Guest post by Salty Current
I posted the other day just after the attack on Charlie Hebdo, referring to a film I’d recommended back in 2011 – It’s Hard Being Loved By Jerks.¹ It was a documentary about Charlie Hebdo’s decision to publish the Danish cartoons and the court case that followed. What was clear in the film was that the staff at CH, a leftwing, antiauthoritarian publication, were very concerned that their publishing the images not contribute to racism or be seen as supporting the anti-Muslim and anti-immigrant Right. The choice of cover, with Mohammed in despair saying “It’s hard being loved by jerks,” was quite brilliant, targeting the Islamists and separating them from the Muslim community.
CH was almost uniquely in a position to print the images as a defense of free expression and the right to blaspheme, because over the years they’d targeted the sacred figures of numerous religions as well as atheists and all sorts of political leaders. They had also openly targeted racism in French society. They had been sued by the Catholic Right more than a dozen times in recent years. This history made their argument in court ring genuine: in addition to considering the right to blaspheme as fundamentally necessary to their art and journalism, they regarded targeting Islam’s sacred cows as a gesture of inclusion. They were saying they lampoon everything held sacred and lampooning Islam’s sacred symbols meant that they see Muslims as part of the French community, the community of the potentially mockable.
As Claire Jean Kim wrote in 2007,² referring not to mockery but to criticism:
Immigrants need protection from cultural imperialism and nativism, but receiving and giving moral criticism and engaging others on issues of moral concern are important parts of membership in a moral community. The risks of being seen as outside of this community may well be higher than the risks of being included. [emphasis added]
Even if you don’t believe that Charlie Hebdo was entirely effective in making their satire bulletproof in every case, such that it could never be seen or used to promote racism, this understanding of their motives shows them to be radically different from those of, for example, the FN.
I wanted to share this information for a few reasons. First, I didn’t want to see CH misrepresented, much less celebrated, as thoughtless or intentionally baiting or trying to marginalize Muslims. Second, because I didn’t want that fake-Voltaire defend-to-the-death narrative to take hold about respecting the freedom of speech of even the worst ideas, as if CH represented something we on the Left would find appalling. It doesn’t matter to the question of whether they should be murdered, but it matters to the shape our response takes: if they really were a racist publication, declaring “Je suis Charlie” would be considered inappropriate by many of us. We don’t have to agree with everything someone says to support their right to say it and condemn violence used to silence them (I’m sure many of the people in Muslim countries for whom we’ve expressed support have ideas I’d disagree with, and vice versa), but we can certainly have solidarity standards. Finally, I thought it was relevant to our understanding of just how tragic this attack was that they murdered people who were actively opposing racism and working to avoid promoting it.
Yesterday, I started to see comments asserting that CH was a racist and misogynistic publication. Since the film I’d recommended had been made in 2008, I considered the possibility that the paper had changed dramatically since then, and was open to evidence that this was the case. But these comments seemed to cite nothing, or only a single cartoon image devoid of any context or explanation. What surprised me most was the response to people providing the relevant context: without missing a step, the critics moved on to looking for other “evidence” of racism, to speculative hyper-parsing, to handwringing about imagined splash damage, and to reciting “Intent isn’t magic” and “hipster racism” like some sort of magical incantations, with apparently no concern that they were participating in smearing people who were just massacred for their courage in defending human rights.
The idea that the facts that CH self-identifies and is known by others to be an antiracist paper, that their intent, in one image cited, was to attack the racism of a rightwing publication, or generally that they’re engaged in satirical commentary on specific people, statements, or events about which we lack knowledge are somehow negligible factors in assessing the publication’s racism is bizarre. When I first posted links to videos of Stephen Colbert at Pharyngula, some people who weren’t from the US didn’t recognize it as satire; some people even in the US probably still don’t. But if Colbert were murdered like this, it would be atrocious to attack him in this way.
People have posted claiming that CH “was a publication that produced and distributed vile, racist material in the guise of satire. Unlike any satire worth the name, it punched down at already-marginalised minorities in an environment that just encouraged an intensification of preexisting anti-Muslim sentiment,” and that “When you say “I am Charlie Hebdo” and repost their racist, islamophobic (and most importantly inaccurate) cartoons, you’re not standing up for freedom of speech. You’re valorising hate speech and bullying of oppressed groups.” They’ve linked at FTB to posts calling the people at CH “a bunch of racist, sexist, shit-stain hacks” based on a few images with no context.
We owe these people better than this. They don’t have to be perfect in intent or effect to deserve some basic respect and fairness. Fair criticism of the publication and its successes and failures based on much more complete knowledge and a sympathetic understanding of the complexities of sharp political humor is fine, but probably can wait. But the vicious evidence-free attacks, the speculative hyper-parsing used to try to shore up preformed characterizations, and the willful ignoring of relevant factors look less like careful vetting than like thoughtless self-righteous posturing.
¹ Unfortunately, I no longer have it recorded, and I’m not finding it available anywhere. I hope Sundance or the filmmaker decides to replay it or make it available online.
² “Multiculturalism Goes Imperial: Immigrants, Animals, and the Suppression of Moral Dialogue.” Du Bois Review 4: 1, 233-249.
Thanks for requesting and posting it, Ophelia.
Two updates:
First, it looks like several theaters in France will be showing the film in homage to the Charlie Hebdo victims this weekend (and probably beyond). If you’re in France, just google “C’est dur d’être aimé par des cons” and you might find one near you. Also, it looks like it’s on TV in France and Québec over the next several days, so look for it there, too. I still haven’t seen anything about its being shown outside of French-speaking countries.
Second, this is from an interview with the director, Daniel Leconte (which I’ve only skimmed with my rusty French reading skills):
Thanks for putting this together, SC.
Link to the documentary in French:
http://ici.tou.tv/c-est-dur-d-etre-aime-par-des-cons
Thanks so much, maudell.
Grr – it’s not available in the US. 🙁
Thank you, SC (Salty Current). And you, Ophelia.
A translation of the French passage – feel free to correct if I get anything wrong –
Charlie was defending the right to laugh at everything. It was, in the end, in their DNA, the DNA of free expression. They were defending the idea that we have the right to laugh at all religions and that, in a secular country like France which is still the country of the separation of church and state, we wouldn’t just make an exception for one religion, Islam, when we absolutely hadn’t done that for Catholics. Charlie slapped with glee at Catholics and also at Jews. It was a sort of French spirit of debate.
There are so many parallels to how people deny the reality of attacks on women that it suddenly hit me: the rush to label Charlie Hebdo racist is an attempt to blame the victim, to reconstruct a sense of safety, even some kind of cockamamie justice. “If I am the very model of a modern political corrector, then I have no part of this.” It has just the same vibe as the jerks piffling, “Oh but she was wearing a short skirt.”
It feels inappropriate, rude, in bad faith, because that’s exactly what it is.
I agree with you that non-French people decrying Charlie hebdo as racist seem to not really understand what type of magazine it is, nor the culture it emerged from. However, I find your and Ophelia’s analysis a bit overly positive (speaking of the magazine, not the events, of course).
As a young teen in the 90’s, I read the full collection of Charlie from 1969 to 1981. I *loved* French comics. Cabu and Wolinsky were there from the beginning. I got to know Charb and Tignous in Fluide Glacial a few years later. I grew up with those guys.
The newer version of Charlie still had some of the original drawers, but I slowly quit reading it because I found some cartoons to be problematic and not very funny. I revisited the old issues as well, and found the same. My problem was mainly the misogyny/sexism in the magazine. It’s not MRA style misogyny, but let’s just say there’s a lot of rape (and the jokes aren’t at the expense of the rapist). Women are typically only present as silent sex objects, though sometimes as nags. I hadn’t noticed as a teen, but it’s true.
I think there’s something similar when it comes to racism. Putting the muslim thing aside, I have seen many problematic depictions of Eastern Asian people (very stereotyped) and black people (similar to American drawings of black people 100 years ago) in Charlie.
So with this in mind, I don’t think that hatred of women nor racism is what drove the cartoonists. They were definitely anti-FN, and people linking the latest Houellebecq book are missing the mark. But I don’t think this is a black or white issue. There has been casual racism and sexism in the magazine, through the years. To be fair, I think this is generalized in progressive French media (especially the sexism).
Anyway. I have been pretty devastated by the news, I’m not sure it’s the right time to write this.
maudell,
It’s not a problem for me. I’m sure the portrait I’ve been painting is excessively rosy, and my knowledge is pretty limited compared to many people’s. I suppose I’ve probably erred in this direction because of my horror at the massacre and my shock at the vitriol of the attacks on these victims. I’d be surprised if such a publication didn’t display some casual sexism and other similar attitudes. The film made me appreciate them more, but what it showed of their work didn’t make me want to run out and buy CH (but then, I’m not a connoisseur of the cartoon arts by any stretch of the imagination – I can’t think of anything I’d less enjoy than a graphic novel). When I criticize some of the purported examples people are using I don’t mean to suggest that I think they’re perfect in every way or that I wouldn’t find any of it cringe-worthy.
I suppose I’m perplexed by the assumptions some people are so enthusiastically making about them and the apparent criterion of perfection and absolute agreement some people seem to have for support or solidarity. I can’t think of a single person, including among those I most admire, who would meet this test. Sartre wrote things that were sexist, ridiculously homophobic, and racist (even when seeking to combat racism), but if he had been murdered for his support of Algerian independence I wouldn’t immediately start pointing to that, sneering at him, and refusing to declare my solidarity with him and the important values he stood for or to recognize his courage and the great things he did.
To take a more contemporary example, I’m fairly annoyed with Jon Stewart. He’s often sexist and overtly hostile to atheists. It’s to the point that I’m not that interested in watching (I was doing a countdown-to-the-dick-jokes each episode, but that got old fast). But if people were to kill him for making Rosewater, I can’t imagine glibly smearing him with this stuff the way people are doing with CH, or allowing people who had little knowledge of the cultural context to misrepresent him as a “sexist shitstain hack,” demand that any superficially problematic sketch be explained and defended, or self-righteously declare that “I am not Jon.”
It seems unseemly, unfair, callous, and irresponsible, and like people are placing themselves above and in judgment over the courageous artists at CH who’ve just been victimized.
maudell, I’d agree entirely that CH is much too casually sexist, and has too much stereotyping. Sure. So, as you point out, does the entire rest of the French media. Casual sexism permeates absolutely everything. Including Glenn Greenwald himself, who’s been out there decrying the “racism” of CH.
Salty Current’s point about Jon Stewart is exactly what I’m trying to say. People who are trying to strike blows for the good of humanity deserve credit for that, even when they don’t always express it the way you or I might want them to.
A lot of thanks and appreciation – both to Salty Current and to Ophelia, for the whole series of posts.
I’ve been skeptical of this, so I decide to take a deep dive on a single cover of CH’s and work out the cultural context.
The French comedian Dieudonné M’bala M’bala is a controversial figure. Sometime in 2003, he switched from fighting racism to becoming deeply anti-semitic, doing everything from the Jewish religion to be a fraud, praising Holocaust deniers, and was ordered by law to remove two clips from YouTube for inciting racial hatred. He’s been banned from performing in France, barred entry to the UK, and is frequently suing or being sued.
In 2013, he invented a gesture where the person thrusts one arm downwards and puts their other hand on the opposite shoulder. Dieudonné claims he named this after a type of long dumpling called a “quenelle” (wait, “Sieg Heil”? Hmm), and equates it to giving the middle finger. As it turns out, there’s also a form of French slang known as verlan, where you invert something to create a synonym, typically to feel superior by out-smarting slow-thinking squares. If you compare the quenelle to photos of Hitler doing the Sieg Heil, they look remarkably like mirror images.
With me so far? Right: Charlie Hebdo decided to ring in 2014 by shoving a quenelle up Dieudonné’s ass, bending him around to make the pair resemble a middle finger.
Is this a satire of the people opposed to Dieudonné, by exaggerating what they wish to do to him? Given that his opposition consists primarily of people opposed to racism, that would mean Charlie Hebdo is siding with racists. Or is this is a satire of Dieudonné’s view? I can’t see how, unless you somehow think disapproval and acts of violence go hand-in-hand. Even so, you’re still left partly endorsing or trivializing an act violence, which I find rather problematic. I don’t even see how this qualifies as satire, quite frankly, as it’s usually crystal clear who your target is; think Jonathan Swift’s mockery of well meaning but clueless pamphleteers, or Bret Ellis’ imitation of psychotic American elites. Another key test is Poe’s Law: if you’re mocking people’s ideas by extending them to their logical conclusion, the result should resemble what you’re mocking. As two examples, both Colbert and the Onion have both been mistaken for their targets. The only people who’d even think of doing violence to Dieudonné are those opposed to racism, though, which implies Charlie Hebdo is siding with racists.
Without the satire angle, we’re just left with shoving something up a person’s ass because we disagree with them. That’s not something I’d like to defend, even as I offer full condolences to the victims and full condemnation to the attackers.
Ah dammit, two corrections: Dieudonné invented the quenelle in 2005, not 2013 as I said, and it seems it’s less of a middle finger than a desire to shove something up people’s asses; Dieudonné has used it to explain “what dolphins want to do to us,” and in advertising for his political campaign of 2009, to signal what he wanted to do to Zionism.
This post fills in important context for me, and eloquently puts forth some thoughts I have been struggling to coalesce. Thanks SC, and Ophelia.
I think it pretty clearly is, Hj. It’s not sophisticated satire, I’ll grant you. More along the lines of, “I cordially invite you to shove a rotting porcupine up your ass.”
On the contrary. It isn’t crystal clear to everyone; sometimes it even takes some work on the part of the reader viewer to “get it.” It’s utterly common for people to mistake the target of satire. It happened with Swift–people took him seriously–and I am old enough to remember the outrage that greeted Ellis’s American Psycho by people who called it misogynist.
“The only people who’d even think of doing violence to Dieudonné are those opposed to racism, though, which implies Charlie Hebdo is siding with racists.” Anti-racists are the only people who’d ever even wish violence against him? Surely that is not correct. The cartoon is very ambiguous, and the pool of people it could be mocking is broader than that.
Lady Mondegreen (aka Stacy) @15:
I still don’t. Dieudonné is heavily anti-racist and pro free speech, campaigning for years in favor of immigrant rights. He’s gone to Palestine in support of Hezbollah, and even tried to get elected by running under the far-Left “Euro-Palistine” party in 2007. Verlan is working-class humour. He’s repeatedly said he’s not anti-semitic, merely anti-authoritarian and thus opposed to Big Jew.
Dieudonné and Charlie Hebdo are intellectual peas in a pod, even if they don’t get along. That’s kind of a problem: Colbert is very much not a right wing talking head, the whole point of his routine is to mock their excesses rather than join in. Should one of the pamphleteers Swift was lampooning pick his work up, they’d slowly go red as horrible recognition sunk in. The target of your satire holds the opposite view to you, even though you’re pretending to play along, and should be confused and ashamed at the mirror you’ve held up.
So if Charlie Hebdo is satirizing Dieudonné, they’re not left-wing, pro-immigrant, and anti-authoritarian. Even if this isn’t satire, they’re still using violence to make a point when it’s not necessary; this isn’t the first time Dieudonné’s made the cover, thus even Charlie Hebdo concede other routes possible. So why invoke violence, if not to provoke for provocation’s sake?
What? You’re saying going to Palestine in support of Hezbollah is an example of anti-racism and leftism?
They’re not?
Left-wing, pro-immigrant, anti-authoritarians aren’t allowed to make fun of antisemites?
Who says?
BTW, one of the murdered men was Mustapha Ourrad, an Algerian immigrant (Muslim) who was reportedly due to get his French citizenship.
He was Charlie Hebdo’s copy editor.
Say what? People can only satirize views that are the opposite of theirs? That would make for some limited and narrow satire.
I’m beginning to conclude that many people don’t care anything about the victims, who they were, what they were about. It’s more important to position oneself as a paragon of virtue.
Good points, Salty Current and quixote. I hesitated to write my comment because I do find the victim blaming pretty vile, and whether the cartoons were appropriate is not really important. It seems like many anglophones have a really odd interpretation of the culture behind CH (not referring to you, just what I’ve seen in the US media).
@Hj Hornbeck
Dieudonné is close to the Front National, and self identifies with the far right.
Was that diving board your last link with reason? Because you’ve emerged with something utterly convoluted and frankly bizarre.
SC (Salty Current) @22:
There is no contradiction between these statements:
1. I offer full, unconditional condolences to the victims of this senseless massacre, and wish the attackers are swiftly caught and fairly punished.
2. Charlie Hebdo is a racist, sexist magazine full of hack writing.
I’ve been quite clear on point 1, I’m just pushing on point 2. Please don’t conflate them.
maudell @23:
Most of what I’m reading places him on the far left. For instance, here’s an article on him in the Sunday Independent:
Dieudonné has burned quite a few bridges since that article was written in 2006 (the 2012 NYT article mentions he’s be reduced to playing illegal shows on farms and buses to small crowds), so I wouldn’t be surprised if he’s made strange alliances to further his political goals. But you’re the first person to suggest he’s far-right that I’ve read, and it seems to heavily contradict his background and views. Can you provide some links to back up your view?
SC (Salty Current) @21:
Pretty much, yeah. Satire picks at the inherent contradictions in an area; “This is Spinal Tap” mocks the excess and pretentiousness of rock music, for instance. If Christopher Guest et al. thought rock bands were modest and level-headed, they’d have no material to satirize. While Dieudonné and Charlie Hebdo would agree on many things, it’s clear they don’t agree on anti-semitism. That would make a perfect axis to satirize along:
1. Dieudonné is limping along with a bloody foot, complaining the Jews are holding him back, while he holds a smoking gun labelled “anti-semitism.”
2. Dieudonné hands a stack of paper to judge before going onstage, asking him to “cross out the illegal racism”
3. Dieudonné in front of the Palais Bourbon: “Hey, at least I’m more honest than those comedians”
Instead, they shoved something up the ass of someone obsessed with “shoving things up people’s asses.” What dull, lazy, thoughtless writing.
Hj – what makes you think Farrakhan is on the far left? The Nation of Islam is not left-wing.
Even if Dieudonne were left wing, it still wouldn’t follow that Charlie Hebdo wouldn’t criticize him. People on the left criticize each other all the time.
If you, Hj, were to invite me to perform an autoerotic act with a spiny rodent, that wouldn’t be proof that you’re a right-wingers. 😉
Good post. I’ll admit, I’m surprised to have seen it here at FtB, but good post. I’ve added it to the blog post I’ve already done.
http://socraticgadfly.blogspot.com/2015/01/the-sjw-world-trolls-on-charliehebdo.html
Please read my comment here, which perhaps will make things more clear. I’m not arguing that there’s a contradiction between those statements, but that there is a problem with how you and others have arrived at the characterization in point 2. My point is that you shouldn’t be “pushing on point 2.” You should be making a real effort to determine whether the evidence really supports point 2 – that would demonstrate some level of respect or care. Although from the results of your attempt to “dive deep,” I can’t say that this would necessarily be a great thing in your particular case. Honestly, I haven’t seen you argue in the past like you have on this thread, and it’s freaking me out.
***
Steve Sirhan, I disagree with several of the arguments you make in your post. I also consider myself an SJW (as do many of the people who share my position to some extent or other), and don’t consider it a pejorative. So please remove the claim that I’m not. My disagreement with some people on this network* doesn’t concern basic values, at least not those related to this issue. It concerns what I see as an epistemic failure. My view of CH isn’t and won’t be decided by superficial readings or on the basis of catchthoughts like “Islam isn’t a race” or “Intent isn’t magic.”
*in this case – I also have running disagreements and mutual hostility with assorted bloggers and commenters over other matters. Come to think of it, many of those involve the same sort of concerns…
Of all the cover images I’ve seen, it is the one of the girls kidnapped by Boko Haram depicted as pregnant welfare queens that is most disturbing. Could you please explain what is being legitimately satired here and how it is not racist? Thanks.
Benson @26:
The article I quote goes on to explicitly link Dieudonné to the far left, twice in fact. Perhaps the reference to the right-leaning Farrakhan is simply because he’s a famous black anti-semite? Honestly, I’m just going by what I’m reading here.
Lady Mondegreen (aka Stacy) @27:
No, but hanging out with right-wingers would do that, and having similar views to that. I’ve linked to several articles which show Dieudonné hanging out with the far left, and sharing most of their views. Don’t forget I have two separate arguments in play here: this particular cover isn’t satire, and shoving things up people asses carries splash damage (and is quite frankly lazy writing, especially when you learn the context).
I should also add that this is just one of many problematic Charlie Hebdo cartoons I know of. I can easily forgive one or two covers over the decades, but when it becomes a pattern… I gotta speak out about it, no matter what the circumstances.
I’ve read your post too, Steve Sirhan, and you’re so far from reality that dualists are cheering you on.
After writing Gulliver’s Travels, Jonathon Swift probably had another person copy it via hand, then handed it to a publishing house to publish anonymously. That publisher wound up censoring several passages which seem tame, like when the city of Lindalino earned freedom from Laputa via magnets and a threatened revolt. Why the secrecy? Because Swift was using allegory to carefully reveal the hypocrisy of powerful elites that would have locked him up in jail, or worse, had he directly said what he’d said.
The ambiguity of satire makes it a useful tool for challenging the status quo. What’s even better is if people catch on that you’re mocking them, and try to ban a light-hearted romantic adventure story. Now everyone knows there’s a hidden message in there, and they start pouring over the details of illegal copies. And as someone who writes under the name “Socratic Gadfly,” I’m shocked you’ve never heard of Aristophanes.
Satire has been an arrow in the quiver of Social Justice Warriors for over two thousand years. Why won’t Charlie Hebdo do a cover mocking Social Justice Warriors? Because they think they are Social Justice Warriors. Hence why they have no problems mocking the military by showing a soldier engaging in bestiality with a goat.
Or at least, I think that’s what they’re getting at. But I’m sure someone else will come along to explain just how deep and witty that image is.
[meta]
Hj Hornbeck above:
Well, if nothing else, you’ve instantiated the potentiality to which the OP’s title refers.
In the aftermath of their murder, you have made it clear that you consider a pattern of problematic Charlie Hebdo cartoons (that you know of) to be unforgivable, and that the circumstances applying (their recent murder and current mass expressions of solidarity) won’t stop you from proclaiming that fact.
(Perhaps it would surprise you if I informed you that you haven’t risen in my estimation?)
OK, then let us assume, for the sake of argument, that Dieudonne is a left winger. He’s also, evidently, an anti-semitic asshole. And CH has made fun of him. And that’s supposed to be evidence that CH isn’t left-wing?
If being “left-wing” means I can’t criticize my comrades when they’re being assholes, then fuck the left wing, and good on CH for valuing principle above dogma, I guess. Fortunately, I don’t think it really means that (if it did lots of us wouldn’t be left wing.)
Right. You think CH literallywant to shove stuff up Dieudonne’s ass. They’re not just signalling, “hey, Dieudonne, you’re an anti-semitic douche, fuck you.” Because they (allegedly, according to you) share a political label with him, they can’t mock him.
Hokey doke.
Shoving people’s asses “carries” actual damage, if we’re speaking literally. Figurative speach is another matter.
Honestly, Hj, I’ve met you in meat-space, and I care for you. But I think you’re off the deep end here.
*sigh*shoving things UP people’s asses, etc. etc.
Speech.
KenS #30 —
The cartoon mocks the FN: Understanding Charlie Hedbo Cartoons
HJ #32 —
Freud said, “Sometimes fucking a goat is just fucking a goat.”
Lady Mondegreen (aka Stacy) @34:
No, it’s evidence that specific cover isn’t satire. That removes one argument defending it, that as satire it’s advancing a progressive agenda.
It’s a different matter, as damage is still done. Maybe more examples will help: do I need to insult ugly people to argue many Continentals don’t want Britain in the EU? No, but Charlie Hebdo did it anyway. Do I need to invoke cross-dressing when I critique a public figure? No, but here’s one of many Charlie Hebdo covers doing just that. Do I need to discuss rape when talking about taxes? No, but here’s Charlie Hebdo invoking a rape metaphor so blatant it’s not really a metaphor. In order to make fun of Islam, do I need to invoke homophobia as well? No, but they must have known most of the Muslims seeing this cartoon would be male.
You do not need to mock two people to mock one, yet Charlie Hebdo frequently hits multiple targets at the same time. Worse, their secondary targets are typically things progressives would not want to mock, making the entire enterprise a one-step-forward-one-step-back deal.
Au contraire, I have science on my side.
This effect is especially dangerous when it comes to satire.
This puts that monkey cartoon in a new light. People who aren’t racist will view it as satiric of the Front National’s racist members; people who are racist will view it as satiric of progressives who whine about racism when they’re no less racist themselves. There’s even a third layer here: people who think some of the Front National are racist will view this as targeting just their racist members, while people who think every Front National member is racist will be happy to have that confirmed.
This is where I get my charge of racism from. Not from the well-worn “Islam is not a race” meme, but because Charlie Hebdo is encouraging racism through their cartoons. This isn’t an isolated case, either, as that “welfare queen” cover attests. This also extends to sexism, as all their cartoons depicting Femen as violent tyrants out to destroy men will be seen as confirmation that feminists are violent, irrational tyrants to those that want to believe.
It goes a long way to explaining why French politics is so polarized, if cartoons like Charlie Hebdo’s are considered an essential part of their culture. As an added bonus, If you’ve ever wondered why hate groups are attracted to offensive satire, wonder no more.
Ok maybe this is one source of the confusion and crossed wires. Hj @ 31 – what do you mean by “far left”? If what you mean is Trotskyist splinter groups that ally themselves with Islamists, that is not any kind of left. Islamism is far right, not far left. Trots that ally themselves with Islamism are lost in confusion (or cynicism).
Hj Hornbeck #38
NO IT ISN’T.
You just keep asserting that “if they’re on the same side, they can’t be satirizing him.” Of course they can. People on the same side have disagreements. You and I are having one now.
Satire criticizes. The target of satire is something the satirist wishes to criticize. People so tribalistic that they can’t criticize certain ideas or individuals on their own side are dogmatic jerks. (Dogmatic jerks do satire too, but they’re notoriously bad at it.)
Yes. I know. Satire can be misunderstood. So can just about anything else.
We may have a difference of values here that no amount of argument can settle. I don’t want to live in a world of anodyne speech, where everything is c_a_r_e_f_u_l_l_y s_p_e_l_l_e_d o_u_t and dumbed down so that nobody could possibly misunderstand it.