Nobody in this thread has said that killing someone is okay - quite the opposite. You won’t find a single person here saying that the Muslims who killed Paty or shot up Charlie Hebdo were justified.
Possibly they should do something blatantly offensive, with no intention of stopping.
Possibly, say, drawing a picture.
I believe you’ve noted something as to how the US treats anti-black work in a previous post:
An understanding that certain works are offensive and racist may lead to a social acknowledgement that certain things are beyond the pale and should not be celebrated for the work it is. People can agitate for free expressions, like Nazis marching through a Jewish neighborhood in Skogie, Illinois, but the society can also express that this is not ok. Projecting Islamophobic cartoons on a building to show support for a victim of violence seems to be inciting behavior. If a school teacher got fired for showing 13 year olds Birth of a Nation in a free speech class, I don’t think a good way to support the free speech of the teacher is to broadcast Birth of a Nation on the biggest building in town.
Nothing in my post was meant to imply that anybody had said that killing somebody was okay.
Right, but these depictions of Mohammed aren’t offensive to the vast, vast majority of French people. If the minority that finds this offensive can convince people to agree with them through peaceful means, the way that minorities in the US have done so here, then people will start buying things like Charlie Hebdo. Nothing is going to happen unless they can convince the large majority that this is wrong.
Think about the Confederate Flag. Southern apologists and white supremacists convinced us Yankees that it was just about rebels and fun. It was on a TV show, hung on walls, etc. It worked for years until maybe 15 years ago when people started to realize just how offensive it was to minorities and it became much less acceptable.
Maybe Muslims will be successful in convincing people that depictions of Mohammed are offensive like that and then there will be negative consequences for publications that show it, just like there would be for a publication in the US that celebrated Nazis and showed swastikas. But, they’ll have to do that work.
I believe this is the discussion that was hoped for (though let me know if I’m off base here, @Velocity). I do think that perhaps things like protests and boycotts may not have immediate results (people are just going to confuse it with people thinking Paty was justifiably killed, as some in this thread have confused the discussion). Perhaps the sizable minority of Muslims in France will have to hit the pavement and protest and strike to show these things are offensive - let’s be honest the Charlie Hebdo pictures had a number of racist Arab caricatures.
I do think that this rallying around Hebdo pictures and Macron trying to regulate and reform Islam in France is just going to lead to more radicalism. Extreme Muslims are probably happy with the recruiting tool, but moderate Muslims in France are probably really upset at what this means. I mean one of the groups that is scheduled to be banned is one which catalogues Islamophobia (as the Southern Poverty Law Center does with hate groups in the US - and yes, which a lot of US far-right groups want to get rid of).
Though what kind of amused me is that the French got really offended and pulled their ambassador when Turkish President Erdogan said Macron “must have lost his mind”. Perhaps I’ve lived with Trump for too long, but I was like… that’s it?
Thanks, Issidiqui. That is sort of the discussion I was looking for. That just because murder is wrong doesn’t mean that the side pissing off the killers is “right” to piss them off, nor that the remedy is to do even more pissing. Among other things, that just makes the job of moderate Muslims all the tougher.
In the context of “after appropriate warning, in a class about journalism or religion or freedom of speech”? I think that’s fine, yes. I see no need in the USA to use that word in a defense of freedom of speech, as unless specifically directed as hate speech the word’s not illegal to use in the USA (and in practice often isn’t illegal even if it is being used as hate speech.)
Generally, yes.
As an immediate public response to somebody’s having been murdered specifically for having done so, I’ll cut a bit of slack. But note the context. I think it’s very often an asshole move.
I don’t think anybody in this thread has claimed that it does. Everybody who’s addressed that part of the issue has said explicitly that it doesn’t.
Problem is, it’s about both.
It’s a genuine conflict of rights. Pretending that one of them isn’t a right doesn’t make that go away. In this case, it seems to me that on the legal level it’s the right to not have inflicted on one things that are genuinely seriously offensive that has to give. But it’s still a jerk move to be offensive when there isn’t a damn good reason for it.
Moderate Muslims need to do the heavy work of making sure that radicalism is discouraged among their own. I appreciate that they likely left their home countries to get away from the radicals and their brutal approach to those they deem as an “apostate” or an “infidel”. However, it does not mean their work is done. It’s not enough to report to authorities those who they believe pose a real danger to society. They need to discourage radicalism within their own communities and mosques as a matter of daily life and moral teaching.
The religious fanatics are 100% wrong in every way. To say otherwise is supporting murder and mayhem.
Muslims should turn the other cheek and be forgiving. Or they could be pissed off and just not be murderous and criminal about it at least. Never an excuse for the violent response.
Mostly though any radical fundy of any religion is probably likely to be in the wrong, the wrong millenium in fact.
You could make that argument but you’ll understand if I condemn you strongly for it. Were the cartoonist also seeking out trouble when they lampooned countless other religious and political figures? Far more so than they ever did with Islam. And yet it seems only one group thinks that murder is in someway a defensible response.
So no, The cartoonists bear no responsibility for this, the religiously-based murderous zealots bear all the response.
I draw your attention to one of the best interviews I saw in the aftermath of the Charlie Hebdo murders. Douglas Murray at his furious best, he was 100% right and the points still stand.
I don’t think anyone here has brought up the use/mention dichotomy. Using the n-word is insulting and should be dealt with the same way that any insult can be. Which might include severely censuring or firing. Mentioning it, for example, to analyze it, should not be offensive to anyone. Now Charley Hebdo was being deliberately offensive and if the Muslim world wants to react by boycotting France, that is their right. They were using the symbol in a way the Muslims found offensive. I think they’re nuts, but that’s only me view. The teacher was only mentioning it and I think he must be absolutely free to do so.
“Offensive” doesn’t mean anything besides “thing I want to censor.” I’m suspicious of anyone who claims to be "offended’ or that their taking “offense” has some sort of moral value.
I bet there are a number of things that you can think of that you’d find offensive that would underly some sort of personal moral view or value. The point here is, to what extent can one reasonably go in an effort to enforce those moral values. What is the proportionate and rational response?
I don’t like assholish Islamophobic trolling under the guise of “humor” any more than the next liberal (not that I include Paty himself among the people who were indulging in such behavior).
But anybody who thinks that terrorist violence is an appropriate or justifiable response to Islamophobic “freeze peach” trolling has completely and permanently forfeited their moral right to object to it. Complaints, walkouts, protests, boycotts, that’s one thing. But violence? Nope.
Of course society can express that it’s not ok. But taking steps such as assault, beheadings, burning down businesses, vandalizing homes and government property, etc. are not ok. At some point disingenuous social pressures are also disproportionate so-called consequences for freedom of expression.
What rights are in conflict here? I see freedom of speech threatened but I don’t see Muslim’s being denied the right to worship how they see fit.
Christopher Hitchens said “You’re offended? I’m still waiting to hear your point”
Stephen Fry said “you’re offended? so fucking what?”
I’m very much in that camp. Your offence is your problem. You have no right to remain unoffended, no-one does. You do have the ability to choose your repsonse to offence. Reasoned argument might be a good start. Dictating others behaviour on threat of death is not a good start.
No one actually believes that, least of all the French.
“Offensive” can mean indicating that people of a given race, religion, gender, whatever, are not welcome; or are only welcome if they’ll accept a subservient position. People living in a country should be able to go about their ordinary business in public without routinely being told that they’re not entitled to be there, or not entitled to the same sort of respect that those of other races, religions, genders, etc. assume they’re entitled to as a matter of course.
Again, nobody in this thread has said anything different. Who are you arguing against?
At what point? That is, I believe, the topic of discussion.
And why “disingenous”? I think that’s poisoning the well.
See my answer above in this post to ZosterSandstorm.
Believes what? I can’t tell what you’re replying to.