If Charlie Hedbo specifically went after specifically the population of Muslims in France, you could make a case that the strong were attacking the weak. But they weren’t, they were going after Islam in general.

It’s fair game if I satirize, say, conspiracy theorists, alt med nutjobs, or ghost hunters, right? I mean, they’re weak - any particular nonsense is a fringe. But if I use those very same critical thinking skills to go after religion, am I suddenly the mean-spirited power trying to persecute the weak?

Scientology is a very common satire target, and yet their power is minuscule compared to that of Islam. Are you there leading the charge to defend it whenever scientology is parodied?

Anyway, the idea of satire being a power play that’s vulgar when used by the group in power only works specifically if a group that’s oppressing another people specifically goes after them. A satirical work about blacks in the Jim Crow south? Sure, I can buy that as being distasteful and vulgar, and the satire would probably undercut itself. Satire about ideas? Fair game.

I could go on. But basically no, that quote is only valid in very specific situations, not for the whole of satire.

[Stringbean]

Degrees of power have nothing to do with treating everything fairly in the open discourse of a free and open society.

It is all a strawman concocted to justify the notion that Islam can have its own set of rules since its people will slit your throat if you disobey.

I guess, if a gun were pointed at my head, I would feel the same way…

[camille]

Here is a cite from the horse’s mouth(a Charlie Hebdo cartoonist):

Another Charlie Hebdo cartoonist, Julien Berjeaut, or Jul, once spoke to the difficulty of making fun of Islam in France. “You can’t beat up on a minority religion in quite the way you can on the majority religion,” he said. “If there is so much hysteria provoked by these cartoons it’s because there is a lot of anti-Arab and anti-Muslim racism in Europe. But I find it totally abnormal that this business is not simply decided in the courts.”

[Nava]

@camille

It’s not strictly based on what country you’re in. Here in the US, who would likely be more successful satirizing “black people vs. niggers”, Stephen Colbert or Chris Rock? Is Stephen Colbert not allowed to do so? Is he not talented enough to do so? Is he a coward for not doing so? Would he be a coward if he did do so?

No, he doesn’t because it just wouldn’t go over as well, and then the point would be lost.

That’s not about “making fun of the powerful” vs “making fun of the weak”, it’s about in-group vs out-group.

In theory, there are jokes which only work if you’re out-group and others which only work if you’re in-group — but a good delivery can flip that on its head.

[Monty]

I was curious what else could prompt some vehemence in the US so I did a web search for videos with the subject “flag desecration”. That was pretty eye-opening. So, it’s not just religion (unless, of course, you consider the adoration given the US flag by certain individuals to be flag worship).

[crowmanyclouds]

@Monty

I was curious what else could prompt some vehemence in the US so I did a web search for videos with the subject “flag desecration”. That was pretty eye-opening. {…}

American murderous rage in the face of the desecration of their/its sacred objects is different*!

*See also: Piss Christ, winning Superbowl teams, The Last Temptation of Christ, guns, Abbie Hoffman’s flag shirt, school busing, the infield fly rule, beans in chili, allowing Blacks to vote, forbidding Whites from owning Blacks . . . the list is long and filled with the same things everybody else’s is, real and imagined . . . but ours are just different. Hell we come up with as many excuses for our murderous rages as you could want or need!

CMC fnord!

[Grumman]

@crowmanyclouds

American murderous rage in the face of the desecration of their/its sacred objects is different*!

If this is “murderous” rage, where are the murders?

[Kobal2]

@get_lives

Let’s see some examples of actual self-satire in Muslim cultures, hmm? Bet you can’t find many.

Googling or YouTubing “Muslim comedy” yields hundreds of results. I’ve always been a mild fan of Omid Djalili, so here you go. I’m sure if either of us spoke Arabic or Farsi, we’d find a lot more.

[URL=“https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2Q4yZJmwY4”]

[crowmanyclouds]

@Grumman

If this is “murderous” rage, where are the murders?

I believe the murderous in “murderous rage” modifies rage, it suggests a level of rage, murder is not a requirement of it. I also believe you already know this.

I surely hope you’re not calling cite for the murderous in allowing Blacks to vote, or forbidding Whites from owning Blacks. The other examples should be understood as exaggeration for effect.

Here’s a freebee, showing the phrase being used in the wild, 15 People Driven To Murderous Rage By Fantasy Football Problems, also lacking in actual murders.

CMC fnord!

[Grumman]

@crowmanyclouds

I believe the murderous in “murderous rage” modifies rage, it suggests a level of rage, murder is not a requirement of it. I also believe you already know this.

This is a thread about murders. Actual murders that actually happened. If “American murderous rage in the face of the desecration of their/its sacred objects” is merely metaphorically murderous, while Islamic murderous rage in the face of the desecration of their/its sacred objects leaves corpses in its wake, then they really are different.

[Fuzzy_wuzzy]

@crowmanyclouds

I don’t really have a problem with it being idiotic, mean, pointlessly inflammatory and unhelpful, except for it’s potential to make even more terrorists.

I also really wish they wouldn’t. Because I think it’s a good way to get yourself killed, and worse it’s a really great way to other people killed. If that’s the hill you want to die on great! I would prefer to decide what hill I die on for myself.

Also the simple fact the Charlie Hebdos of the world seem to be doing a much better job of getting people killed than getting Muslims to “see the light” suggests it ain’t the best way to get what we/they really want.

Lot of that going around!Is it possible in your world to express an idea and not endorse it?
I NEVER SAID WHAT I PERSONALLY THINK WE SHOULD, OR SHOULD NOT, BE DOING!

NO, I think Mark Fuhrman’s quote reveals Mark Fuhrman’s fundamental misunderstanding of the situation. We are not at war with ISLAM we are at war with terrorists, all terrorists, regardless of their religious beliefs.

If some Catholics declare war on the world is the world at war with Catholicism?
When Christian Germany declared war on the world did the world got to war with Christianity or Germany?

I fear such subtle distinctions are to much for your small lizard brain.

CMC fnord!

No, im willing to give Furman the benefit of doubt. He is a 2nd rate commentator, the type who typically spout semi competent nonsense, or i’ll give him the benefit of poetic licence. However, If he believes Islam is the problem then he is fully entitled to say so. That “moderate” Islam is not doing enough to fight radical Islam. If he believes this then he should not be labelled a racist or bigot for it. I do think there is a real problem within the Islamic world, a problem that moderate Muslims will often admit to.

It’s not the “declaring of war” that is the problem, is it? It’s the carrying out of terrorist attacks on a semi regular basis that is the problem. Your example of “Christian Germany” delaring war on the world(when did this happen btw?) is barely worth replying to. Germany did not declare war on anyone in the name of Christianity.

That’s twice you have directly insulted me. I dont think I have insulted you in this thread. I would be grateful if you did not do it again. Thanks.