General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsAnti-Muslim satire is about to get a lot stronger...and it should
This was not just an attack by muslim extremists on French society, it was an attack on Freedom of Speech. I suspect a lot of publications are going to feel the need to show they're not being cowed by this by publishing material the same extremist groups were offended by in the next few weeks.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)That is not satire, that is revenge and hate, and you may know they also puslished equally insulting posts about Christianity in general, Jesus in particular, and Judaism.
Should publications also come up with "satire" about that, to show they are equal insult publications?
And you want the insults stronger and more frequent, because an eye for an eye make the whole world see better?
"The future does not belong to those that insult the prophet of Islam".
EDiT correction: "The future does not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam."
BHO
brooklynite
(94,592 posts)Is satire only appropriate with groups and people YOU don't like?
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)I have seen are simply bad attempts at sowing haters...where is the humor? Show me one cartoon that you find hilarious of theirs regarding religion, and why?
John Stewart, Colbert....satire...hilarious.
deutsey
(20,166 posts)but I actually thought their episode targeting al Quaida was hilarious.
Like you, however, what I've seen of the cartoons in the French magazine weren't funny at all and were actually boorishly insulting, at least some of them, anyway.
Still doesn't justify the killings, though.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)Publishing things year after year after year purposely intended to inflame without an ounce of humor, even using pornographic images, is the new "satire"?
Call it what is, hate speech....publish it freely if you must, you will reap the hate that you sow liberally and purposely and when you purposely relish and invite that hate, some of that may trigger madmen already near the edge....Bundy Ranch related police murders...remember their motivation sparked by the hate? Bill O'Reilly and his hate speech and Dr. Tiller?
deutsey
(20,166 posts)When I saw some of the cartoons, I wondered where the satire was.
And I liked a lot (but not all) of the old National Lampoon from the early to mid-'70s, which could be pretty brutal. At its best, though, there was a "nothing's sacred" satirical edge to it. I didn't see anything like that in the French cartoons in question.
hack89
(39,171 posts)it also encompasses irony and ridicule. The point of satire is to point out the stupidity of peoples beliefs and actions.
LordGlenconner
(1,348 posts)There is a lot of lost context in all of this.
I'm sure there are some in France who don't understand American satire as well.
I disagree with some here who believe what the magazine published was hate speech. I believe those who worked there viewed all religions with a similar level of disdain.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)LordGlenconner
(1,348 posts)I agree with much of what you have to say on DU. This is not one of those times. We'll have to agree to disagree.
11 Bravo
(23,926 posts)you would say, "Tsk tsk, murder is never justified. But he sure did inflame his killers, so "
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)"Call it what is, hate speech..."
Same was said of Voltaire's 'Candide.'
kelly1mm
(4,733 posts)brooklynite
(94,592 posts)...It doesn't matter at all if I find a cartoon hilarious or horrendous. -I- don't get to decide what's acceptable and neither do you, except to the extent that we express our own opinions or choose to buy or not a satirical document.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)brooklynite
(94,592 posts)When Fox produced the "Half Hour News Hour", I didn't think any of it was funny. I therefore chose not to watch it. I would never claim it was inappropriate for them to produce it for their audience.
DO you believe that religious groups should have some special consideration?
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)that truncated that speech by Pres Obama. For those who don't know better, here is the main part of that speech of which that line appears:
It is time to leave the call of violence and the politics of division behind. On so many issues, we face a choice between the promise of the future, or the prisons of the past. And we cannot afford to get it wrong. We must seize this moment. And America stands ready to work with all who are willing to embrace a better future.
The future must not belong to those who target Coptic Christians in Egypt it must be claimed by those in Tahrir Square who chanted, "Muslims, Christians, we are one." The future must not belong to those who bully women it must be shaped by girls who go to school, and those who stand for a world where our daughters can live their dreams just like our sons.
The future must not belong to those corrupt few who steal a country's resources it must be won by the students and entrepreneurs, the workers and business owners who seek a broader prosperity for all people. Those are the women and men that America stands with; theirs is the vision we will support.
The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam. But to be credible, those who condemn that slander must also condemn the hate we see in the images of Jesus Christ that are desecrated, or churches that are destroyed, or the Holocaust that is denied.
Let us condemn incitement against Sufi Muslims and Shiite pilgrims. It's time to heed the words of Gandhi: "Intolerance is itself a form of violence and an obstacle to the growth of a true democratic spirit." Together, we must work towards a world where we are strengthened by our differences, and not defined by them. That is what America embodies, that's the vision we will support.
Read more at http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/obamafuture.asp#gAj8GpphiD3oSjzd.99
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)brooklynite
(94,592 posts)leftynyc
(26,060 posts)supposed to be funny?
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)leftynyc
(26,060 posts)Why are you pretending the magazine only insulted Islam? If you don't think these murderous scum who committed these murders had a political as well as religious bent, that's your problem alone.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)leftynyc
(26,060 posts)and frankly you're beginning to bore me.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)doesn't mean others don't. Charlie Hebdo is a commercial publication. They'd be out of business if they didn't have an audience. I'm not saying I particularly find their cartoons funny (I don't), but that's entirely beside the point.
Quantess
(27,630 posts)Commentaries on Sean Hannity are funny.
Ask Wolf Blitzer if he laughs at John Stewart's jokes.
Ask Karl Rove's nearest and dearest whether they laugh at seeing their Karl compared to a slab of ham with wire rimmed glasses.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)leftynyc
(26,060 posts)If you don't see how the truncating of that quote makes the President look like he's singling out Muslims for special treatment not afforded to others, I can't help you. In trying to find the entire quote I had to scroll past at least 20 right wing sites using it the exact same way you did. You must be so proud.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)saying so is weak, the UN speech and its context and purpose are well known.
The whole speech changes the RW use of the phrase, whereas the whole speech reinforces mine...see the difference?
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)with no mention or link to the entire speech. It seems you want special treatment for Islam and that's just plain bigotry. Let's not pretend that every time a Muslim does something heinous you're all over DU trying to deflect from the story by bringing up other religions as if that means anything to the story at hand. Your reputation speaks for itself.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)leftynyc
(26,060 posts)I thought it was only with children I had to continually repeat myself - it changes the context by showing that this wasn't an off the cuff statement - that it was part of a larger speech this was just one line in many that showed the Pres had more than just Islam on the brain. Are those small enough words for you now?
Long Drive
(105 posts)Very caustic.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)You're gonna want to grow a tougher skin here my newbie friend.
Welcome to DU! (For as long as you last since newbies insulting long time posters usually ensures a short term stay)...
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)Sorry but that kind of gratuitous slam makes DU suck
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)especially when used in metaphor.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)I'm utterly uninterested in derailing this OP on the newbies post however.
Stay warm out there!
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)I am literally posting from @ 6 inches away the woodstove after being outside for an hour and a half doing midday chores. Climbed back into bed this morning after am chores. I'm trying to convince myself I need to buck up and help the staff with pm chores...ugh. Just got the shivers again typing that!
I really despise this weather - for me and the animals. Pretty miserable.
Take care of yourself!
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)Just today I got accused of being happy about 12 people getting shot to death and having gunmen still on the loose? When I told the poster to go fuck himself, I got my post hidden. This place has become an insane asylum under that jury system but I've truly ceased caring about giving people the benefit of the doubt. So caustic is mild compared to what I've already put up with today.
Long Drive
(105 posts)Snarky insults don't make for friendship Rider.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)when I have to continually repeat myself to someone who hears only what they want to hear. Children love me....morons tend not to love me. I can live with that.
Response to leftynyc (Reply #83)
Long Drive This message was self-deleted by its author.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)QuestionableC
(63 posts)Religion should be made fun of. This magazine made fun of all religions. As if should. I hope the rest of the world declares yesterday a universal free speech day and from now on drags all the silly religious icons through satirical situations annually.
I hope to see an explicit cartoon of Jesus and Mohammed engaged in a 69 while Budha and Moses take dumps on their heads.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)the right to say it.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)I've no doubt you think the world of yourself and remain confident in your moral clarity. I, on the other hand, find many seeds for acrimony and perhaps even a dash of misogyny in your comments (or absence thereof). I understand I'm probably just some misguided waif to be pitied and dismissed but if the standard you insist on promoting is one of subjective preference then no one will be allowed to speak -- including you.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)safeinOhio
(32,688 posts)I love religious satire.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)Frank Cannon
(7,570 posts)Is this an elected position, or does DeVry offer a placement program for this?
There's a lot of satire and "comedy" that I don't find amusing and/or even find offensive. I think the Big Bang Theory on CBS is about as funny as a regulatory audit, but apparently a lot of other people disagree with me.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)Satire does not have to be humorous, but it is primarily a political tool...
"Satire"
"the use of humor, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people's stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues."
Pornographic images and images of the prophet or his followers being shot dead through a held up Koran...not political, not humor, not irony, not exaggeration....it surely is at least ridicule., on what topical isse, and it is in a purely religious, not political, context...it is not satire, it is hate for the sake of hate.
easychoice
(1,043 posts)n/t
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)How (precisely) does a hateful pen deny the literary device known as satire?
TampaAnimusVortex
(785 posts)Comedy is speech. Hate speech is speech. Fiction is speech. Sarcasm is speech. Love is speech.
You don't get to pick and choose and you damn sure dont have a right not to be offended. I personally love offending those sensitive types who think the world should kneel before their delicate sensibilities.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)Hey, let's avoid offending creationists too!
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)Adrahil
(13,340 posts)... if you're not offending someone with your ideas, you should examine if they worth having.
Social change, social justice, and fight against oppression always happens at the fringes of acceptability.
Religions are used to being dominant and unassailable. Sometimes breaking down that privileged position means stepping on some feelings.
C'est La Guerre.
Vattel
(9,289 posts)The transcripts of his speech that I have seen suggest that he said, "The future does not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam." I don't think that these cartoons slander anyone. They ridicule religious belief.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)Yo_Mama
(8,303 posts)the pope, the country's leaders, the flag, etc is respected and defended.
Countries that don't defend such rights right now are sliding backwards into barbaric decay. Just look around the world.
Rex
(65,616 posts)There is a point, do I need to explain it to you or are you familiar with free speech?
lame54
(35,293 posts)look at it as the proper amount of satire that should have taken place over the years if it weren't for their threats of death being so effective - now the flood gates are open and the fear has lifted
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)Free speech should never be squelched by the actions of murderous scum. I said yesterday that cartoon should have been on the front page of every paper in the west although I think only the Wash Post was brave enough to put it in the paper at all (I think I read it's on the editorial page). That magazine was plenty insulting to both Catholics and Jews and yet nobody from those groups has seen fit to murder over it. There is no right not be offended.
malaise
(269,049 posts)Apparently he has seen the cartoons.
It's vicious, childish, and funny (in that "Well, they did like Jerry Lewis" sort of French way). But if you, fine imaginary Christian reader, are condemning Muslims for a violent reaction to the cartoons, then you are saying, in essence, that you are totally cool with the aforementioned images of Christ. And you are saying, "Go ahead, American cartoonists, draw Jesus's dong and Mary's leaky titties and poor Joseph jacking off in the corner. It's not a problem."
For the record, the Rude Pundit believes that freedom of expression and, indeed, freedom of the press trumps your right to live without being offended. Charlie Hebdo, Bill Maher, even Ann goddamn Coulter can say whatever the fuck they want. If you disagree, you can go fuck yourself with a torah until you splooge on a statue of Shiva and wipe it up with an American flag. Or maybe offer a counterargument where the point isn't made with a gun, unlike the three shooting dickheads in Paris who just made life a little harder for Muslims in the West.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026051717
I'm a fugging atheist so I don't give a damn who draws what about whichever deity but I defer to Rudie on this one.
brooklynite
(94,592 posts)They don't have the right to live in a multicultural society AND be completely immune from exposure to things that offend them.
randome
(34,845 posts)Until now, I pointed out that there is a part of the world where ridicule and satire are not permitted, and that our defense of cartoonists is a Western construct we insist on imposing on the rest of the world.
But the three gunmen chose to live in a multicultural society as you pointed out. Their choice, their 'cross to bear', so to speak.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Everything is a satellite to some other thing.[/center][/font][hr]
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)oberliner
(58,724 posts)The same paper has portrayed Jesus exactly that way:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026051717#post10
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)polly7
(20,582 posts)oberliner
(58,724 posts)Muslim groups have been very vocal in their criticism of the aforementioned cartoons, specifically the ones that depict the prophet in the manner described.
The vast majority of Muslims do not believe the prophet should be depicted at all.
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)You get to define who is a true Muslim and who is not? Islam can never inspire bad actions?
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)The "no true Scotsman" thingy is false logic from the get go.
MellowDem
(5,018 posts)And yes, saying these guys aren't Muslims is a fallacy.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)It's no doubt offensive to Christians, but not nearly as graphic. I say let them publish exactly the same cartoons with just the characters switched out, send copies to folks like Pat Robertson, Ted Cruz and the like and see what happens. I bet half of Congress would want to declare war on France.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)You don't think the Jesus cartoons are as graphic?
They certainly seem that way to me.
Do Pat Robertson and Ted Cruz want to declare war on the US for producing South Park?
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)(or someone did) No genitalia was hanging out, 'dripping', no 'assholes being shoved in the face of the viewer' etc. So no, those were nowhere near as graphic, if the descriptions of the other pictures are accurate. I didn't see any links to the Muslim ones, just the descriptions thereof. You might consider them 'just as offensive', but 'graphic' usually has a different meaning than 'offensive', one that speaks to exactly how much is actually shown versus left to the imagination.
As to your last question? Probably - I imagine if you spent a while searching, you could find one deranged rant or another by Pat Robertson you could find him going off on South Park. Probably more than once. Unluckily for most of America, Robertson is a chickenhawk type, always willing to whip up hatred and push the extremists towards bad actions, but unwilling to try to carry out what he believes in person. I say unluckily, because if he would go beyond hate speech, he would quickly wind up in jail, and off the air.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)You are just going from the description in that post?
If so, I would respectfully assert that the description given is not accurate, unless there is some other cartoon that is being referenced that has not been posted anywhere.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)And while the 'asshole in face' description is off on the one, the 'dripping hanging genitalia' one is dead on. So yes, as an atheist and a neutral observer, the anti-Islamic ones are more graphic and generally offensive.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)But I think you will agree that they did publish multiple graphic and offensive cartoons involving Jesus even if they were not as graphic as the one you identified.
TexasMommaWithAHat
(3,212 posts)Men like Donohue would be given airtime by Fox where he could spout his displeasure. The bishops would be in an uproar. And on and on, as they should, since they also have a right to complain.
At the same time, I don't know believe Donohue or any of the others would be calling for the curtailment of free speech, which is what some Muslims want.
brooklynite
(94,592 posts)"Those who work at this newspaper have a long and disgusting record of going way beyond the mere lampooning of public figures, and this is especially true of their depictions of religious figures. For example, they have shown nuns masturbating and popes wearing condoms. They have also shown Muhammad in pornographic poses.
While some Muslims today object to any depiction of the Prophet, others do not. Moreover, visual representations of him are not proscribed by the Koran. What unites Muslims in their anger against Charlie Hebdo is the vulgar manner in which Muhammad has been portrayed. What they object to is being intentionally insulted over the course of many years. On this aspect, I am in total agreement with them.
Stephane Charbonnier, the papers publisher, was killed today in the slaughter. It is too bad that he didnt understand the role he played in his tragic death. In 2012, when asked why he insults Muslims, he said, Muhammad isnt sacred to me. Had he not been so narcissistic, he may still be alive. Muhammad isnt sacred to me, either, but it would never occur to me to deliberately insult Muslims by trashing him.
Anti-Catholic artists in this country have provoked me to hold many demonstrations, but never have I counseled violence. This, however, does not empty the issue. Madison was right when he said, Liberty may be endangered by the abuses of liberty as well as the abuses of power.
http://www.catholicleague.org/muslims-right-angry/
TexasMommaWithAHat
(3,212 posts)Yeah, I guess he did play a role in his own murder. He should have been smarter.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)Today, four leading French imams denounced the massacre, warning that the world is a dangerous place without freedom of expression but urging the media to be respectful of religion.
Djelloul Seddiki, head of the great mosque of Paris; Tareq Oubrou, director of the Bordeaux mosque; Azzedine Gaci of the Villeurbanne mosque; and Mohammed Moussaoui, president of the Union of Mosques in France, joined Pope Francis in condemning the cruelty of the attack".
Contrast, compare to the response of the head of the Catholic League in America........
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2901874/Revenge-attacks-retaliation-begin-Mosques-come-fire-guns-grenades-France-kebab-shop-near-Muslim-temple-blown-up.html#ixzz3OGktsUia
DetlefK
(16,423 posts)Consider this cartoon, depicting Muhammad in the nude and in a degrading position mimicking muslim prayer:
https://eurobeats.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/charliehebdo-pictures.jp g
Next time somebody kills an abortion-doctor, should we post degrading pictures of Jesus Christ to exact revenge on fundamentalist Christians?
brooklynite
(94,592 posts)...kiling an abortion doctor has nothing to do with satire.
DetlefK
(16,423 posts)NYC Liberal
(20,136 posts)"Next time somebody kills an abortion-doctor, should we encourage women to stop having abortions and doctors to stop performing them?"
Because that would be the analog to the suggestion that "Because someone killed people over an offensive cartoon they published, we should stop publishing offensive cartoons."
rbrnmw
(7,160 posts)There are most likely Muslims on DU. I am sure you wouldn't want to insult them.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)shows how newspapers around the world are handling this. So many with courage.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/07/charlie-hebdo-front-pages_n_6433722.html
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)A small number of extremist Muslims carried out a murderous attack. Among non-extremist Muslims, I imagine most of them wish the attack hadn't happened, if only because of the anti-Muslim blowback that's already happening and only going to get worse. Fanning the flames of hate and violence only serves the extremists. Satire should have some point other than 'You guys suck'.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)Simply because you are unable to see a given point does not deny that point's existence. You appear to be predicating your entire premise on a fictional and absolute knowledge of what is or is not humorous, despite that humor is subjective. In essence, your own dogma is blinding you to additional aspects that invalidate your absolutism.
HappyMe
(20,277 posts)Why the hell should anti-Muslim cartoons and slogans become a commonplace thing. Three muderous assholes does not mean that anti-Muslim feelings should prevail.
You are also correct about the childish level of what passed as "satire" in those magazine cartoons. They have every right to publish whatever they want, and did not deserve to die for it. I have every right to think that their efforts are eye rollingly stupid.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)worthy of support.
Disgusting cartoons then, disgusting as ever now.
They can have their free speech rights to be disgusting and I have identical rights to call them that.
HappyMe
(20,277 posts)Really good satire is a fine art. I think it should give you a chuckle (or at least a smile) and make you think. I looked at some of the cartoons. They seemed pretty juvenile. It makes me wonder if people have fallen into a 'we're oh so edgy' mindset and gratuitous crap is being cranked out as "satire".
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)As the saying goes, if you don't want people to laugh at your beliefs, don't have such funny beliefs.
Sid
Yo_Mama
(8,303 posts)The only way to stop this sort of thing - this is HARDLY the first such incident - is for everyone to respond by publishing the same stuff or the same type of stuff.
History teaches us that placing people's sensibilities over people's rights produces a situation in which all rights are violated and any sane sensibilities are grossly offended by the crimes committed in society. So the result is a society in which only insane sensibilities are respected - like Iran.
Taitertots
(7,745 posts)People of every religion (or no religion) need to get used to the fact that their religious opinions are subject to public criticism.
brooklynite
(94,592 posts)m-lekktor
(3,675 posts)LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)There was little of value from a criticism standpoint. Only insults.
I don't see how this is even a freedom of speech issue. Those who carried out this attack weren't the government or any accepted group with influence among the PTB. It was more a question of trolling, and how violent the craziest group would get in the aftermath.
IMO the cartoonists at Charlie Hebdo did not die as free speech martyrs. The cartoonists were no different than a guy who goes to multiple bars and insults every man's mother, and who eventually finds the one guy mentally unstable enough to pull out a gun and go postal over an insult.
They were scarcely more sophisticated than internet trolls.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)Blue_In_AK
(46,436 posts)we've been responsible for slaughtering around the Muslim world?
Escalation is the problem, not the solution.
brooklynite
(94,592 posts)or is that someone else's job?
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)brooklynite
(94,592 posts)...but there haven't been any attempts to suppress Christian and Jewish satire lately, so no need for a response.
Blue_In_AK
(46,436 posts)anti-Jewish and anti-Christian satire is less offensive, but one only has to look back to the late '30s and German anti-Jewish satire to see the danger here.
Personally, I think it would behoove everyone to de-escalate the eye-pokes. But that's just me.
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)But there are constant efforts to suppress Christian and Jewish "satire" where they resemble prejudice or hate speech.