Tauriq Moosa responds to a deplorable opinion piece by Anjem Choudary that accuses satirists of provoking violence.
Because free expression matters more than any one group’s feeling of offence. Because I imagine most Muslims are adults capable of handling criticism of their beliefs – even if they feel offended. Choudary is painting the picture right wingers want: an entire group of people, perched on the spring of outrage, ready to march with billboards at the slightest case of “offence”.
Muslims must speak out against this caricature and be on the frontlines defending free speech, even and especially if it offends them. And media spaces must improve and find better spokespeople.
Stephen Law responds to a pathetic analogy by Iqbal Sacranie, that insulting the Prophet is as bad as insulting a family member, and warrants a “punch in the nose”.
Religions and religious figures are mocked and lampooned for a variety of reasons. Perhaps it’s sometimes done for no other reason than to upset the religious. Let me be clear that I don’t approve of that (though I do defend the right of others to do it).
However, more often than not, the lampooning is done with intention of shattering, if only for a moment, the protective façade of reverence and deference that has been erected around some iconic figure or belief, so that we can all catch a glimpse of how things really are. At such times, lampooning can become great art.
I know enough Muslims (although they’re all fairly sensible, educated, secularized Muslims, so my sample is admittedly biased) to know that they aren’t cheering on murder and terror, and are generally appalled by the acts in France. But at the same time, I see our media pushing two images of Muslims: the “crazy” ones are chopping heads off and calling for death of the infidel, and the “moderate” ones are playing blame-the-victim and rationalizing terror as being “provoked”…by freakin’ cartoons.
Maybe it’s only fair — these are the same media that promote “moderates” on the American side who think a little waterboarding is justifiable, or talk about “surgical strikes” as if they’re humane, so maybe they’re just desensitized. But how about if we see more people speaking out that terror and war and destruction and murder in any cause are inexcusable? And how about more representation by people who think questioning the status quo is a good and honorable thing, rather than treating self-criticism, and religous and ideological criticism, as radical?
If I insult a family member, I do not expect that family member to murder 12 people.
Anjem Choudary is a radical cleric who converts score of Brits and leads demonstrations against freedom of speech. His point of view counts for nothing.
No, folks, please, we’re usually better than that.
No, the cartoonists didn’t “have it coming”. Nobody should be murdered for publishing their shit and suggesting that this is to be expected does nothing but paint muslims as irrational beasts who just cannpt control themselves. It’s just two sides of the same coin.
But this “you don’t have the right not to be offended nanana freeze peach” is the same bullshit we’re constantly getting when discussing feminism. And people here are usually better than that.
We usually understand quite clearly that “equal opportunity offense” usually means kicking down the ladder.
I stand for the right of Charlie Hebdo to publish their cartoons, I stand against the people who murdered them. I also stand to my opinion that their cartoons were racist and misogynist. This is not incompatible. My enemy’s enemy is NOT my friend.
No, Charlie Hedbo didn’t trick those guys into murdering them, what a nonsensical thing to say. But they also contributed and fostered a climate in which FN gets 25% of votes and mosques are burning.
See, that’s the problem. they didn’t. They quite strongly supported it. I have no idea how they got their reputation as “left wing”.
I have never once punched anyone for insulting me, or any member of my family. Maybe we should start there. It’s obviously wrong to kill people for making insulting cartoons. But it’s also wrong to punch people for insulting you or your relatives. Maybe we all need to start at the root of the macho notions of violent reprisals that so many of us still can’t seem to grow out of. Violence, of any kind, should not be the response to speech, of any kind. There’s no such thing as “fighting words”.
Anyway, if someone insults a family member, that person is presumably alive and may feel injury. The prophet is dead and couldn’t care less if somebody insults him. Also too, why do the devout not believe that the omnipotent God can take of himself?
gussnarp @4:
My sentiment exactly. We need more people to devise non-violent means of resolving conflict.
[nostalgia talking…]
Anyone remember that Monty Python movie: The Life of Brian.?? Did that not mock the Jesus-lovers and the Romanophiles and the Judeophiles? Were any of the Pythons murdered for blasphemy? I think not. Many were severely outraged at such a movie. They refused to see it, and picketed the theaters, chanting, “God will damn you to hell if you see this POS movie.”
Also, while insulting someone’s family member might be an asshole move, it is perfectly legal. Punching someone in the nose, even when that someone insulted one of your family members is not. The analogy fails on almost any level.
If I insult a family member, I do not expect a punch in the nose.
Tony! has it right here. He’s been busy with the awesome while I was on the bus…though in this case even he was Non-Violent Ninja’d by Giliell and Gussnarp.
Thank you for the awesome. It makes the horror easier to stare in the face.
I’ve never read Charlie Hebdo, and absolutely condemn the vile murders (that shouldn’t need saying, but probably does), but to take up Giliell’s point @3, according to the BBC:
How very left-wing and questioning-the-status-quo of them.
@zenlike, #8:
No. It works. Punching in the nose isn’t being compared to insulting a family member. Punching in the nose is being compared to multiple murder. Both being illegal, the analogy succeeds there. Insults to family members are being compared to insults to Mohammed (peace be upon all those currently alive, why care about the dead ones?). Insults = insults, so that works. Family members, the point of the analogy asserts, are loved but no more than Mohammed is loved. Loved = loved, so that works. Insults to a loved one often cause us emotional pain, we’ve established insults = insults and loved = loved, so the emotional pain should be of a kind (though I think many would assert a difference of degree).
The success of the analogy, then, turns or fails on this:
I feel pain, therefore I hurt others. I blame others for my pain, therefore others are to blame for my attacks.
This isn’t the analogy per se. This is the lesson Iqbal would like us to take from the analogy. He wants us to buy in to this:
So the analogy will only truly fail if we refuse to accept that calling a person’s brother a politician-for-sale justifies the person’s subsequent bare-handed attack of the speaker.
They win if we stand by our past bad behaviors. You want to know how those who excuse terrorism gain power?
They gain power with each and every, “What was she wearing?”
They gain power with each and every, “Why doesn’t she just leave?”
They gain power with each and every, “Well, hit him back!”
They gain power with each and every, “Don’t get mad, get even.”
They gain power with each and every, “Every boy has to learn to fight sometime.”
They gain power with each and every, “Yeah, but you don’t want base your case on thieving thug Michael Brown, do you?”
They gain power with each and every, “If we don’t fight them over there, we’ll fight them over here.”
No, the analogy works far too often. If we want it to fail on the most important level, the only level we control, we must constantly be better than we were.
With every new year.
With every new day.
With every new minute.
Better. Much better.
Far too good to punch someone in the nose. Far too good to even let slide justifications for empty handed blows. Unquestionably too good to bomb others’ weddings for our freedoms.
Will Iqbal’s analogy work?
You choose.
Giliel #3: The reason why you “have no idea how they got their reputation as “left wing”” is probably because you have never read it.
I understand the difficulties of the language barrier, but basically you won’t find a more left-wing, pro-immigrant publication than Charlie Hebdo in France. They have consistently savaged restrictive immigration policies, and highlighted and supported immigrant (and worker) struggles. In fact this was a much more important part of their platform than the anti-religion thing.
The really depressing here is that somehow, you seem to see a contradiction between being anti-religion (including anti-Islam) and being pro-immigrant. That, IMO, is symptomatic of a very real problem with a certain segment of the left who have been bamboozled by religious apologists and swallowed the fallacy that “mocking religion”=”racism”. Well, no, it’s not. Of all places, I thought people on this forum would understand this basic point.
tl;dr: please, read just ONE issue of Charlie Hebdo before venting off again. Please.
I agree with lots of you here. It isn’t just a problem of freedom of speech and whether or not it causes offense. It’s a problem of people not understanding or wanting to abide by the rule of law. Iqbal Sacranie was outrageous. Talk about entitled. Only people who are convinced they’re superior to others think it’s perfectly natural to answer a minor slight with a much more extreme reaction (US foreign policy planners, I’m also looking at you).
Civilized people understand that the laws they are obliged to obey protect everyone. Even if Sacranie is criminal enough to punch someone who insults his relative, he is still protected from having the punchees relative come at him with a gun. If people stop complying with the law, you get ongoing and escalating feuds. I think there really are too many people floating around who fail to understand what a democracy is, why we should have one, and how laws are made and changed by a complicated system of participation which includes them. Then there are a few who think a theocracy might be fine without quite realizing that it would necessarily be the one chosen by the most violent. And an even smaller group who are gearing up to be the most violent.
Here is my overall impression of asshats who say “we deplore the violence, but think free speech should be restricted” in response to this:
http://chainsawsuit.com/comic/2014/10/15/the-perfect-crime/
The belief that ‘offenses’ must be countered with deeds instead of words comes right out of the honor culture mentality, a pro-violence world view which is often deeply embedded in religion in general, the People of the Book in particular, and Islam even more specifically.
In Better Angels of Our Nature Stephen Pinker pointed out a huge shift re the nobility which occurred around the Renaissance. For centuries the nobles were more violent than the lower classes. You gained status through how many people you killed, how many armies you led, how quick your temper was and how eager you were to revenge slights with the sword. The peasants were to get out of your way.
But in just a few hundred years that flipped. Aristocrats were now noted and admired for cool-blooded restraint. It was the unwashed rabble who were supposed to be dangerously bashing each other over the head. The middle classes and then the rest of the culture began to follow suit. Violent retaliation was a sign of being ignoble. Even the upper-class ‘duels’ were a self-conscious and carefully controlled anachronism which were eventually criticized out of existence by the upper classes themselves. Restraint is intellectual.
The honor-driven mentality of the Islamic terrorists is at war with their desire to be respected by outsiders. Being feared by the enemy is really a poor second choice. There’s no longer a universal appreciation for that. Let’s hope then that it becomes clearer and clearer to Muslims themselves that the honor culture is no longer honored because it isn’t honorable. The culture of restraint is respected because it’s better. It’s an improvement.
Also, I like PZ’s point that the spokespeople chosen by the media aren’t all they should be. It’s actually a problem with all areas of the media in that even the people they promote have to be clickbait. They’re not going to field nice, moderate Nassim the local librarian talking about how pictures of the prophet Muhammad don’t really bother him much though he wouldn’t draw one himself.
So what’s the solution to that? Find other sources, other media? In my area, I recently went to see the play The Infidel. It was about a lot of current conflicts: between moderate and extreme Muslims, between Muslims and Jews. It was also able to deal with ideas and people in a way that was cute, funny and had good music. Because it was art it could deal with the mitigated, the mundane and the very complex without being in the least boring. But is it a good idea to make art a more dominant source of our ideas and than the conventional media? And is it possible?
garlic
Ah yeah, and you know that because you’re a mind-reader
What makes you think I don’t understand French?
Let me guess, you thought I was American…
But since you’re the expert, please tell me how the “we paint the abducted Nigerian schoolgirls who were raped by Boko Haram as wellfare queens” is so happily pro-immigrant?
brucegorton, #14:
You know, here in Germany, there already are restrictions to free speech: you are not allowed to deny the Holocaust, for example. And we’re all pretty much okay with this restriction.
As far as I’m aware, France has a similar law (the loi Gayssot), as do other European countries.
Nick Gotts #10:
The monkey cartoon was actually an attack on the French far-right who “jokingly” and repeatedly compared Christiane Taubira with a monkey. That should be obvious from the “mouvement Bleu Raciste” caption, a pun that attacks the pseudo-respectability of the “mouvement Bleu Marine”, the latest avatar of the National Front.
Basically this is the Stephen Colbert “ching chong” controversy again. A denunciation of racism is being represented as a defence of racism.
FWIW Christiane Taubira herself is strongly defending Charlie Hebdo and is currently arguing for government financial support to preserve the journal. But hey, what does she know?
Nick Gotts @10: The cartoon was a comment on the far right group Rassemblement Bleu Marine (created by Marine Le Pen) comparing Taubira to a monkey. The caption was Rassemblement Bleu Raciste.
Taubira doesn’t seem too upset with Hebdo.
Just like every not-asshole on the planet?
I hadn’t heard of the magazine before this tragedy so don’t know the overall political spin, but any magazine that Bill Donohue hates can’t be all bad.
http://www.catholicleague.org/muslims-right-angry/
The article is exactly the apologetics you would expect if you know Donohue.
Der Zweck heiligt die Mittel
The end justifies the means.
Holy shit since when are people around here so stupid not to recognise that no fucking matter what your intent is, if you reinforce racist stereotypes you reinforce racist stereotypes
1. “This minority person doesn’t think it’s -ist therefore it isn’t” is a fallacy people should be familiar with around here, right?
2. This is not contradictory. I fully support aid to Charlie Hebdo. #JesuisCharlie
We support them because they have been victims of a horrible terrorist attack.
BTW, here’s Sarah Jones’ very good article
And here’s a good read by the Hooded Utalitarian
Perhaps it’s a culture barrier thing, but having seen it and even with that explanation, it still seems to be pretty cruddy satire. I get the intent, but if you could expect the EXACT SAME THING coming from the pen of those you are supposedly satirizing, you’ve kinda failed at satire I think. And the burqa comic with the naked, presumably Muslim woman running around with a burqa hanging out of her ass. If you told me the same comic was penned by an ultra right wing publication, I’d have no trouble believing you, which is a problem I think I have with a lot of Charlie’s anti-Islamist satire. Maybe it’s a culture barrier thing.
But perhaps this conversation is better saved for a later time given recent events…
The cartoon says “this is how RBM portrays Taubira, and it is racist”. If you simply type the words “RBM compared Taubira to a monkey”, are you also reinforcing stereotypes? Jeebus.
Oh FFS. I didn’t say “therefore” anything. It’s a “by the way”, not a fucking argument.
No, really totally everything is fine now. Just make sure you repeat n***, c***, s***, t*** as often as you can when you criticise people who use those words. Really, who’s going to object?
Garlic & Giliell:
Yes.
No.
If you read Giliell,
it is quite clear that
Thus the repetition is perceived by many as not only unhelpful in the fight against racism, but quite possibly counterproductive, and thus not nearly worth the risk. When one is oneself not exposed to the risks of increased racism (when one is white in the US or France for instance), rolling the dice with racism that may hurt others is far from clearly ethically justified. Given these facts, people called on Colbert to cut it out, and are reasonable to call on Hebdo to cut it out as well.
I’ve seen the cartoon, but I think that it better compares with the New Yorker cover of the Obama couple as terrorists combining Angela Davis Robinson and Barack Hussein Osama in an unholy matrimony of Machiavellian (not to say Manchurian) aims.
There are good reasons to dislike the cover, and to consider something less than a success of left-wing cartooning, even if the New Yorker was coming at the image from a left-wing perspective. Likewise, it isn’t necessary to ignore the intent of Hebdo’s Christianne Taubira caricature to come an identical conclusion.
“Now, I’m not saying the German Jews had it coming, but …”
“Now, I’m not saying the rape victim had it coming, but …”
“Now, I’m not saying the cartoonists had it coming, but …”
No. There is no fucking “but”. And if you do feel the need to add that li’l “but”, you’re so far up your own ass that only the power of your fucked-up ideology keeps you breathing air and not your own toxic fumes.
I don’t care what little -ism got into your head and gave you the idea that slandering murdered cartoonists was acceptable behavior, I don’t care if you think you’re a moral and fantastic person for believing all the right things. You’re a pathethic excuse of a person, a disgrace to mankind.
The fact that people here are patting the shithead “Giliell” on the head just tells me that despite the fact that I’m an atheist, I *never* want anything to do with the “skeptics” that allow this filth in their midst.
Well, as a woman I never quite fit in anyway
So much for that free speech thingy, right?
And so much for respecting my humanity.
Also, if you ever paid the people who taught you reading comprehension, ask for you money back, it didn’t work.
The longer I live, the more I’m convinced that the only shittiness greater than religion is ideology. “Look at me, I’m a left-wing anti-racist who shits rainbows and pisses tolerance, so it’s okay for me to excuse mass murder!”
I gave up on the left and the right a long time ago, just like I gave up on all religions. Thanks for reminding me why I did so, you malevolent gravel-for-brains.
John @29:
I take it you disagree with Giliell’s view that the creators of Charlie Hebdo put out racist and misogynistic cartoons. From her first comment in this thread:
Do you feel this is a wrong position to hold? Do you deny the misogynistic and racist content Giliell is criticizing?
Please point out the slander you speak of.
Are you incapable of holding nuanced opinions on a topic?
The information garlic@19 and Rob Grigjanis@20 supply about the “monkey” cartoon was not (and should have been) in the BBC story from which my inforation came – so thanks for that, and it does make a difference; but as Giliell and Crip Dyke point out, does not make the cartoon unproblematic. Nor does Taubira’s support for Hebdo – how could anyone think it did? Indeed, in the current circumstances, she would have to be both a highly unpleasant person and a very poor politician to take any other stance. The further points Giliell and nich raise about Hebdo’s contents also leave a nasty taste.
John @31:
I’ll be sitting over here, quietly holding my breath in the hopes that you’ll explain what Giliell said that was so malevolent.
Come on Giliell, I’ve been around here for a long time and seen you commenting, you must know this is a ridiculous statement. You are equating someone calling you statement unacceptable, the same way many things are not considered acceptable in the comments on this blog with silencing you. It is a freeze peach move.
Nick @33:
Uh-oh. You’re gonna make John Nyzell’s head explode. Xe seems incapable of condemning the attacks against Charlie Hebdo while recognizing that some of their content was racist or misogynistic.
Travis
Hmmm, did you notice the word “slander” in there, i.e. a criminal activity that is NOT protected by free speech?
I mean, it’s totally possible that you did not see it.
The other possibility is that you’re just bullshitting and I’ve just had it with people who act like they stopped reading after second grade.
Travis @35:
John Nyzell claimed that she was slandering the dead cartoonists. That’s a bit different from saying “your statement is unacceptable”.
There is no “nuance” when it comes to excusing the mass murder of cartoonists. You simply don’t say “I’m not saying they had it coming, but“. You don’t. That’s where I draw the line.
I’m sure you have some fantastic ideological narrative about misogyny and racism and postcolonialism and power relations and whatnot. Really, cool. Good for you. Write a book. But have the fucking taste to wait until the dead bodies have at least cooled. I care about your little theories and ideas about as much as I care about the theories and ideas of Jehovah’s Witnesses.
You have the right to say whatever you want, Giliell. I have the right to call you what you are. A person who is so caught up in a memeplex that basic human decency long ago left the building.
I agree with Giliell @3. People have already said it better, but I just wanted to add my support.
Slander has common colloquial meanings as well as a legal definition. There is nothing in that comment to indicate they were saying it met any sort of legal definition. It is a common, and valid word to describe make false and damaging statements.
Gosh, that would be unfortunate, wouldn’t it?
Replace “slander” with “talk shit about” if that makes you feel better. I don’t think she’s doing anything illegal. I think she’s doing something fucked-up.
So sorry for not researching the exact legal meaning of every fucking word in a language that isn’t even my first, I guess the whole “excusing mass murder”-thing made me a tad bit lazy.
Cool! So you’re no longer accusing me of criminal activity?
Now, since you’re insisting that I somehow justified the murders of those people, could you be a sweetie and actually quote me?
You know, with evidence?
Just in case you’re capable of juggling two thoughts in your head while still keeping up with the breathing: It is totally possible to be outraged and shocked by the terrorist attacks against Charlie Hebdo and to condemn them to the fullest extend while simultaneously being critical of their work. There is no connection between the two.
John @39:
Giliell never said the artists had it coming. You’ve invented that whole cloth. I suspect it’s bc you don’t like her comments about Charlie Hebdo putting out some misogynistic and racist content and you’ve decided that such comments negate her prior condemnation of the attacks. You’re not thinking very clearly on the subject.
What Giliell is fundamentally doing is taking the opportunity, in the comment thread of a blog post about a woman who has been raped, to talk about how she dressed like a skank. Not that it excused the rape, but damn her skirts were short.
Or in a comment thread about the Holocaust, to talk about how the Jews sure owned a lot of property in 1920’s Germany. Not that it excused the Holocaust, but hey, just sayin’.
There are some things you simply don’t do. Only religion or ideology could make a person believe otherwise.
John @43:
Kindly point out where Giliell excused mass murder. You’re keen on accusing her of that, but you don’t seem terribly interested in showing how you arrived at that conclusion.
John @46, citation needed. Please.
“Just in case you’re capable of juggling two thoughts in your head while still keeping up with the breathing: It is totally possible to be outraged and shocked by the rape of Woman A and to condemn it to the fullest extend while simultaneously being critical of her dress. There is no connection between the two.”
“Just in case you’re capable of juggling two thoughts in your head while still keeping up with the breathing: It is totally possible to be outraged and shocked by the Holocaust and to condemn it to the fullest extend while simultaneously being critical of Jewish monopolization of wealth. There is no connection between the two.”
Travis
So you’re just bullshitting as well, good to know.
+++
JFYI, Boko Haram have just killed about 2000 people. Majority muslims, of course. Still any takers on defending the cover that depicts their victims as welfare queens?
But she has not done nor did she ever do whatever it is you think she did at all. She was talking about something completely different. An insidious idea seems to be building up that equates simple offense at what I feel can be interpreted as bigoted cartoons with what the terrorists did. Freeze speech and the fact of this horrible crime now apparently mean that Muslims can’t be offended by anything ever. They have to eschew offense at the depiction of a Muslim woman with a burqa up her ass because of the precious, precious frozen peaches: “Muslims must speak out against this caricature and be on the frontlines defending free speech, even and especially if it offends them.”
And that’s total bullshit. Nor should it especially be on Muslims to do this simply because their co-Muslims committed this crime. Why not Christians too? Or dare I say feminists and black people? Should a trans*person give a fist bump to every TERF who insults them now to protect the frozen peaches? FUCK NO.
John @46:
You seem rather…dogmatically wedded to this view that she was victim blaming.
John, you’re getting boring.
If I was doing what you say I were doing you’d quote me.
John Nyzell,
Short skirts -> not bad
Owning property -> not bad
Racism -> bad
So no, actually pointing out that there was enough to dislike about the cartoons isn’t comparable.
This isn’t about your ideological bullshit. It’s about basic human decency. It’s about being so caught up in theories and ideas that you can’t see when you lose your own humanity.
@John Nyzell:
Yes, because a fucking DRESS is EXACTLY like racism, you nitwit.
Normally I like reading your comments Giliell, but I am stepping away from this after this post because I need to cool down. I am not the one that keeps coming back to legal definitions when it is quite clear that is not what was meant. You are acting as though I am in agreement with John Nyzell, whereas I felt your comment was sloppy and brought up the kind of statements that would get taken down had someone else said it.
Oh, could everybody please move over there and take it up with Greenwald?
John Nyzell @43: No. Gilliel’s position is more like denouncing the rape of a conservative woman politician while also objecting to the policies said woman supported.
John @55:
You’ve exceeded the 3 post suggestion, so I’m taking the opportunity to say FUCK YOU. Criticizing the racist and misogynistic elements of Charlie Hebdo is not “ideological bullshit”.
anat @59:
Exactly.
Says the person who called me “filth”…
Still no quotes, I see…
“Just in case you’re capable of juggling two thoughts in your head while still keeping up with the breathing: It is totally possible to be outraged and shocked by the terrorist attacks against Charlie Hebdo and to condemn them to the fullest extend while simultaneously being critical of their work. There is no connection between the two.”
Do you attend funerals and when the preacher says how ole Joe gave to charity stand up and point out that he also stole from his company?
“John Nyzell @43: No. Gilliel’s position is more like denouncing the rape of a conservative woman politician while also objecting to the policies said woman supported.”
You know what? If you ever hear a person saying “Of course Conservative Woman Politician didn’t deserve to be raped. But …”, that person is a fucking disgrace to humanity, as well.
Wait until the bodies have at least cooled, you fanatics.
John:
Do you deny that Charlie Hebdo has, in the past, printed racist and misogynistic content? Or do you just object to discussing that content so soon after the deaths of the creative team? I know that some people think you should only speak positively about the recently departed…maybe you’re one of them?
John @64:
Well then, you shouldn’t have a problem with Giliell’s words. She criticized their racism and misogyny. Do you have a problem with those who criticize racism and misogyny? I suspect the answer is yes, since you’ve taken to calling people fanatics.
Oh, what is the acceptable amount of time one must wait before criticizing the creators of Charlie Hebdo? Clearly a day is not long enough for you. Perhaps a week or two? A month?
tsig@63,
Gosh, is this a funeral? I hadn’t noticed. I thought it was a blog thread.
Incidentally, when I spoke at the funeral of one of my best friends, I did mention that probably everyone who knew him well had been seriously angry with him at some time. You really don’t have to pretend the dead were perfect to mourn their death, or, in this case, execrate their murderers.
I’m sorry. Perhaps it’s callous to talk ill of the dead, and maybe I’m just a bleeding heart librul, but the shit coming down the pipe at Muslims in the wake of this isn’t going to pause for a national day of mourning (one can hope though). I think now of all times is probably the most relevant time to point out what Giliell did because now would be the easiest time to forget it.
tsig
Perhaps not at the funeral, but it damn well should come up at company meetings, and should also be a known fact to the general public, Joe being dead or not. Because no one’s going to believe you if you call Joe an angel and everyone knows he only got his yacht because he fleeced all his underlings.
And the criticism shouldn’t be something that gets lost among all the supportive gestures, either – saying the magazine published some problematic material does not mean they deserved being murdered so ruthlessly. But being such victims also does not raise the magazine to the status of Perfect Angels Beyond Reproach.
The criticism of Charlie Hebdo’s material is mostly in response to the calls for republishing pretty much each and every one of their cartoons – no matter how nasty, racist, homophobic, or otherwise dehumanizing of various groups of people. As mentioned above, repetition of racist or homophobic or otherwise dehumanizing images of various groups of people does not actually help in combatting racism, or homophobia, or any other kind of dehumanization of any group of people, and should not be used as an excuse to point out at how forward-thinking and totally progressive Charlie Hebdo was.
But.
This in no way excuses the level of violence that targeted the staff at Charlie Hebdo, because the only answer to freedom of speech can be more freedom of speech, not freedom to murder.
And there is no ‘but’ to follow that statement.
So no, they did not have it coming. That does not mean they did good things. It just means they did not deserve to die like that.
That’s a great word, isn’t it, that “fundamentally”? In this case “funamentally doing” means “not actually doing, but let’s pretend”.
Yup. Anyone can say anything about me, about my parental units, family, clones, whatever and the only way it will affect me emotionally is if I give them the power to do so.
Ditto if they want to burn me in effigy, burn crosses (on their land, not mine; tresspassing) or fly the loser flag (big here in the South) wherever they feel they need; they cannot provoke me.*
Granted, I’m an adult, so, you know. Getting butthurt over a book or cartoons is something a 7 year old might do, not a mature individual.
* I can still laugh at them, and do.
nich@68,
It’s worth noting that one of the murder victims, policeman Ahmed Merabet, was a Muslim. I don’t suppose he’d have been terribly keen on people making the murders an occasion for attacks (justified or not) on Islam or Muslims. I wonder if John Nizell has been anywhere denouncing those attacks and demanding that the attackers at least wait until the bodies have cooled. Perhaps he’ll link us to the places he’s done so.
There’s is some really poetic irony to the fact how sacred these cartoons have become.
Tsig
I didn’t notice that this was a funeral.
I might also point you to the fact that I’m discussing the cartoons, not the people
Nick
À propos:
Beatrice
To me, when I read it today, that statement pretty much encapsulates all the shittiness and entanglement of the situation.
[OT] Nick @67
Funny you mention that. At my father’s funeral in autumn, only one person diverted from the ‘he was perfect’ narrative, and even then made a bare acknowledgement of the fact, and yet it was such a relief to hear it. And I wasn’t the only one who felt it. So… There it is. [/OT]
Here’s Natalie Reed: https://twitter.com/nataliereed84/status/553285540745723904
And here’s that: A muslim woman has been attacked, beaten and suffered a miscarriage.
The longer I live, the more I’m convinced that the only shittiness greater than religion is ideology. “Look at me, I’m a left-wing anti-racist who shits rainbows and pisses tolerance, so it’s okay for me to excuse mass murder!”
Who on, or near, the left has said any such thing?
There is no “nuance” when it comes to excusing the mass murder of cartoonists. You simply don’t say “I’m not saying they had it coming, but“. You don’t. That’s where I draw the line.
We all seem to be drawing the same line, so I’m not sure what, or who, you’re complaining about. Who here has “excused” this recent atrocity, or any other like it? I see a few people noting that Hebdo’s humor isn’t all that clever or funny; but that’s a far cry from “excusing” or saying “they had it coming.”
I’m sure you have some fantastic ideological narrative about misogyny and racism and postcolonialism and power relations and whatnot. Really, cool. Good for you. Write a book. But have the fucking taste to wait until the dead bodies have at least cooled. I care about your little theories and ideas about as much as I care about the theories and ideas of Jehovah’s Witnesses.
Maybe YOU should have the fucking taste to wait until the dead bodies have at least cooled before dragging your totally unrelated pet peeve into this conversation.
I have the right to call you what you are. A person who is so caught up in a memeplex that basic human decency long ago left the building.
What the fuck is a “memeplex?” Do they serve popcorn at a memeplex? I like mine with lots of butter and salt. Yummy!
So sorry for not researching the exact legal meaning of every fucking word in a language that isn’t even my first, I guess the whole “excusing mass murder”-thing made me a tad bit lazy.
Too lazy to research the exact meaning of the word “excusing,” apparently.
It’s about being so caught up in theories and ideas that you can’t see when you lose your own humanity.
Um…we’re talking about a violent crime, with some asides about the quality of CH’s humor. That doesn’t strike me as all that “theoretical.” Are you sure you’re commenting on the right thread?
You know what? If you ever hear a person saying “Of course Conservative Woman Politician didn’t deserve to be raped. But …”, that person is a fucking disgrace to humanity, as well.
Who the fuck said that, exactly?
If someone blows up a KKK meeting, I would expect everyone to condemn the murders. I wouldn’t expect them to wear white hoods in solidarity with the KKK. The people working at Charlie Hebdo didn’t deserve to die for their racist bullshit, but I’m disgusted with anyone who stands by the publication because you’re supporting bigotry.
Nick @71:
Have you seen confirmation that Monsieur Merabet was a Muslim? The live Guardian article cited the #JeSuisAhmed hashtag 3 hours ago, but as of then they hadn’t found confirmation of his religion. It would help if I could point my brother at that information — I don’t think it would persuade him to shut up and think, but at this point I’d settle for a reduction in volume.
I’m with Giliell. I think the murders were atrocious, inhumane acts, and I simultaneously think that some of their work used misogynist and racist tropes, and that using those tropes can be a tightrope walk for any privileged person.
Similarly, Jon Stewart has used some pretty dodgy material in terms of splash damage; if he were attacked, I would still be appalled by that attack, while not being unaware or unwilling to say that for all the good he may also do, he does make mistakes sometimes. It seems bizarre to me that not hagiographing a dead person is now grounds to assert that someone is “filth”, and while labeling them so, to also accuse them of being dehumanising!
It’s bizarre, honestly. How do ordinarily rational people get so unhinged with fear over a thing which kills absurdly small numbers of people, simply because the attackers claimed a particular religion? Especially when that religion’s adherents have been the world’s chew toys for 20+ years? It’s hardly rocket science they’re going to be pissed off, is it? Look at how many closet fascists have thrown open their capes after the attack on Charlie Hebdo!
CaitieCat
I’ve been trying to work this one out since 2001.
John Nyzell
I don’t usually get involved in comment tiffs, but your lack of reading comprehension is really annoying me.
Since you refuse to quote Gilliel to save your horse-plop of an argument, I will quote her myself, from waaaaaay up at the top:
So please stop making up shit.
And OF COURSE I misspelled “Giliell” in my comment. Sorry.
“The people working at Charlie Hebdo didn’t deserve to die for their racist bullshit, but I’m disgusted with anyone who stands by the publication because you’re supporting bigotry.”
Take a long look at yourself. See what you are?
I’m done. I’m in no mood to waste more of my time with ideological fanatics. You’re the kind of people that should be ridiculed, and mocked, and laughed at. But I’m too tired to be funny, so I’ll leave it to people more clever than me.
The difference, John, is that some people can stand by Charlie Hebdo for the fact that their employees were murdered, and can simultaneously not stand by Charlie Hebdo for being bigots in their artwork.
They have my sympathy for the murders, not for the artwork.
Simultaneity, though, is a tough concept, I hear.
I do have some mouldy towels lying around, they’re hired.
We’ve had time/place discussions before – the thread on Robin Williams’ death, IIRC is one – so John Nyzell is not out of line in bringing up the fact that we treat mourning spaces a bit differently and not everything we might say in other threads is community-acceptable in those thread.
When John Nyzell frames it this way,
the comment goes on to make it absolutely clear that the issue is “human decency” as un/expressed by Giliell’s “taste”:
…and not about the content of Giliell’s statements per se.
Okay. Fair enough, John Nyzell.
Except this isn’t the thread mourning those deaths. This is specifically a thread about rhetoric. Other person’s acute observations about racism and sexism not being morally equivalent to individual fashion aside, this thread exists for the unconditional support of free expression, religious choice, and anti-violence.
Here, where you’re articulating it is inappropriate to say the moral equivalent of, “It’s horrible that X raped Y, but I do have to take a moment to condemn certain sartorial decisions of Y…” in a thread reporting the rape of Y, you really might want to note that this is not the thread where Y was reported and Y’s rape was eliciting sympathy pangs.
That’s a different thread. This thread about what people are saying and how people are saying it simply isn’t the thread you thought it was. I understand the emotional reaction, but you’ve got things wrong on this one.
I agree that there are places where such statements as Giliell’s would be in bad taste. But that ain’t here. Get whatever you need to get. Hopefully you’ll come back later. You clearly care about justice, and yay for that. It’s also great you’re caring about others’ feelings (including your own). But if nothing else, recognize that people here disagree on the fundamental context that is crucial to your criticism.
Without that, you can’t convince someone that Giliell lacks basic human decency. You can be pissed about it, but you can’t change it, and you’re not helping anyone by persisting. Try seeing this from the point of view of people who had a separate 400+ comment thread about non-violence always, no excuses, and came here with a different mindset. Giliell is not the problem. She never was. You may not be the problem either, but you aren’t helping your case any with your statements in this thread.
lucy1965@80,
Sorry, I don’t – I’m relying on the BBC report I linked to @10. It’s highly likely that he was, just from the name and his Moroccan origin, but of course that doesn’t make it certain.
Crip Dyke: Did you see that person up there, comparing the recently murdered cartoonists to the Ku Klux Klan? Saying that ze is “disgusted” by anyone who stands by the publication and is thereby “supporting bigotry”?
Funny how I’m the problem here. Funny how I’m the one who needs to be taught manners. Funny how all the anger in this thread is directed at me and not the shithead who compares murdered cartoonists to the fucking Ku Klux Klan.
Jesus fucking Christ some people sicken me to the core. Don’t worry, I’m never wasting my time here again.
Condemning acts of murder and terrorism does not – and should never – require a person to engage in the total and unthinking lionisation of the victim and every aspect of their lives.
The Charlie Hebdo cartoonists were murdered in cold blood because violent extremists chose to respond to (admitedly often problematic) words and images with bullets. I see Giliell, professional cynic -Ilk- acknowledging that fact and amplifying it with a nuanced analysis of how, the horror of these murders notwithstanding, it is important to remember that Charlie Hebdo’s track record on issues such as race and community relations was not exactly flawless before reprinting images from their back catologue that reinforce and replicate oppressive and discriminatory tropes. How does replicating material that will almost certainly cause further harm to entirely innocent members of marginalised groups in France help anyone? It is hardly as though it will return the slain to life, and helping to to further escalate community tensions, far from representing defiance, only serves to assist the terrorists in their likely aims.
Conversely, I see John Nyzell ranting on the thread, lecturing Giliell on ‘losing her humanity’ and her notional lack of ethics, having already dehumanised her as ‘filth’ with no justification, and otherwise cynically exploiting this tragedy to take cheap shots at Gilliel personally and the broader commentariat in general. I see John Nyzell using this massacre as a soapbox to push a weird ideology of rejecting all ideology, and also revoltingly seeking to co-opt the trauma of rape surviviors and the horrors of the Holocaust to do it.
The lack of self awareness on display might be amusing in other circumstances, but (as Nyzell is so found of pointing out), the bodies are barely cold, and yet ze has no problem using them to try to bludgeon feminists and progressives. The hypocrisy in that should be obvious to even the meanest intellect.
“to the meanest intellect.”
In all senses.
@John Nyzell:
I saw someone using the KKK as an extreme case to make the statement that such violence is NEVER justified. The place of the KKK could indicate a comparison, or could indicate the desire to choose a group to whom Charlie Hebdo couldn’t possibly be compared, and thus the point. I see the latter. You see the former.
I never said you were “the problem”. I certainly never said you needed to be taught manners. I said that you were wrong in applying the rules of a grieving thread to a thread about rhetoric. I pointed you to the grieving/outrage thread. I think you missed the important distinction others were making between this thread and a grieving thread. And I think for all those reasons you’re seeing things very differently from others here.
That makes communication difficult. Since others don’t appear to be having difficulty, and since you ain’t accomplishing your apparent goal, I suggested you take a step back.
Your life, do what you want. I don’t think you’re a jerk or lack manners. I think you have a lot of appropriate rage, but misread the lay of the battlefield and fired on the wrong target. If I thought Giliell had done what you believe she’s done, I’d be firing as well. I’ve done that enough times on Pharyngula/FtB. But I think, again, your life and do what you want, there’s a very reasonable case to be made that at the very least you’re misreading people and that’s going to make it hard for you to be productive here. Case in point, I repeat my last quote of you:
Read again:
Not funny at all, but typical behavior from tone trolls, those who object to the tone we use when discussing things. Two things I’ve notice of tone trolls over the years. The first is that they are hypocrites, blinded to their bad tone when they criticize people. The second, is that they can’t seem to come up with alternatives that really work.
I condemn the attacks on Charlie Hebdo. Period.
Here’s a link to a site with the cartoon showing Boko Haram’s victims as “welfare queens,” and discussing the context in which it was made:
http://www.quora.com/What-was-the-context-of-Charlie-Hebdos-cartoon-depicting-Boko-Haram-sex-slaves-as-welfare-queens
I don’t believe for a second that John Nyzell came into this conversation in a good faith kind of way.
This blogsite has become pretty bad since these innocent (and I stress the word innocent) people were executed for… being irreverent. So many personal axes to grind, so many supposedly clever remarks. Why do you keep calling them bigots? Cabu was as pure as they come, he just made fun of everything, politicans, scientists, sports personalities, religious idiots. They were all fair game, as they should be in a democracy. If some fanatical muslims can’t face that, they don’t have to look at his cartoons. By the way, one of the leaders of the french islamic population said that when CH published its blasphemous Mohammed cartoons in 2006, they lodged an official complaint with the justice and it went to trial. The case was kicked out, the muslim authorities accepted the decision, they didn’t send out a fatwa. That is what happens in democracies. And I side with all the people in this blog that condemn utterly the vicious cowardly murder of 12 human beings, there are no buts or qualifiers. It is an attack on liberty and civilisation, whatever that represents. Jesuischarlie.
http://freethoughtblogs.com/maryamnamazie/2015/01/07/for-charlie-hebdo-rage-and-solidarity/
@Improbable Joe:
Fair enough. I think there’s a good chance (in fact, I think it’s likely) John Nyzell did. But I’ve been wrong before. I did think that in the event this was a good-faith criticism, it was important John Nyzell get a chance to look at the current thread’s statements through other eyes that were willing to take an overtly sympathetic stance. I hope I did that.
And, despite it means that good people have been hurting each other, I hope that this was good faith criticism all around. I’d rather have 1 more good person in the world with a few people having a bad day than 1 less good person in the world and a few smart people with whom I often agree be right in their assessment of 1 person’s good/bad faith.
But good faith or not, I do hope that it ends here. Trolling or misinterpreting this as a grieving thread, either way far more than everything that needs to be said has been said.
A lot of the comments and counter-comments seem to have originated from Gilell’s #3 post. I agree with most of what she said, but I strongly disagree with the statement that “they also contributed and fostered a climate in which FN gets 25% of votes and mosques are burning.” CH could not be further from the National Front, they represent everything that party is against. Some (much) of their humour was deliberately over the top, it was intended to shock and take notice of the real problems. They are not racist or misogynist. Such blatant “agent provocateur” approaches are common in french society, like the closely allied “Canard Enchainé” or in many of the former underground (now very above ground and mainstream) cartoon strips. It is your right to not like it, but try to see it as it is intended. These artists were killed for telling the truth. Jesuischarlie.
Repeat after me: intent is not magic, intent is not magic, intent is not magic.
If you also turn withershins 30 times you’ll get dizzy.
I disagree with (what I interpret as) the position Giliell et al. are putting forth regarding satire generally, though not necessarily the specifics about Charlie Hebdo (I’m completely unfamiliar with the magazine, and I might well agree it’s a racist/sexist/etc. pile of shit if I could read French and read it). Every time I’ve seen that argument – that any repetition of e.g. something that can be racist in a given context perpetuates said racism – it’s a categorical refusal of someone to consider not intent, but context at all. Moreover, it’s nearly always deeply hypocritical, since the same people are usually (and rightly!) demanding nuanced understandings of context to support claims like voter ID being racist policy (which it is). I get the distinction people try to draw between punching up and punching down, but that still doesn’t really resolve the issue, becasue there is absolutely no reason to default to considering the point of view of someone in a marginal position to be better, more accurate, more valid, whatever than someone in a relatively privileged position (it should be considered equally provisionally valid, with further consideration of the levels of knowledge about the subject(s) in question and incentives for motivated reasoning or self-serving misrepresentation informing one’s evaluation, never forgetting that those advantaged by systems of supremacy tend to be deeply invested in maintaining such systems). That path is the exact same one that leads to the religious claiming that anything they feel personally offends them is unacceptable – it allows for personal preference to be asserted as universal moral policy. Giliell’s list of asterisked words is a good example of another problem: I *think* I know what two of them are supposed to be (I think that “n***” is missing a few asterisks and intended to represent a racial slur and that “c***” represents a gendered slur), but I don’t know what the others are (nor am I certain of the ones I think I know), becasue the actual words are not written out. I don’t know what’s actually being condemned as problematic in each of those cases, so a deference to individual sensitivity about ever seeing a certain combination of letters printed in any possible context becasue someone with a personal history of violence associated with that word may experience seeing it at all as harmful is actually and directly preventing a conversation about problematic, harmful behaviors in that case. My not understanding may not be important, but if one is telling me, “Don’t do that,” I need to know what “that” is in order to not do it. We can’t end racism if we are unable to discuss and reference specific examples of it.
The cartoon or word or whatever is not inherently racist/sexist/etc. or not. It has no intrinsic meaning at all: we, the audience, attach meaning to it based on our own positionalities, personal histories, and frames of reference. The New Yorker cover referenced above can be deployed or understood in racist ways, and it can also be deployed or understood in anti-racist ways (it could probably also be deployed or understood in neutral ways). For analogous example, the Black Holocaust Museum housed (now only virtually) various historical artifacts depicting ridiculous caricatures of Black people and lynching photographs (some that were once sold as postcards). In their original contexts, these were deeply racist images; in the context of the museum, they function as anti-racist images illustrating an unacceptable past (and present) of racial oppression, despite people experiencing the images as offensive or horrifying. That someone in a marginal position experiences the images as harmful to zirself no more makes the use of the images in that context necessarily racist than the fact that someone else in that same marginal position doesn’t experience the images as harmful to zirself makes them necessarily not racist. This is the very reason we came up with concepts like “racism” as a way to describe systemic features of a cultural discourse, as opposed to relying on personal anecdotes of bigotry alone to inform meaning.
Being in a marginal position doesn’t validate solipsism or projection, and it doesn’t give one magical powers to automatically understand how complex social systems work. It does often grant one firsthand knowledge of experiences that might be invisible to people in relatively privileged positions, which can certainly help inform a better understanding of a social system of marginalization/privilege when compared to someone for whom all other things are equal. I see a lot of these same dynamics playing out in conversations about ‘cultural appropriation’; as far as I can tell, there are not (and indeed cannot be) hard rules regarding any of this, hence the necessity for careful consideration of context, and hence my irritation with people asserting that those in marginal positions should legitimately be able refuse to consider context at all when interpreting meaning. I’m not suggesting that all assertions that a particular usage of some imagery is racist fall into this category; I’m noting that this specific behavior is what I find very problematic, and I’m also asserting that it is somewhat common. I likewise am not saying that people in privileged positions should get a pass on failing to consider context and how their words and actions might impact others in dissimilar positions. I am saying it’s all very messy.
photoreceptor @ 100;
Even with the best will in the world, replicating a racist or misogynistic trope – even in an attempt to satirise that attitude – is still toxic; it still causes harm, whatever the original goals of the creator may have been. Ths is only compounded if the creator themselves is unlikely to experience the discriminatory attitudes reiterated and reinforced by the deployment of that trope.
As Giliell, professional cynic -Ilk- rightly points out @ 101, intent is not magic.
Is post #101 supposed to be directed at me? You use strange english.
It’s all abut the word but. I agree with Giliell. However I would have written:
“No, Charlie Hedbo didn’t trick those guys into murdering them, what a nonsensical thing to say.
Charlie Hebdo contribute to and foster a climate in which FN gets 25% of votes and mosques are burning.”
As two entirely separate things.
Separating them with “. But” Despite the full stop sets up the possibility of reading it as a “I don’t think they deserved to be murderd, but” leading to the reaction it got.
I think John Nyzell is an idiot for not parsing that out more clearly and instead going on with a bunch of analogies people aren’t buying.
I don’t read Charlie Hebdo, but being left-wing doesn’t prevent them from being either lazy at character design or just plain guilty of hipster racism (I can repeat the n word cause everyone knows I know it’s racist).
At any rate, this is too much of a random white dude inserting himself trying to tell everyone how to read things (or write things) so I will stop before I do any more damage.
photoreceptor
I understand your point, I really do, that there was a point and a context to those cartoons. But here’s the thing:
1) they’re free to draw and publish them;
2) I’m free to dislike them (because honestly I can’t like them because I do see them as perpetuating stereotypes that some people actually believe are true, no matter the satire behind them);
3) I’m free to say that I dislike them and consider them bigotry. I’m free to call the people who draw them bigots, no matter how pure of the pure they really were, because I don’t know them, I can only judge by the public face they show, that being the cartoons – which I consider as perpetuating some rather horrible tropes about all kinds of people.
So yes, I can try to see the cartoons as intended, but I still don’t like them and I still consider them bigotry.
(Interlude: That sure as hell does not mean that I believe that the artists deserved to die.)
So, as you say, I don’t like them, I don’t need to read them (the extremists who killed the artists sure as hell could have used that advice).
And I probably won’t be reading much of Charlie Hebdo-type cartoons in the future either, because I don’t like them. The fact is they’ve been thrust into my face by an extremely unfortunate and horrible incident, and right now I can’t but help see them everywhere, and so I have an opinion which I am expressing, because I’m allowed to do that.
Should Charlie Hebdo continue with their work (and I hope they choose to, if they are truly as progressive and left as you say, because that is their right), I will not follow. If that means I don’t understand French culture well enough, I can live with that.
Once again, my sympathies to the friends and families of all the people killed in the malicious attack.
John Horstman
Two things:
1. Lots of PoC are saying “that shit is racist”. Lots of women are saying “that shit is misogynist”.
While those who tell us that these ain’t so are mostly neither a PoC nor a woman. Can you tell me why we suddenly should defer to the white dude interpretation of things, telling the marginalized people that they’re wrong again?
2. Sure, there are displays of racism and antisemitism and such in places dedicated to the eduation about those issues. There are times and places when we need to name the slurs in order to discuss and deconstruct them. Do you honestly think that the cover of a satirical magazine is the place where that happens? You talk about context.
to Giliell and Gregory: I don’t agree with you. Which racist (or misogynist) image are you talking about? Why would it be toxic and cause harm? I am particularly bemused in that Giliell refers to herself as a “professional cynic”. This is basically what the cartoonists were.
I was gonna post a link to “Voltron gets served!” from an old Robot Chicken episode.. but, it appears many major servers are currently inaccessible from the antipodes!
youtube is down, so is google news.
anyone have any idea what’s up?
more accurately termed, “Yuppie Racism”
http://jbs.sagepub.com/content/21/4/445.extract
frankly, they might have done even better terming it “suburban racism” IMO.
photoreceptor
Multiple examples have been named. The Boko Haram Welfare Queens, the naked black woman with a burq’a in her ass, basically all stereotypical depictions of muslims as violent bearded men with crooked noses, the black woman as monkey….
They repeat harmful stereotypes. They are not subversive. Again, when many PoC tell you “fuck that racist stereotype right there” you should pay attention to what they’re saying.
A woman was attacked and beaten. She was attacked for being visibly muslim, for wearing a headscarf. Bet you that she resembled those women in the cartoons?
As a result she lost her pregnancy.
The only thing I see here, is people taking that literally, and out of context of the rest of what Gilliel said, and concluding she would shut down Hebdo. She would not. Perhaps that one sentence could be reworded, since as many have said, one can support the idea OF free speech, while criticizing the ideas expressed IN that free speech at the very same time.
Since the KKK comparison was made; it’s the same thing. I can support their right to speak their ideas, and at the same time criticize their ideas and expect not be to called a bigot for arguing they should not have their free speech rights removed.
it seems clear to me that everyone here supports Hebdo’s right to publish what they see fit, no question.
so the rest is what?
I don’t see the point of demonizing gilliel for criticizing the works of Hebdo, since at heart, everyone here agrees hebdo should be fully free to publish whatever the fuck it wants to.
You can either agree with the criticism of Hebdo’s overall content, or not, but really, I don’t think anyone here suggested that Hebdo be shut down because they disagree with what they have published.
I’m going to go further back, and to a slightly different(?) era…
http://black-face.com/
why would black face be toxic and cause harm?
are you really so ignorant as to not know the answer to your own question?
Ichthyc
You could notice that that quote is not mine, ‘kay?
What I said was:
and
The amount of shit I’m getting for things I didn’t say is big enough, you know?
“Intent is not magic.”
No. But it is not nothing. Context matters too.
Charlie Hebdo was a pro-immigrant, left-aligned publication that made merciless fun of right-wing authoritarians and their tropes.
Some obviously think they did that poorly. That’s fine. Still, right-wing authoritarians hated them enough to murder 12 people. I’m glad the magazine is going to continue.
DOH!
*red face*
that’s what I get from starting from the bottom and reading upwards.
FWIW, you apparently didn’t read carefully either, as I wasn’t giving you shit, but defending you, albeit erroneously for the specific quote, if correctly for the general point.
#111 and I tell you again Giliell that those examples are wrong. Taubira as a black monkey originated from the FN, Charlie Hebdo was attacking them not her (and she understood that); the Boko Harem Welfare Queens was also savage satire, and did not “harm” the abducted girls. This cartoon has been well discussed and dissected on another blogsite. These cartoonists aimed where it hurt, not to perpetuate stereotypes but to make people think and react. And you cannot blame the horrific unjustified attack on a pregnant muslim woman on CH either, there are sporadic semitic and islamophobic attacks in France going on all the time (which is not to say it was routine). You do hit the nail on the head by saying how many people would vote for the FN (actually it is higher than 25%), there is an increasing xenophobic streak in french society, getting worse as the economic crisis drags on. But you don’t need to be insulting, I get the feeling you are playing to your fan base.
rq @86:
Yup.
That’s the nuance I was hinting at upthread. Seems it went over John’s head.
****
John Nyzell @90:
I guess since you couldn’t back up your opinions, it’s best for you to bow out. Toodles.
****
photoreceptor @97:
*All* of Pharyngula has become pretty bad since the Charlie Hebdo massacre? Or just this thread?
Which “personal axes” are you referring to or would you just prefer to speak in generalities?
*Who* keeps calling them bigots?
@photoreceptor:
what is the current consensus about Pegida?
is it big enough now to cause problems europe-wide?
Tony
Well, I’ve called them bigots. So there’s that. :)
here’s one of the articles that points out the imagery used by FN that Hebdo was mocking:
http://www.metronews.fr/info/anne-sophie-leclere-la-candidate-fn-qui-compare-christiane-taubira-a-un-singe-evoque-des-propos-maladroits/mmjr!phB9HqGei3l8c/
I accept that people are saying the Charlie Hebdo was seeking to mock right-wingers exclusively with the covers mentioned. I accept that they were satirists.
And after looking at the Welfare Queen cover, and the explanations of how it came about, and what it was referencing, I can only state my opinion that, when it comes to satire, Charlie Hebdo at least occasionally managed to orally apply vacuum pressure to Brobdingnagian equus Africanus phallus.
Which is to say, they sucked giant donkey dick. Now, they had the right to suck giant donkey dick, and no one should be shot and killed for sucking giant donkey dick. But I also see nothing wrong with pointing out that they were frequently not, in fact, helping in their apparent efforts to reduce the harm caused by right-wing political movements in France.
This is why I like Pharyngula. Thank you Giliell, for pointing me to the racist (and misogynist) nature of CH cartoons (which shouldn’t have been necessary, I know but we’re learning…). I already had a slight ‘altercation’ on facebook when I mentioned double standards in the media about deaths… It seems CH is a no-go concerning thoughts now. We all ‘should’ be respectful about CH and cannot write anything but nice words. Irony has a new definition…
Also, the idea of the word ‘AND’ is really baffling to some people. They are murderous bastards AND (pointing other direction) they are drawing bastards.
The satirical concept of Charly Hebdo was equal opportunity discrimination satire. Nothing banned, no political correctness allowed. Whenever the makers discovered a new pair of toes, they’d step on them. If someone confessed to like them, they’d slam that person in their next issue. Great contrarian concept, except for everyone with an issue or agenda.
Likeable? Not much. Legit? Of course. They helped define the borders of civility.
That’s why I say Je suis CHARLIE. And: Wolinski, buddy, you were a mysogynist phallocrat, raving against taboos decades after they were broken.
John Horstman #102
This appears to be the crux of your misunderstanding, then. The problem is that you’re not looking at enough context. The intent (which is not magic) of the cartoons in question may have been to lampoon racist memes, in the immediate context of some racist thing said/done by others, but the cartoons themselves actually consist of more racist memes, and the larger social context is one of extreme racism. These racist memes contribute to that larger social context, which is what Giliell et. al. are objecting to. The thing is that Hebdo’s cartoons don’t exist in a vacuum, nor do the things that they’re responding to, which people defending their bigoted covers/cartoons are missing.
I never read Charlie Hebdo and this is not about them or even about satire in general, but John @ 101 is right about the importance of context. Taken to its extreme, some of Gilliel’s comments would seem to require the erasure from history of quite a lot of opression. I’m doubt this is what she has in mind, so I won’t write an essay on what’s wrong with it. The toxic stuff is with us to stay, what’s important is to contain and contextualize it in such a way as to learn from it while limiting the damage. And damage is certainly a possibility. Trigger warnings, reserved spaces and clarity about the use to which the material is being put may be among the appropriate tactics.
Aaah. Sometimes, the little things people say (type) raeally give you great insight about them. In this case, it gives us insight about how racist John Nyzell likely is.
How is blatant, vocally stated (or drawn) racism at all comparable to so-called “Jowish monopolication of wealth.” Yeah, that’s not a racist trope!
And here, he did us a favor and re-worded it, to be even more blatantly racist:
Well, no WONDER he’s so fucking outraged that someone is pointing out the racism of the cartoons in question. He’s a blatant racist.
“the Jews.”
Jowish? really? Nice typo there, marilove.
This remark offends me: “And media spaces must improve and find better spokespeople.” A few years ago I was on a tour of the premises of one of Rupert Meredog’s Limited News tabloids. A Muslim in the group asked the editor why they printed so many bad news stories about Muslims. Meredog’s lackey replied that the newspaper content was 50% advertising and advertising paid the bills. They couldn’t sell advertising unless they sold newspapers and positive stories about Muslims didn’t sell newspapers. The fact is there are plenty of intelligent articulate Muslim spokespeople and the media knows they exist. It just doesn’t suit their storyline to use them.
In a way, deconstructing the possible problems with some of Charlie Hebdo’s material is another affirmation of Voltaire’s famous remark (the one he didn’t really say), or at least of that remark’s first half.
It’s one thing to object that such criticism is factually off-base — there’s a conversation to be had about issues like intent and context. But suggesting that criticism is uncalled for under the present circumstances (for example, that calling it racist is some kind of variation of “I’m not saying they deserved it BUT”) is really suggesting the existence of the following unspoken principle as something we all intuitively hold: a principle that only the most morally upright of art deserves protection from threats of slaughter or terrorism. In other words, it’s kind of of saying “Hush! The cartoons were unobjectionable — they have to be, because otherwise, if they were objectionable, then, God forbid, let’s not think about it or go there…”
I’m reminded of the response to the one tweet, linked here, expressing solidarity with the Muslim police officer who lost his life protecting the lives of people who were making fun of that officer’s faith and culture (and by extension, their right to do so). People just glommed on to the second part of this as if it somehow necessarily overrode the first.
To rephrase the famous quote: I defend to the death your right to say it, and I still disagree with what you say.
For what it’s worth, I’m trying to avoid an opinion on the output of Charlie Hebdo in general, mainly because I don’t speak French. But I have to object to steffp at 125:
If that really characterizes Charlie Hebdo, then they didn’t actually stand for anything, and all the commentary calling them “liberal” must be incorrect. Of course, I’m guessing it’s an exaggeration and they were indeed liberal. However, there may have been a touch of “brogressivism” in their style — that does tend to accompany the “equal opportunity discrimination” attitude.
Anjem Choudary’s position reminds me of a cartoon I heard about during my drive in to work today. It showed a terrorist with a gun standing over a dead cartoonist, and terrorist saying “He drew first”.
I was just in an Ed. Psych. class last semester. One of the students said that islamism were made of crazy people. My teacher – who is from Turkey – responded: “Yes. They are psychotic.” If I argued to correct it, I would be seen as an apologist for terrorist attacks. I’m also in a religious school.
Having been murdered in an attack on free speech doesn’t make the cartoonists saints; and not having been saints doesn’t make them deserve death – indeed, nobody deserves death.
Is that so hard to understand?
Are you one of those numbskulls who believe there’s a monumental war of good against evil, one of those who try to identify a purely good side in every conflict?
De mortuis nil nisi bene was a Roman superstition; it comes from people who were afraid the ghosts of the insulted dead would take revenge. It lacks any justification today.
Are you one of those numbskulls who believe everything everyone ever says is about their social status and not about its actual content? If so, I hate you, and you should be ashamed.
Its protests are much smaller than the protests against it.
John Nyzell @ 55
Oh, really?
@ 31
@ 39
It seems to me that the only one with an ideological ax to grind is you.
Be sure and stick the flounce, shit-for-brains.
Giliell @27:
Right, that’s exactly what I meant. Fuck off.
@59
I think it is in poor taste to to be criticizing the editorial board Charlie Hebdo after they were just killed. That said, your analogy is horrible. Denouncing anyone’s politics in the immediate wake of their rape or murder is beyond inappropriate.
@39
Wow, someone’s got their euphoric net-fedora in a twist.
ok, that’s good, but I’m more interested in their direct political influence.
the media makes it sounds like they have had some impact on elections already.
Racism? Bad.
Misogyny? Bad.
Perpetuating and promoting negative stereotypes? Bad.
No-holds-barred “we offend everyone” satire? Not inherently “good” or “bad”.
Poking fun at religion? Oh, come on, all the best comedians have done it.
Breaking religious taboos? Morally grey.
None of that could ever justify a violent response.
CH, for all their terribleness, was using their words and their pictures, and trying to provoke thought.
Sometimes I think the whole world needs to go back to preschool and kindergarten and relearn some social skills. What happened to “violence is not the answer”? What happened to “use your words?” Adults should be able to deal with things without coming to blows. (Or gunfire.)
@sc_a5d5b3a48ba402d40e1725cbb3ce1375, #131
Charlie Hebdo is a typical French humor product, ascerbic, hyperbole, taboo-breaking, often hurtful. It’s not another version of MAD or something. It never followed party lines, it made fun of everything, and the shocked reactions were part of the setting. The guys who made it were – individually – progressives, what you’d call radical liberals in the US, but they’d always make fun of the encrusted shrines of political programs. True anarchists. You may like or dislike that they’re so hard to press into categories like “left”, “liberal”, “progressive” and such. They do satire, an art, and they run a periodical, a press product.
And this, in French understanding of human rights, regardless of political orientation, gives them the right to go public, sell their magazine to a few tens of thousands of customers. It’s not a matter of “we have to protect our guys”, it’s “we have to protect the rights of these people”, regardless of political affiliation or such. Do as you’d like to be done.
I share most of the critic of Giliell, professional cynic -Ilk- . I think Wolinski’s wit is long past his shelf life, and I find some of their fixations with Mohammed overblown. But I’ll do all I can to protect their right to offend me. With their pens, that is.
Cross-posting to the other shooting thread, too, because this is one of the best pieces I’ve read on the Charlie Hebdo massacre: 9 Points to Ponder on the Paris Shooting and Charlie Hebdo.
Ichthyic
Ehm, sorry for not making myself clear: I didn’t want to imply you were giving me shit, I wanted to state that I’m not willing to take shit for things others write. Also sorry for losing a few letters in your nym
steffp
Yep. And by now we should really remember that in an unequal world, stepping on all toes doesn’t lead to equal outcomes. Because some of those toes are naked and already broken while others are in steelcapped boots (not disagreeing with you).
Anne Fenwick
Now I want to know: How does pointing constantly at the history of oppression of France’s immigrant population erase the history of oppression?
David
I hope that’s still true come Monday. AfD, Peegida and the fucking NPD are gloating already. And if people think that those people obviously have no way to ever get power, conservatives already offered them a coalition in one State.
Grewgills
You know, on Wednesday I said: “Now is not the time to talk about the cartoons”. Sure, they were flying around the internet like some holy icons, but yes, I said “not today”. On Thursday, mosques and muslim-owned restaurants were being bombed in France and a pregnant woman was beaten to the point of miscarriage (fun fact: if you kick a pregnant woman in the belly the placenta can rupture and she can bleed to death very quickly).
Andthe discourse had changed. Suddenly, publishing the cartoons became an us vs. them issue. If you didn’t publish the cartoons you were now a coward, giving in or even supporting the terrorists. But we must NOT talk about the racism.
So, the day there are terrorist attacks on journalists we should not take a critical look at their work. And the day there are terrorist attacks on muslims we must not talk about racism?
If you’re shocked and outraged at the fact that there was a terrorist attack against people for what they have written, are you equally outraged that there are terrorist attacks on people for believing in the wrong god?
Also, where did you hear about those terrorist attacks? On Pharyngula, from people like me? On Twitter from people like me? Or from the mainstream news media?
+++
And since people are screaming “context” left right and centre, let’s do a bit of deconstruction, right?
Let’s take the “Welfare Queen” one for a start.
Look at it. Look at the women. How are they depicted? Is the depiction sympathetic? Are you provoked to feel sympathy for them because they are schoolgirls who have been abducted, raped and are now forced to carry their rapists’ child? Are they portrayed as individuals or are they protrayed as part of a faceless (because they all have the same face), homogenous mass?
Which trope comes to mind? Can you unthink “muslim women have a ton of children and demand that the government pays for them?” Does it even challenge that trope especially when most people will only see this while walking past the kiosk?
Which leads to the “muslims are not a race” thingy: If that’s true, how come you can always easily tell who’s supposed to be the muslim? How is the meaning “muslim” achieved? With christian you usually have some kind of generic person with a cross. If catholic you add official garb to the picture. Muslim otoh is achieved by drawing somebody with a certain type of ethnic features. The crooked nose, the beard, the brown skin.
Now, you can claim that “it’s only about extremists”, but if you constantly depict crooked nose, beard & brown skin = extremist terrorist, what effect do you think it has on men who happen to look like that?
Which leads to the last question for now: What’s the discourse. Who’s talking about whom? This question is very important for the subject of “they were liberal pro immigration”.
Charlie Hebdo left us with a good idea about how they saw themselves: A pasty white white dude, most likely blonde. They got a say in how about they want to be depicted because they did the fucking picture. The immigrants? Not so much. They get depicted, they get told “this is who you are”. And although the cartoonists themselves may have considered themselves as the underdogs, they did so from a position of power. At best they tried to be allies, but suddenly they’re beyond reproach. Really did we learn nothing over the last years that you’re now telling PoC that they’re wrong when they call out stereotypes?
I’ll give you some tweets by Saladin Ahmed. Please look closely at his picture.
For Grewgills
But what does a brown man with a beard know about racism?
(please also note that you got people like elev8tordude agreeing that there’s no racism to be seen, maybe that should give you a pause…)
Yes, please look at the replies. There are horribly bigotted people in there and they all think Charlie Hebdo agrees with them
Now, you can say they got it wrong, but if a large number of bigots thinks that your message is “muslims are horrible savage terrorists” then maybe you’re not making yourself clear.
And here’s one that should make you think about it’s not a raaaaaaaace
More from Love, Joy, Feminism
TW for yes, the Charlie Hebdo images…
@ Giliell, professional cynic -Ilk-, #143
“Because some of those toes are naked and already broken while others are in steelcapped boots” –
Madame, that’s the best metaphor I’ve heard in a while. Thank you for the clarification.
Chapeau!
@Giliell 143
Short answer, YES. Terrorist attacks on anyone are an abomination. I can equally condemn the fanatics that killed people for publishing a cartoon and the fanatics that are terrorizing innocents due to their own bigotry. Neither of those actions is condemning the victims of the violent fanatics.
The violent reaction, particularly by right wing elements, to this needs to be strongly condemned and more importantly stopped. Given France’s history with its immigrant population I don’t trust the police there to do nearly the job they should to end that violence.
The magazine workers aren’t near the top of the list of people that need to be condemned at this time, at least not in the context of condemning the violent extremists that killed them. Maybe save that criticism for another day and another context.
Trying to conflate my statement with support for the violent bigots attacking Muslims in France was not honest discourse. Given how concerned you are about people putting words in your mouth and misconstruing what you have written, perhaps you could do me the kindness of treating me as you wish to be treated.
Where did I say that? Scream about the racism of the violent bigots attacking innocent Muslims and people that those bigots think are Muslims from the bloody rooftops and I’ll be right there with you. If, on the other hand, we find out the woman that was attacked and lost her child supported some shady Islamist group or other I don’t want to hear about it right now and I certainly don’t want to hear about it in the context of her being attacked by those bigots. Putting those two things in the same context would reek of in some small way justifying the unjustifiable attack on her.
Re: republishing the cartoon
I understand the urge to publish the cartoon that was used as an excuse to attack the magazine staff to show that the terrorists can’t intimidate an ill defined us into silence. I also understand not wanting to publish it because it was designed to offend a large group of people, most of whom don’t support what those few fanatics did. I think the CBC was among the outlets that refused to show the cartoons and I don’t fault them for that in the least, nor do I think republishing it makes anyone a hero.
I am curious how you would feel about this if it were Catholic fanatics that did this in response to one of CHs many less than flattering depictions of the pope.
I live about as far from Paris as it is possible to live, so the news broke while I was asleep, or at least after I had withdrawn from news for the evening. I heard about it first from the mainstream media, then saw it on a few other outlets before I saw the story here. The other outlets are centrist by US political standards, so I didn’t hear about it from people like you. That isn’t meant as an insult in any way, just an answer to your question. That is true of both the original incident and the aftermath.
I am curious why you think I would have heard about this from you or people like you? I don’t know you near well enough to be sure what you mean by people like you. For purposes of answering your question I assumed that people like you would mean, in part, people relatively far to the left within the American political context.
This debate has gone in several directions, at times overheated and insulting. My own take was to try and give those who might not have access to some of the information, a few details (but also admittedly my own viewpoint). Maybe I am too close to what has happened to be entirely objective, I am terribly saddened by what has happened. As of the moment of writing, the police have encircled the presumed killers, who are holding a hostage. I agree entirely with steffp, Charlie Hebdo were constant provocateurs, not by any means saints (they would have been revolted by such an epithet), and not engaged in any noble cause. Anything and everything was their target, the less politically correct the better. Take a look at the last front cover, so ominous in the light of the tragedy: translated, the headline says “still no terrorist attack in France”, while the caricatured fanatic says “just wait, we have till the end of January to present our wishes”. I persist in defending them against accusations of racism or misogyny – there are strict laws in France about discrimination and inciting racial hatred, and to the best of my knowledge CH has not been prosecuted. But democratic means do exist to challenge their position, through official apologies, fines, even imprisonment. I appreciate rq’s posts, which are always reasoned and balanced. Including #142 which was an interesting link (I don’t buy everything he says, but much is true). Any real democracy should have such harmless anarchists to slap it in the face. It is not comparable, but during Margaret Thatcher’s rule in the UK (may she rest in torment), just down the road from Whitehall a successful theatre play entitled “Letters from Dennis” was taking the piss of her husband.
I am not going to enter into the mudfight, but to answer a couple of you: to ichthyic, I have to admit I had to look up just what was “Pegida”. Which shows just how insignificant a movement it really is. France has a long complicated and sometimes shameful history dealing with the north african immigrants. Look how they fucked the Harki’s for decades. But I don’t think the recent killings will change much about these race relations, for better or for worse. The problems run deeper, the solutions are more difficult. The FN feeds on these sentiments, Marine is a very shrewd politican who avoids her fathers excesses (his famous statement saying that the gas chambers were a mere detail in WW2), while trying to offer an acceptable alternative to mainstream parties (who have lost all credibility with repeated scandals and failures to govern). She is still playing the victim, since the FN has not been invited to participate in a huge peace march planned for Sunday (“are you saying all this is my fault?”). Schirmeck (a little village in eastern France) made it into the columns of the NYT many years ago when the FN came close to winning the general election. Statistics showed this village voted 33% in favour of Le Pen, the highest score in France. Funny thing, there is not a single black/arab in Schirmeck, and strangely not a single person interviewed by journalists had voted for the fascists… Democracy, it’s the worst system – with the possible exception of all the rest (Churchill).
As a statement of the blazing obvious: some of the problematic content of the cartoons stems from the inherent limitations of the art. Stereotypes are employed precisely because they quickly convey context to serve a pithy punchline. It is probably extremely difficult to avoid those shortcuts if you are targeting groups rather than identifiable individuals. That may say something about how more responsible artists should approach their work. SC’s post on Ophelia’s blog would suggest that CH understood that. To some extent, their response to recognising that was probably clouded by privilege including a sense that they were anyway acting for the greater good. They are reflecting and participating in a culture which holds these problem attitudes.
It seems very clear that everyone familiar with CH would understand their politics, so an anti-racist cartoon that contains racist imagery would still be generally understood to be anti-racist. That must mitigate some of the harm; intent is not magic, but if people generally recognise and correctly assume your intent (as a result of your notoriety) then it will modify their reading of your work. That doesn’t mean that the harmful effects completely disappear, and it is difficult to quantify the damage to their intended targets versus the unintended harm to others.
The fact that context is absolutely vital to prevent misreading is exactly why the cartoons should not be treated as universal and righteous statements. It is also why they can legitimately be read as problematic – they do have inherently racist and sexist content which must be decoded in order to understand the intended meaning. From what I understand, I don’t think it would be right to label CH racist or misogynistic per se, but then I don’t see many people doing that – the extended commentary is much more nuanced. Personally, I think there is probably more good than harm done by such publications, but I am not a member of any group likely to suffer the unintended consequences of this.
It is certainly strange to see such an irreverent publication being treated as though it is beyond criticism. And I am sure that before this CH did not wait until the bodies were cold to pass comment on news.
I return to write here merely to point out that marilove in post 128 accused me of being a “blatant racist” for comparing what I consider one fucked-up statement to another fucked-up statement. As is obvious to anyone with half a brain, no of course I don’t think Jews monopolized wealth in 1920’s Germany. That’s a moronic conspiracy theory. It was an example of an unacceptable, disgusting excuse-that-pretends-to-not-be-an-excuse for mass murder.
Why do I even need to point this out? Why is it that no-one saw fit to defend me against what actually does fit the completely legal definition of slander? (As opposed to Giliell’s comments, which I “merely” consider inappropriate.)
If Marilee Cornelius thinks I am a racist who spreads conspiracy theories about Jews, she should contact the Swedish police immediately. I am in violation of chapter 16, paragraph 8 of the Swedish criminal code, Incitement of hatred towards population groups. I can be punished by up to two years in prison. So go ahead, Marilee Cornelius. Do show how an example of a statement I consider unacceptable is in any way an affirmation of my belief in the anti-Semitic conspiracy theory which I rebuke.
It’s of course possible that you’re simply talking out of your ass with the same intellectual honesty I’ve come to expect of this community.
I now go back to not wasting my time here, unless Marilee Cornelius intends to press charges. But of course, she won’t, due to the laughable nature of her accusation. So bye, shitheads.
John:
It ain’t slander if it’s true andMarilove explained why she thinks you’re racist.
Incidentally, we all harbor racial bias and prejudices. It’s part and parcel of growing up in a culture swimming in racism. You shouldn’t be surprised that you have racist beliefs. You should be trying to actively purge yourself of them.
Grewgills
I did not do so. I was raising awareness to how differently such things get treated. Nobody would think that just because mosques are being attacked criticising islam is off the table, right?
Well, am I also allowed to scream about the racism of the self-declared liberals? Because that’s what you want me not to do.
You do understand that there’s a difference between a randomn person on the street?
Also, since you’re so much about how it is really not ok to criticise them now, did you see that cover they drew after 1.000 Egyptians were massacred? It shows one of the victims (stereotypical muslim) being shot, the caption saying “the Q’ran is shit, it doesn’t stop bullets”. Tell me, how much respect did they have for those people? They stood up for freedom, they were murdered and the beyond-reproach Charlie Hebdo mocked them.
You know, I’m actually not happy to discuss all that shit now. I’d much rather stand with everybody opposed to terrorism, but I cannot do so as long as large parts of the white majority society think that reinforcing racism is the thing to do now.
You missunderstood. Where did you hear about the terrorist attacks on mosques in France?
photoreceptor
Wait, it’s not racist until a court says so?
Oh bloody well thank you for declaring my fear and that of many people in Germany irrelevant. 18.k in Dresden. That’s more than twice the number of Salafists in Germany. Wanna add hysterical?
Bernard Bumner
If your punchline are rape victims, which direction are you punching?
If your punchline is a disenfranchised minority, which direction are you punching?
If your punchline are muslims who fought for freedom and were murderd, which direction are you punching?
@150: See, maybe I just don’t understand the culture around here, but where I come from, calling someone a racist is a serious accusation that better be backed up by actual proof.
“It ain’t slander if it’s true andMarilove explained why she thinks you’re racist.”
Yes, she did show her complete lack of reading comprehension. I compared one obviously unacceptable statement (The Jews didn’t have it coming, but …) to another less obviously unacceptable statement (The cartoonists didn’t have it coming, but …), and she took it as an indication that I supported the obviously unacceptable statement! How the fuck does that even work? How the fuck can you people just let that kind of slander slide?
The fact that your defense of Marilove boils down to “We’re all racist!” shows the strength of her argument.
I’m an educated journalist, and I have a pretty clear understanding of what is acceptable discourse and not. Marilove has in writing accused me of what can only be considered a crime according to the Swedish criminal code, a serious and slanderous accusation.
John Nyzell, yawn, whining about imagined slander just makes you another tone troll. Please be so kind as to fuck off and comment where you’re welcome.
Monitor Note
John Nyzell
I seriously fucking hope that you just got carried away and typed a wrong name and did not just doxx Marilove.
Not acceptable, alert sent.
Oh, btw Travis
See that above? Slander = illegal activity
Although from somebody who thinks it’s illegal to be a racist in Sweden, so I wouldn’t trust his legal advice…
@Giliell,
Absolutely recognised – hence the next section of that paragraph. In this case it is more insidious than either of your examples; it is less a case of punching down than it is of elbowing a bystander as you wind up your back swing.
It will be less evident even to those who think of themselves as progressive liberals.
I think this a problem in the work of many political cartoonists, constrained as they are to try to find rapid methods to convey information. Stereotyping is easy.
John Nyzell:
You really need to read up on implicit racial bias.
As I said, we all have biases and prejudices. It’s a product of growing up in a society where racism, homophobia, transphobia, sexism, misogyny, and other social ills exist. It doesn’t matter what country you live in. No culture is immune to these ills, and no human is without prejudices and biases.
Did you miss the fact that she criticized your use of “the Jews”?
Also, repeating the assertion that you’ve been slandered doesn’t make it true.
So on this site, it’s okay to say “John Nyzell is a racist” without any proof, but not “Marilove claims John Nyzell is a racist”?
You people are lunatics. Defending my honor is not worth the headache reading your demented thoughts induces. Feel free to slander me all you want, I don’t even want to see this shit anymore.
[If you continue to try and use people’s real names, you will be banned. –pzm]
Bernard
Understood
+++
What do they teach these kids in school?
There has been a lot of discussion of context in this thread. There is also the question of what is obviously opinion based on disclosed facts.
Or, perhaps, you’re resorting to melodrama where a measured response would have sufficed?
Perhaps don’t refer to “The Jews” in future, unless you’re clearly setting out a contradictory position. Even then, there should be enough in this thread to give you pause for thought.
I wasn’t referring to “the Jews”.
I was saying that a person referring to “the Jews” is saying something unnaceptable.
Why is this so hard to understand?
John Nyzell
1. You know that is a lie. Marilove quoted you and made an argument. Yes, I’m calling you a liar. Add that to your list of imagined wrongs.
2. For all we know, “John Nyzell” is about as much your legal name as Giliell is mine. But if it is, it was your choice to use it.
3. The user you doxxed did not choose to reveal her legal name. She also did not threaten or harass you which would justify her doxxing.
4. It is perfectly acceptable to say “NymXYZ claims Nym ABC is a racist”.
There is only one John Nyzell in Sweden. I stand by my opinions because I am not an anonymous coward.
Anonymous Person M has said: “He’s a blatant racist.” John Nyzell is a blatant racist. That’s a serious accusation and an attempt to smear my good name. Why should I accept that kind of behavior?
John Nyzell is a shitty blockquoter and contextually clueless. His initial rage-commenting was about a slight that never occurred. John Nyzell is a slymy fucker who needs to turn in his journalism card if he cannot fathom that there was no ‘but…’ implied when Giliell decried the attacks on the victims. Giliell in no way victim-blamed. Giliell brought up a fair point about the merits of the art of Hebdo and whether their use of racial stereotypes isn’t itself condemnable.
John Nyzell – we’re better off without you stinking up the place. Finally fuck off with yourself, kindly, and do yourself the favor as you intended about 80 posts ago. Bye.
John Nyzell:
Yet you keep commenting.
Weird.
The “but” wasn’t implied. It was written down, clear as day, black on white. Like, it’s literally right there.
“But this ‘you don’t have the right not to be offended nanana freeze peach’ is the same bullshit we’re constantly getting when discussing feminism. And people here are usually better than that.”
“But they also contributed and fostered a climate in which FN gets 25% of votes and mosques are burning.”
Stop your tone trolling. You don’t know how to argue here. You are a hypocrite. So, why don’t you just take your ego and fuck off?
#151, Giliell: maybe a law doesn’t fully prevent certain depictions as racist, but it places them within a legal framework where the author can be prosecuted. The FN were rightly prosecuted for using the black monkey image of Taubira for example (but not CH who used the same image in a completely different context). As for my comments on pegida, I stand corrected – I was talking about France, the FN is very verbose but does not usually do more than posturing (with some vile exceptions). The neo-nazi movement in Germany on the other hand seems to stick to the motto “actions speak louder than words”, which is far worse.
John Nyzell @163:
That’s a pretty big Net O’ Condemnation you’re tossing around there. Commenters have a variety of reasons for remaining anonymous you thick-witted fool. Some people are in fear of their lives because they live in countries where they might face serious repercussions for sharing their beliefs and opinions under their real name. Others are fearful of their bosses finding out that they’re an atheist or feminist or queer. Some people have assholes stalking them or making their lives miserable, so they’ve created an anonymous account with no ties to their identity, to reduce their chances of being discovered.
There are multiple reasons for people to choose to be anonymous and it’s not an act of cowardice to choose anonymity. I may comment under my real name with a link to my blog (which links to my FB page), but doing so says nothing about my courage (or lack of cowardice).
Yes, I’m sure any of the parents of those girls who saw it had a good laugh.
When is John Nyzell going to take his hurt fee-fees and flounce?
John Nyzell@163:
Look you fucking asshole, YOU used the fucking anti-semitic dogwhistle about Jews controlling wealth. The onus is on your stupid fucking ass to ensure your audience knows what you’re actually talking about, not to sit here and whine and piss and moan because people called you on the stupid shit you actually said and then out people with their real names because you were too fucking stupid to be clear about what you mean, you fucking weaselly little toad. Gosh, sorta reminds me of the shitty satire published by the magazine in question!
Secondly, you privileged little fuck, a lot of people maintain anonymity for a ton of reasons having nothing to do with cowardice, you goddamn shithead. A lot of people here maintain anonymity to protect their jobs, families, and in some instances perhaps even their lives. So good on your stupid fucking ass that you are in a place where you can say stupid shit under your real name, you brave fucking hero you. Must be nice. Not everybody here enjoys your privilege, you mealy mouthed fucker.
Jesus Christ, please fuck off finally.
Yes, I understand that anonymity must be a great help for people wanting to accuse murdered cartoonists of being misogynistic racists.
Guess who didn’t hide under the cover of anonymity? The staff of Charlie Hebdo. But hey, they were misogynists and racists, right?
God you people sicken me.
Perhaps make it clearer when you’re adopting another’s voice, as opposed to restating an objectionable point with your own voice and choice of language? Or perhaps don’t adopt that language where it isn’t required to make the point?
In the context of this thread, where much of the discussion is about how co-opting the imagery (or language) of bigotry can cause unintended/unrecognised harm and reflect unconscious prejudice, you were opening yourself to accusations of racist behaviour.
Something to consider?
No, John, you took the ball and ran with a different ‘but…’ which implied victim-blaming. In fact, you didn’t even quote Giliell directly.
Here’s what you wrote:
Such is indicating that what proceeds from the “but” is going to be victim-blaming. Yet there is nothing remotely connecting her “but” to anything which states the victims deserved it. They can be a part of the problem, part of an ongoing strife between Muslims and other French, but that doesn’t mean they deserve it. (See what I did there?)
Giliell said nothing of the sort to which you were replying at first. Your first post here is a strawman. And now you’re in a tizzy that people have been battering that strawman while you’re trying to re-erect it. Woe is you, John Nyzell, you pusillanimous contextually clueless shit.
John Nyzell @173:
Well then, when I wake up, I’ll go digging around for some of the cartoons produced by Charlie Hebdo, and if I find some that are racist or misogynistic, I’ll come back here and accuse the murdered cartoonists of being misogynistic racists.
And you missed my point about there being multiple reasons for people to be anonymous you dunderhead.
Have you, by chance, checked out the link about implicit racial bias I posted upthread?
Seconding Bernard and throwaway @174/175.
I think I finally got a handle on this forum’s behavioral code. So from Sweden, with love:
Go choke on your own bileful fumes, you victim-blaming sanctimonious pieces of shit.
Would it be ok if they hadn’t been murdered? Is the problem here a matter of magical thinking? Because that’s already been very adequately explained….
Gosh, it’s almost like some people use anonymity to prevent bad shit from happening to themselves! Thank you for providing nice pat example illustrating my point! Would you call Charlie Hebdo cowards if they chose to publish from an anonymous location under pseudonyms? What about Kaveh Mousavi? Pseudonym for an atheist in Iran who used to blog here before moving over to Patheos? Are they a coward, fucker? What about a trans*blogger? Are they cowards for maintaining anonymity so that others don’t know their status?
Privileged little piece of shit.
Nobody here has done anything even remotely resembling victim blaming. At this point for you to insist on that is extremely dishonest. Fuck off.
I’m not sure we have any actual anarchists among those on this thread, but as an ex-anarchist still with considerable sympathy for that political philosophy, I will say that attacking everything and everyone, whether strong or weak, privbileged or marginalised, indiscriminately, does not make you a “true anarchist”.
For someone who is sickened by us and who “doesn’t want to see this shit anymore”, John sure does like commenting here.
John Nyzell @178:
::glances around…re-reads thread::
No one has engaged in victim blaming. *YOU* are incapable of recognizing that one can condemn the actions of the terrorists while simultaneously criticizing the problematic material put out by the creators at Charlie Hebdo.
I’m sure that what will really upset the families and friends of the victims is this thread (which they will a most certainly nevery see). You brave defender of the righteous dead, you.
Do you really suppose that the staff of CH are unused to criticism? Moreover, do you really think they would like to censor or moderate that criticism? You’re behaving quite foolishly.
You have no idea why people want or require anonymity, so you would need a very good reason to out someone; not just because of someone denting your fragile ego.
You’re doing a poor job of seizing the moral high ground here. Some people might be inclined to think that you’re doing a good job of making yourself look like a rather silly and self-important bully and thereby doing much more potential reputational damage than any accusation upthread.
to Nick Gotts at #170, that depiction is especially troubling. It is meant to be offensive, to shock, it is not meant to be funny (at least the humour is very dark). It is impossible to know if on a wide scale that image stirred up extra sympathy for the abducted girls, for me it did. So yes, you can certainly accuse CH of being offensive, they often were. But maybe I’m just splitting hairs to say it is still not racist, in my humble opinion.
What the holy fuck?
John Nyzell, ‘Let’s not turn a bigoted newspaper into an icon’ is not the same as ‘people who produce bigoted newspapers deserve to die.’
The former, which is what was said, does not blame the victim. The latter, which was not said, does.
Daz @187:
Hey now! No talking ill about the dead, no matter how truthful that talk may be. Especially when the bodies aren’t even cold.
How did I do channeling John Nyzell?
There is still a question (a very serious one) that has not been much addressed in this column, how to prevent such terrorist actions happening in the future? There is already talk here that the french security system failed, in as much as that the suspect was already known (as was Merah), but conveniently dropped off the radar prior to passing into action. The widow of Charb (herself an ex-state minister) has already denounced a failure of the system, that could (should?) have saved her husbnad from execution. Without going into deportation of all muslims, as suggested by some, it would seem to me that identified fanatics with a proven record of willfully fomenting hatred could be stripped of their nationality and exiled. Otherwise they are going to keep slipping through the net till it is too late. I don’t know the legalities of such possibilities, any thoughts?
Tony! The Queer Shoop #188:
Oddly enough, I am, in general, in favour of not speaking ill of the recently dead. I think families and friends deserve a decent mourning period, during which they shouldn’t be bombarded with stuff like that. Unfortunately in this case, waiting for a decent mourning period before saying ‘please don’t use this as an icon’ could quite well end up being a case of shutting the stable door after the horse is half way to the horizon.
To be clear NOBODY deserves what happened to those poor people in that office. NOBODY. Not Charlie Hebdo. Not Fred Phelps. Not the worst of the gamergate assholes. NOBODY. It was a disgusting act perpetrated by people with disgusting ideas. No ifs, ands or buts. They deserve to be alive and hopefully the people who did it are caught and to be honest I would not be sad if they died.
I, like most here, support the rights and freedoms that allowed Charlie Hebdo to publish a lot of what I felt was some pretty awful stuff. At best, not very funny, and at worst downright bigoted. But the fact of the awful, sad, infuriating, completely unjustified murders of Charlie’s editorial and support staff, and the fact I believe in the concept of free speech does NOT mean that Muslims should have to eschew offense over what I feel is offensive shit, and it definitely does not mean they have to SUPPORT the offensive shit. They shouldn’t be required to turn the other cheek, anymore than all feminists should if it was a feminist who did this, or all blacks should it was a black person who did this. But I completely get that as offensive as Charlie Hebdo could be, nothing they ever published remotely approaches the offensiveness of what happened to them. So je ne suis pas Charlie (hat tip to Google for what I’m guessing is an awful translation), but I can damn well mourn them. And I do.
Forgive me if I am wrong, but that’s all I ever felt that anybody was ever trying to say. Well, plus a lot of swear words and shit.
John Nyzell
I’m glad, because it would be really bad for any other John Nyzell if somebody mistook your shit for his.
Yep, because it’s such a couragous act to shit on people on a blog that has a very strong anti-harassment, anti-violence culture. You’re practically a martyr just like the people at CH. Seriously, you dare compare yourself to them for the fact that you use your name here?
Psydonymous. Psydonymous. Really, from somebody who claims to be a trained journalist i expect knowledge of basic terms of art.
Nobody needs to do that. You do it all yourself. You showed up here posting a content free hate tirade against me which you still haven’t substatiated.
Well, because, how about freedom of speech? Especially since Marilove made a substantiated argument, quoting your words?
to Tony, who asked me to name who had been accusing CH of bigotry. There is at least rq (self-confessed), Daz (I think), maybe yourself. Checking the definition of bigot, it always includes the notion of intolerance (towards whatever). The writers at CH were not intolerant, except of sacred cows and establishment and self-ordained messiahs. Once again, I am not pretending they were paragons of virtue, they were just ordinary people. I will not be contacting the pope to short-list them for the next round of beatification.
Before we make everything about John Nyzell: The person who shot the policewoman has taken hostages in a Jewish supermarket and apparently already killed two more people.
Heh. Like the poor trumpeter for Lawrence Welk…
photoreceptor @193:
I’d have to go re-read my comments, but I’m pretty sure I was careful to avoid accusing them of anything since I’ve never seen any of the cartoons.
to keep people up to date, there are at this moment two crime scenes, one with the suspected terrorists holed up in a printers warehouse with hostages, another with a second fanatic (identity currently unknown) involved in another fatal shooting, holding hostages in a jewish supermarket close to Paris.
Daz @190:
While I agree with you, I think any criticism of the recently departed is ok in the proper context (i.e. not at the funeral and not directed at the grieving family and friends). I like Crip Dyke’s comment about this upthread.
Giliell beat me to it – we must be following the same news channels. One extra bit of information, Anonymous have announced a massive cyber attack against Daesh and associates in the coming 48 hours.
Tony!
I just realised I kinda came over a bit pompous, replying to what was basically a light-hearted quip. If it reads as if I was being argumentative, t’wasn’t meant that way. Sorry.
@photoreceptor
If they have a proven record of fomenting hatred, then they should be dealt with as criminals and imprisoned (with deradicalisation and rehabilitation).
If you’re suggesting, as many have, that cases which don’t meet the threshold for criminal prosecution should be subject to deportation, then that is enormously problematic. To where should they be exiled? To an Islamic country which doesn’t want them? (It is illegal under international law to make someone stateless – you could only send someone to a state which would accept them.) To a dangerous theocratic state which does want violent Jihadists and Islamists?
Who would decide what the threshold is for banishment? Can you not see the extreme dangers of granting anyone those powers?
@Giliell
Two confirmed dead, and apparently more hostages. Such futile killing. So sad.
photoreceptor
As already said:
Where should they go? Do other countries get a say before you inflict them with potential terrorists? Can they refuse?
Also, as noticed time after time again, terrorism is not a muslim phenomenon*. There are double-home-grown terrorist organisations in almost all western countries. To propose that you deal differently with one set of dangerous terrorists** than with another set based on their ethnicity and religion is, indeed, discrimination based on race and religion. Yes, I know, I’m saying “don’t discriminate against terrorists”. Because those are our fundamental values.
*Even though the media and certain politicians would like to make us believe this, by saying things such as “worst terrorist attacks in Europe since Madrid and London as if Breivik had merely written angry letters to the editor.
**And we all know that the right wants us to start with that and then expand to people who get parking tickets
Correction: No dead so far in second hostage situation
photoreceptor:
That sounds to me like exporting fanaticism, possibly to a place where it will find more fertile ground to root in. How can that be a good idea?
There is that. There is also the possibility of depatriating dissenters and agitators. It is a terrible idea.
Good. I hope the Interior Ministry is correct, rather than the “police source”.
how about sending them back to their “original” countries? The Kouachi brothers are french-algerian. Or if they love it so much, back to Daesh (if it still exists in the future, hopefully not). I don’t know if the fact of targeting islamic radical terrorists would be “discrimination”, it is just capitalizing on available security information. Even if other groups would be missed it would still reduce the risk of attacks. I am not sure anything can ever be done to stop loons like Breivik.
Also, by now there should be some serious questions about how much vin rouge the French authorities have been drinking. Those guys were known, they were on the no-fly list and the Schengen list of potential terrorists and they still managed to get their hands on rocket launchers?
#208, that was what I said earlier about failure in the french security system. This is not the first time such breaches have occurred. It is almost bound to happen once these elements go underground, which they seem to do easily.
#204, 205 “depatriating dissenters and agitators”? a bit like the guys at Charlie Hebdo. So what do you suggest, since these people are so hell bent on causing mayhem and chaos? The current surveillance is obviously faulty.
Giliell Say what? Rocket launchers?? H-holy shit.
photoreceptor
As has been mentioned, sending them back to their ‘original countries’ has to rely on the fact that (a) their original countries would accept them and (b) whether the original country wouldn’t prove to be an even bigger hotbed of fundamentalism. Where their language skills and interacting-with-foreigner skills might be put to good use.
I think the best prevention is a good integration policy, more awareness of issues like racism and implicit bias, and greater acceptance of other cultures besides the dominant one – in other words, less othering, more humanity. This is not a rapid process, but happier people are less likely to go to extreme measures to show their displeasure.
That all being said, I think it is practically impossible to 100% stop these kinds of acts (there’s always someone), but a population united against terrorism is better than one being divided (or attempting to divide itself) along cultural lines.
photorecptor
1. Analyze where the security system failed. Improve it.
2. Fight the underlying reasons for the radicalisation of young muslim men*.
You cannot prevent terrorism. Turning all of Northern Ireland into a permanent police state did not work. The IRA still blew things up and shot people.
Please think carefully about your idea: You want to take people who were born and raised and radicalised in France/Germany/UK and send them to Morocco/Turkey/Pakistan… because they are very likely to blow things up and you’d rather like that to happen to people in a country that had NOTHING to do with how these people became who they are now.
What’s the most common denominator between young men from Germany who fight for Isis? Not their nationality, not that of their parents. 90% of them don’t have the 9th grade school leaving cert.
there are now three crime scenes, it is very confused. The original murderers are still stuck in the printers shop (at least I think, the news channels have almost forgotten them!). The guy that killed the policewoman has been identified as Amedy Coulibaly, an associate of the Kouachi brothers. And another armed man was seen at the Trocadero, it is difficult to know what is panic or reality. But these people were part of the same jihadist movement, there seems to be concerted coordinated action. And now Coulibaly and his charming girlfriend are the ones holding hostages in the jewish supermarket.
photoreceptor
The fact that current security is faulty does not justify deporting people for potential crimes they may or may not commit. Faulty security means the system needs to be improved and people need to be called responsible for shoddy work and holes in the network. It does not mean deport innocent people.
The Trocadero thing is now being reported as a false alarm.
Hmmm, okay with the wise words of Giliell and rq, but this is going to take a long time and a lot of resources/engagement at a time when the country is reeling from economic problems. How about this idea: as moderate muslims are likely to take the brunt of the hostile reactions, shouldn’t they try to police their own ideology and centres of prayer? It seems that these radical imams in the UK and in France are known and tolerated till it reaches ridiculous levels.
I wonder why we are free to mock Islam when the US and Israel are bombing their children every fucking day. How long should those bodies be allowed to cool?
Fucking racism, how does it work?
The Nazis used antisemitic cartons to dehumanize Jews and convince people that violence toward them was just fine. White racists in the American south called MLK Jr. “Martian Lucifer Coon” and published racist cartoons of him and other black Americans. That racist propaganda fostered a climate of hate and encouraged violence toward those people. The targets being Muslim does the same.
Racism does kill. It is a lie to claim otherwise. There are no “little isms”, as John claims. There is nothing petty about being consistent in the denunciation of hate.
When Bill Cosby dies he should still be remembered as a rapist. His victims deserve better than being erased because their rapist died.
No one deserves to be murdered. No one. That does not mean that the method of your demise excuses every shitty thing you ever did. Right now in the US my human rights are being threatened daily. Black people are being murdered by racist cops who get away with it. The people doing those things are bigots and when they are gone their legacy will be bigotry. That is in no way saying that those people deserve to die.
214, rq: I’m with you all the way, but with the information coming out would you class Cherif Kouachi as innocent (prior to the assassination)? The guy had a history of active fanaticism.
Citation that shows they don’t of GTFO. \
Are you aware that you just said that the victims of racism and violence should work harder not to be treated with “hostility”? Are you aware that you just called brutal beatings, murder and church burnings akin to the ones seen in America during the 60’s “hostility” instead of terroism?
photoreceptor @216:
Were you under the impression that moderate Muslims weren’t doing this already?
@photoreceptor,
#207,
Be very careful: that has every appearance of anti-immigrant xenophobia or racism. It is the idea that somehow you remain a lesser citizen because your parents or grandparents chose to come to a country. You’re advocating sending people to countries where they may not wish to live, have no roots, no resources, may not speak the language, and from which their predecessors chose to depart (possibly in fear for their lives or to escape persecution or oppression).
Why would you assume that someone better belongs or has rights to reside because their family history is obscured by time? What would you do if they have mixed heritage?
It is unworkable, as well as relying on discrimination.
#210,
i) I think that we have to accept that vulnerability is the cost of freedom and justice. We will pay the price in blood for nurturing liberal democracies which are tolerant of the diversity of opinions and which require a strong burden of proof to criminalise citizens. The alternative is to spill blood and reduce liberty in the name of security and patriotism, and to never be truly safe from unidentified threats (whether Islamist or some other brand of violent extremism).
ii) There will be identifiable failures, of people, of systems, of intelligence gathering, of response. We have to learn from those and try to close loopholes and improve the systems, better train responders. We restrict the abilities of people to operate, right up until the point where the loss of liberties and rights for the whole of society are simply too great to accept.
iii) It may be that this was not preventable, even if it was theoretically foreseeable. Hindsight is 20/20. Retrospective analysis of complex situations always tends to provide a clarity which was not evident at the time.
————–
I’m still seeing reports that two deaths have been confirmed. I hope they are wrong.
100 muslims and clergy say “We are against violence and for freedom of expression”
1000 muslims and their clergy say “We are against violence and for freedom of expression”
10 k muslims and their clergy say “We are against violence and for freedom of expression”
100 k muslims and their clergy say “We are against violence and for freedom of expression”
1 million muslims and their clergy say “We are against violence and for freedom of expression”
10 million muslims and their clergy say “We are against violence and for freedom of expression”
photoreceptor: Why aren’t muslims doing anything?
Jackie@217:
[derail]And now cops want cop killing to be a hate crime. As if the justice system doesn’t already come down as hard as possible on cop killers, often with the death penalty. Even when they raid the wrong fucking house and the killing was probably totally justifiable self-defense.[/derail]
Massive derail is massive.
Here is what I see in this thread: People trying to say that sometimes racism is OK and sometimes it isn’t OK to call racism racism.
I’m seeing the same arguments for “free speech” that I see when misogynists defend rape jokes.
That is buuuullshit.
You know who else cries “Wait for the bodies to cool”? Gun fanatics. They never want people to talk about gun violence. They demonize those who do.
Killer cops never want us to talk about dead black men and women when one of their own is killed, but have no trouble being racist and continuing to kill when it isn’t one of theirs.
These are excuses made by the privileged to shut up the oppressed and if you think it is only today that they want silence, it is your privilege that keeps you unaware of how wrong that is. Shut up and listen.
photoreceptor
I am not a member of the French law enforcement community privy to specific information on that so no, I can’t speculate. But I’m sure there were patterns in his behaviour they were following, and if he had prior run-ins with the law, then perhaps closer surveillance would have been warranted. That all being said, any security system can be by-passed by anyone determined enough to do so. In this case, shoddy system + determined killer = huge tragedy and hostage situations.
As I said, you’re never going to get 100% of the people determined to commit crimes. How long has murder been outlawed, and people still do it?
And none of that still justifies locking up or deporting people who have never ever shown any signs of dissent or displeasure or violence, purely in the name of some mysterious link via religion. (Religion imparts mindmeld on its adherents, oh yes it does, hey?)
As for moderate muslims and policing themselves, here’s the thing: the moderates already do police their own community, hence they are a community of moderate people. And here’s the other thing: they still live within the bounds of the French legal system. Are you advocating for sharia, for muslims only? Or what?
And then – do you honestly, well and truly, believe that moderate muslims – who surely know what they are up against and the general tenor of society against them – do not already police themselves in order to appear more appealing, more peace-loving, etc.? And they still get shit tossed on them and their mosques burned, because the dominant culture refuses to believe that they are not monolith with the extremists.
Also, extremists are extremists for a reason – they do not agree with the moderates, so I doubt the moderates could even police them to anyone’s satisfaction.
nich,
Well, they wouldn’t want people to be legally allowed to defend themselves from an army with tanks, drones and assault rifles would they?
Latest new is that 1 person severly wounded in Paris, gunman demands freedom for the other two, no deads confirmed. Contact to the terrorists north of Paris.
Further to Giliell’s #223-
Muslims across the world condemn the attacks.
The best essay on the terrorist attack in Paris I’ve read:
@rq, #226
And notably, this is almost always demanded of muslims, but not of other communities when someone with identifiable affiliation commits an outrage justified by that ideology. Most muslims are busy getting on with the business of living, how exactly is it that we should expect them to police extremists who necessarily operate outside of the mainstream?
I’m sure that there are reasonable measures communities can and do take to report/combat extremism or radicalising influences when they attempt to impinge on the mainstream, but it seems like an unreasonable burden to blame the failure of moderates for the actions of the fringes in these cases.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/01/46-examples-of-muslim-outrage-about-paris-shooting-that-fox-news-cant-seem-to-find/
side note: Is anyone else getting redirected to ads for Dr. Oz when they scroll down on this thread or is it just me?
White men commit mass murder over and over again every time is an “isolated incident”. When minorities commit mass murder it is the fault of an entire community.
Bernard @231
Yes, that.
Besides, when white people are asked to police their own (see: current bomber on the loose in Denver), they just say ‘no’. Why shouldn’t muslims be allowed the same freedom, without condemnation, to just say ‘no’?
Other people aren’t their responsibility and people should stop demanding them to be responsible for other people.
to all the people who criticized my thoughts, I never said moderate muslims were not already trying to take action. I never even said I was in favour of deportation, I was throwing out ideas. I stand corrected, I can see there would be many abuses. But (the famous but) how come certain radical imams are allowed to continue preaching hatred and violence (yes this is the land of free speech I suppose), are such people not able to be curtailed? I genuinely do not know how to deal with such things.
photoreceptor
In a land where free speech reigns, the best you can do is teach people not to listen to them.
If they go into specific death threats or threats of violence, then I think some action can be taken, but the definition of free speech is rather broad, so, in a land of the free, it’s rather difficult to police someone’s speech. And they can always just be all ‘that was poetic hyperbole’ or ‘a joke! I was telling a joke!’
There is no good way to curtail them without also potentially curtailing the freedoms of the innocent, as I’m sure the radical imams are aware of the limits of the law and stay well within them – while still being hateful. I don’t know, though, I don’t really follow any radical imams.
Education. Not a short-term solution, but education and a policy of integration.
@233
That’s because who is making that “totally objective analysis”? Ah yes….white men…
rq, once again I acknowledge the wisdom of your words, and I really hope something along these lines can be put into place. But I am not sure “education” will work – has it worked with creationists? Wilful ignorance, or total rejection of infidels untruths. Fanatics thrive on it.
@photoreceptor, #235
I think that people can recognise that you’re asking questions, but you also need to recognise that there are often patterns of questions which indicate unexamined or hidden (concealed) prejudice. The only thing that people would require of you is that you reflect on their answers and make efforts to examine your own biases. Whilst you do that, you will get a fair hearing.
Most nations have laws to prevent and punish incitement of hatred. The answers are that:
i) The laws correctly use a narrow definition of incitement; this allows people to express antipathy or dissatisfaction towards the state and society in which they live.
ii) Radical imams tend to stay on the right side of the law, even if that means using coded language. The Nationalists tend to do the same thing.
iii) Once again, where people break the law, they should face the force of the law. Where they don’t, you cannot sacrifice justice for the sake of targeting some particular ideology – the effect is too terrible, and the precedent is truly chilling.
photoreceptor @238:
The thing is, for many people, education has worked. There are people who comment at Pharyngula who used to be religious. Some people used to belong to fundamentalist religious organizations. Education was one of the key factors for many in overcoming religious indoctrination. It can work. Not always, but when it does, it takes time.
Right here. Those meany-pants atheists made some irrefutable points. Those meany-pants feminists and minorities did too.
And you will never, ever eradicate it. Even totalitarian states are not able to entirely crush violent dissent.
There is a price for freedom, and that price is that safety can never be assured.
Gunshots and explosions heard at the printworks.
Gunshots and explosions heard at the printworks – it looks as though that situation is ending.
Sorry for the double post.
Bernard
Thanks for the updates, never mind the double-post. Here’s hoping to a minimal loss of life (not optimistic enough to hope for NO loss of life).
Jackie @242
I read that as ‘many-pants’ atheists and ‘many-pants’ feminists, and was trying to figure out the joke behind that. Atheists have many pants? So do feminists? … Anyway. :)
photoreceptor
As mentioned, I recognize that you’re asking legitimate questions and seem to be taking the answers to heart. I appreciate the fact that you’re willing to learn and willing to suffer the less polite responses, too. Just please keep in mind that a lot of your questions have been asked previously by people who are trolls (not necessarily on this thread, but on many other similar threads), and thus sometimes people’s patience can be short with similar wording. Thank you for listening (reading). You might do well with a little more thinking about your questions before you pose them, from time to time, though. The answers are more obvious than you suspect. ;)
Unsurprisingly, explosions in the supermarket. The government confirming that both situations were being brought to an end.
AFP are reporting that at least some hostages were released from the supermarket.
Dammartin suspects are reported killed during the raid, but no word on the hostage.
AP is reporting the hostage was freed in Dammartin – if so, that is fantastic news.
To those people who are saying that Charlie Hebdo’s content was racist/xenophobic/anti-muslim: I disagree. Notwithstanding the expected shout down that “intent isn’t magic”, it is also often said in this blog that “context matters”, so I thought this context was a propos:
Quoted from today’s Independent:
“Patrick Pelloux, who writes a column for Charlie Hebdo, gave a tearful interview on Thursday where he also vowed the magazine would continue. Mr Pelloux, who is also a doctor, was close to the building when the attack took place and was called to help the injured. He told iTele of those killed in the attack: They were extraordinary men and women. They were killed during a meeting discussing a conference on the fight against racism. Voila”
Let me repeat that: they were murdered during a meeting discussing the fight against racism.
It seems some people here think it is a self evident truth that satirizing fundamentalists using stereotypes is perpetuating racism. I don’t think that is self-evident, it seems to me that is a socio-politico theory or ideology. The dead men and woman at Charlie would have strongly disagreed and then probably penned a cartoon about the excesses of multicultural sensitivity on US college campuses.
Given that people on this blog are usually quite sensitive to cultural difference, it seems to me like there is a blind spot here. Perhaps the anti-racist French left is different from the anti-racist American left. Perhaps where the US left sees multiculturalism as an unmitigated good, the French left sees the potential danger of “communautarisme” and thinks assimilation is a better solution. Perhaps the French left takes secularism much more seriously in theory and practice than does the American left. Perhaps the French left is less thin skinned about stereotypes and satire. Perhaps the French left has fewer socio-political taboos about religion and/or ethnicity.
What is certain is that the vast majority of French people understand that Charlie is a left wing, anti-racist, satirical paper and they read its content with that understanding. I am sure I will be scolded for my lack of proper understanding about how racism works but what do I know, I’m just a French guy who grew up in France reading Charlie Hebdo.
Q.E.D. @250:
How many of the comments in this thread have you read?
Both sieges have ended, with the gunmen reported dead. Not yet clear whether there have been more deaths than theirs in the ending of the sieges.
The vast majority of French people don’t read Charlie Hebdo. As to what they understand about it, how do you think you know? And how exactly does caricaturing the schoolgirls kidnapped and raped by Boko Haram as “welfare Queens” fit into antiracist praxis? I’ve seen attempted explanations of that cover (which can be seen here), but none I have seen come close to justifying it. What context do you think would do so?
Yet another anguished debate begins on the subject of violence and Islam:
Another possibility is that much of the French left is, in fact, racist.
Q.E.D @ #250, the people here who have called the stuff Charlie Hebdo has put out bigoted hail from all across the world.
You’re attempt to paint this as merely a difference in cultural reality between the French and the Americans elides that fact. The clearly rhetorical point of tossing out at the end of your post that you are yourself French and therefor understand a cultural reality different from Americans as concerns the bigoted cartoons that Charlie Hebdo has published serves only to illuminate a defensive posture.
I’m not going to scold you for your lack of understanding regarding racism and intent and context. I’m not even going to scold you for your transparently defensive argument. There are other people much better equipped for those tasks.
Rather, I’ll point you to this:
and I’ll suggest that everything wrong with your understanding of racism is encapsulated there. I’m certain that you’re capable of seeing how problematic the use of the word ‘taboo’ is there. You are implying that some content isn’t actually racist, but that there is rather a sensitivity to content and that racism exists contextually within a geographical boundary. That, logically, cannot be the case and it’s certainly not true on face, because French culture is not an isolate inside a cultural vacuum. The very point is that the content is consumed internationally and that France itself is an international country the culture of which cannot be so broadly generalised as to say that the entirety of the French left is merely thicker-skinned than Americans when it comes to ‘stereotypes and satire’ (or racism as it is).
It’s okay that some of the content that Charlie Hebdo has produced is bigoted, in the sense that they are and have been, thankfully, free to produce such content. That is is bigoted is a stain on them. There is nothing about that, however, that is incompatible with the fact that no one, ever, should be killed because of bigoted ‘satire’.
David Wilford@254,
Egyptian military coup leader al-Sisi tut-tutting about violence just broke my irony meter.
Yeah minorities! toughen up! – Says the whiny white people who don’t suffer from racism but can’t stand to be called out for it.
Why can’t you take a joke at you expense? It’s just an isolated incident. Microaggressions aren’t a thing. They”re all just isolated incidents of punching down and never in anyway a reflection of the broader culture’s attitudes toward you.
Besides, in Europe saying “c*nt” is totes OK because they are so enlightened there. Oops, I meant racist cartoons are OK because they are so enlightened there.
Nick Gotts @ 257:
Yep, it didn’t escape mine either. Hence my “Yet another anguished debate” bit of subtle snark. Plus, it’s not as if the Egyptian Army hasn’t done more than it’s share of persecuting Coptic Christians.
I’m sure those raped girls totally got that they weren’t the butt of jokes about them as welfare queens. I bet the cartoon of a woman with a burka shoved up her ass was hilarious to the poor oppressed Muslim women who just need to see everything from the point of view of a white, non-Muslim man in order to have a good sense of humor. Ha ha! Get it? Ha ha, rape is so funny! By showing a funny depiction of a Muslim woman being anally raped with her own burka the cartoonist was totes standing up for her rights! Besides, it’s just a joke. The only problem here is SJWs who get so offended over every little thing. What a bunch of wet blankets, amirite?
But, but people on the left can’t be racist or sexist. I know because I saw a white feminist dismiss a black feminist when she said it was so. Then a brogressive came along to tell them both that racism was over and he used to be a feminist until a woman was mean to him. Then a trans person asked them to support transgender rights and they all shuffled their feet, mumbled and went their own separate ways.
Jackie:
I’m in stitches. Keep it up!
Jackie, I love your voice, and I’m so glad you share it with us.
Bernard Brummer, you’ve done some really good writing here, thank you. nich, you too.
photoreceptor, I appreciate your willingness to hear the arguments against the ideas you’re throwing out. I’ll add only what I do whenever I hear the idea that multiculturalism cannot work: it does, here in Canada, where our largest city is more than half immigrant. I worked in a firm a few years ago with fifteen employees. I was the only native speaker of English, and the only “white” person in the company. None of us were born in Canada. We had people from Tunisia, Iran, Lebanon, Vietnam, South Korea, China, Hong Kong, Pakistan, Uruguay, and Honduras. Muslims, Catholics, a Baha’i, two other Christians, and atheist me (and one of the two Chinese men). I cannot count the languages and dialects we all spoke, but it was a large number; my own five weren’t unusual, save for being mostly European.
I’m out to my co-workers as queer and feminist, and never once had to speak to a single workmate about inappropriate remarks or behaviour.
It most certainly can work. By no means is Canada a post-racist paradise, but we get along pretty well for the most part, and it’s not uncommon to find strongly mixed ethnicities as friend groups, and relatively integrated living. My own building, a middle-class block of 50 flats in a small city, has about 120 people living in it, about 50% white as that is currently defined, and people from all kinds of places and of all sorts of shades and religions making up the other half of the inhabitants.
Assimilation isn’t the only answer. We’ve found that officially supporting people to maintain cultural ties and languages helps entire families to stay together more easily, and paradoxically to integrate much better. And our shared Canadian culture becomes better for the new inclusions, as our economy benefits from new skills and ideas, and our place in the global economy becomes more secure – no matter where we’re going, we’ve got people from there.
Q.E.D.
So, how many PoC are you willing to tell that no, this is not racist, get a thicker skin?
How many women are you going to tell that no, this is not misogynist, get a thicker skin?
+++
Looks like the three got their martyr death. they will not be disappointed with paradise due to its lack of existence.
Q.E.D.
They called themselves left and liberal and anti-racist and non-sexist, and that’s fine. Really. And they even held meetings about how to combat racism.
Here’s the thing, though – that doesn’t mean they were good at it. Even the best of intentions cannot erase the unintended harm that arises from one’s actions, and seriously, I can get the message behind some of the pictures. Really, I can. And I still can’t stand by the images themselves. They wrench my gut sideways pretty darn hard, but as you say, I’m Canadian-Latvian, so I probably know nothing about French culture (those quebecois don’t count).
CaitieCat
Plus the homegrown cultural experience is just so much more awesome, and I think a lot more conducive to less bigotted thinking overall – the more differences around you you see as ordinary, the less likely you are to other the next new, different person who comes along.
Not a perfect system, no, but… I like it?
CaitieCat
I have a similar experience working in a research institute in a major UK university – a diverse and largely tolerant place. It would be easy to dismiss my experience as being a product of the selection of employees in such a workplace. But, of course, the city also reflects that diversity.
It isn’t some post-racist eutopia, but it is certainly a rich and vibrant place, and with culturally distinct communities interacting largely peacefully and productively. The presence of large and visible LGBT communities within the city aren’t threatened by those communities, which might seem odd if we were to buy into the stereotypes of culture-clashing intolerance and violence that are supposedly inherent to multicultural society.
rq @ #266, as a case in point, in fact, if you wanna see French bigotry in action, it’s true that the Quebecois don’t count (I’m not sure a majority would want to), but certainly neither do the
French Imperial ColoniesOverseas France.Which isn’t exactly the point here anyhow, but it’s another way to illustrate the delusion under which Q.E.D. is operating by suggesting that French liberals are just thick-skinned and above the racist stuff that gets the rest of us clutching pearls. They have some rather serious homegrown problems, even among the liberal populace, when it comes to Overseas France.
I like how the conversation went from “they published a few racist and mysoginist cartoons”, while conveniently forgetting the dozens of anti-racist, pro-women rights, pro-gay rights, pro-immigrant rights Charlie has published, to “they were a bunch of racists and mysoginists”.
If fact, it didn’t even take long for someone to literally write “The people working at Charlie Hebdo didn’t deserve to die for their racist bullshit, but…”
I think the problem is that political humour about actual real life facts doesn’t travel well. It’s far too easy to miss the context in which it is made. Because why would anyone outside of France keep up with every little detail of french politics? It Charlie’s case, it’s even harder because it frequently mixes different topics in a single cartoon (the “wellfare queens” is an example of that).
That said, obviously, when your job is to make strongly political cartoons, sometimes you miss the mark, and go too far. And Charlie did go too far quite a few often, and has a pretty long record of getting into trouble because of it — not everbody appreciates that kind of humour.
Still, calling them racists and mysoginists? That’s… wow… I don’t even have the words for how wrong that is.
Hey, Carlitos, can I have all that straw? We have some rabbits who’s appreciate it.
Carlitos @269:
Have you read the entire thread? If not, I heartily recommend doing so and please, read it for comprehension. After you’ve done that, understand that one can claim to be progressive, and still have blind spots. Still have unexamined biases. Still have prejudices lurking just outside your immediate sight. This applies to all humans. The creators of CH were not exempt from this.
Carlitos@LX, Does the point make a sound when it so quickly passes above your head or is there just a stunned silence?
Read the thread again. Read the entire thread. Read the entire thread again for comprehension.
It won’t take 15 minutes.
Dammit, Tony! Wait your turn!
Thomathy @273:
Sorry. I snuck in through the back door and arrived before you came. I thought it was my turn.
(oh god, that was awful…)
Carlitos>/b>, show us exactly where someone said “The people working at Charlie Hebdo didn’t deserve to die for their racist bullshit, but…”.
Shit, sorry….¬¬
I’m fairy certain I’ll be reading #274 endlessly trying to convince myself it doesn’t read like how I read it.
You know, people like Carlitos convince me ever more that the “call behaviour racist, not people” is useless. It relies on the false premise that people are actually capable of understanding the difference.
I’m pretty sure that at least I have been very careful to talk about the cartoons…
azhael@275:
It appears @80, but if you read the full quote, it doesn’t seem to be saying what Carlitos implies it is saying.
Tony and Thomathy
Take it to the spanking parlour.
Carlitos
One does not need to be conscious of one’s bigotry to act like a bigot. Still makes you a bigot, though. Actions speak louder and all that.
Sure, over-the-top humour. They have that right. I don’t have to like it and I’m allowed to call it what it is. And in my opinion, that is bigotry.
And no, they did not deserve to die for it. Honestly, why must this be repeated so often?
Somebody needs to restore the power of more than one thought at once.
Well, Giliell, you’re right. But, even so, you can find something right on this very thread to laugh about. I know I have.
PZ! There are still 3 occurrences of marilove’s meatspace name in comment 150. Please remove them!
There haven’t been any elections so recently…
Shades of Austria (2000–2006).
…just… …no.
Because we have no way to figure out what you meant, except by reading what you wrote. It’s not like anyone here knows you and your opinions; you’re new here.
Even if it were, where could a lily-white convert – or indeed child of converts – whose ancestors have been living in western Europe for 30,000 years be deported to? Several such people are fighting in Syria right now, and I don’t think leaving them there is a good idea either.
This is my surprised face.
Secular dictators in Muslim-majority countries have a long and disgusting history of having “official clerics” and “correct[ing] the teaching of Islam”. What else was a military dictator going to say?
I’m not surprised. It’s good that the experiment has finally been done, though!
Now just vote Harper out of office, please :-)
Of course it will. Your comment is 272.
But that’s beside the point.
WMDKitty — Survivor @ 141:
If we lived in your world, you would put all the miltary forces out of work!
Why do you hate ‘murrika?
No really, I got nothin’ in all this. I initially disagreed with Giliell (and probably spelled her name wrong, to boot), and I think that CH cartoons were borderline at best, and based on the context given, were just badly done, which doesn’t make them racist, but intent isn’t magic, either, so…there’s that.
rq, I don’t understand why it even bears repeating in the same thread. The words are right here, in sentences and everything.
And Giliell is right that there’s no point in making the distinction if so few are capable of appreciating it, but what exactly is the alternative? The thread could close right now with everything having been said so far and the first thing that will come to a random idiots head upon reading it will still be, ‘Oh, hypocrite, you said, ‘They don’t deserve to die, but …’
It’s infuriating.
I’m sorry I asked you. Logic is clearly not your strong suit, nor apparently is observation.
here’s the flip side to your “logic”:
I live in the antipodes, about as far away from Europe as you can get, yet, somehow, I had indeed heard quite a bit about Pegida.
That must mean they’re taking over the entire planet!
*rolleyes*
The subthread in a nutshell:
“It’s terrible that these people were killed, but before we all rush to republish the cartoons, let’s keep in mind that some of the cartoons were really racist / sexist / bigoted–not capital crimes, but not exactly the kind of thing we want people to emulate.”
“How dare you say these people deserved to die?”
“Uh, I didn’t, I’m just pointing out that the cartoons are really quite racist / sexist.”
“How dare you say that these people were racists / sexists?”
“I didn’t, I’m just pointing out that cartoons are really quite racist / sexist.”
“But they were making fun of religion / making fun of Islam / making fun of (insert group here), so they can’t be bad people!”
“Never said they were, just pointing out that some of the cartoons are really quite racist / sexist.”
“Fascist! Muslim sympathizer! Whargarble!”
@photoreceptor, a hundred comments ago…
BTW: this isn’t selective enforcement. Communication is purposeful. We say things to mean something, and frequently to cause actions. Although I haven’t read the French law in its entirety, as currently written (I can’t find section 624-627 of the Code pénal for some reason) I have read the original french (and English translations to make sure I wasnt missing anything) of the bills most recently updating those sections.
The most relevant sample, I think, is here:
You can see that French law is in keeping with all law on the general subject of hate speech. One must not merely use certain words or symbols, one must engage in “la provocation non publique à la haine ou à la violence” on the basis “de leur sexe, de leur orientation sexuelle ou de leur handicap.”
It’s a purposeful thing. Even if one’s statements have the effect of X, if one did not have the purpose of X, one cannot be liable under these statutes (unless there is some other provision of the full statute I have missed, which is possible b/c I can’t find the stupid thing).
Thus people get to be stupid. They don’t get to be hateful demagogues. Charlie Hebdo could not have been convicted under this or a similar criminal statute (though these statutes, in France and many Civil Law countries, have penal code provisions that are tightly integrated with the civil defamation provisions, though defamation doesn’t have to be “for the purpose of inspiring hate or violence” in most cases, as I imperfectly understand it).
kolnnauzer@286,
Perhaps you are unaware of how Anglicanism came to be? Namely, Henry VIII wanted to divorce his wife and the Pope wouldn’t let him? Lovely reason to start a religion.
I’m also guessing that you are unaware of the brutal suppression of Catholicism under the Anglicans (which gave us Guy Fawkes and the notorious Guy Fawkes mask, oddly enough.)
Anglicans may have had their claws trimmed, but make no mistake, they could be just as brutal as any other religion in their time.
kolnnauzer #286:
I take it you’re not Ugandan?
@284: beyond infuriating, it’s also baffling. How is it so hard for people to understand that “I think burgers are tasty” and “we probably shouldn’t eat so many, because environment” are two opinions about the same subject, and that linking them does not imply that the one excuses the other.
That is:
A) murder is wrong, and no one should ever be murdered for their opinions
And
B) those people who were murdered, some of the ways they expressed their opinions were pretty problematic, and “offending everybody” necessarily includes punching down, which I do not like.
I can hold both those opinions in my head at the same time, without having to attribute one as the cause for the other. In which case, my use of the conjunction “but” is a grammatical artefact of English usage, namely that when two things have some opposite quality, “but” is the link-word to use. In this case, it is “but at the same time, I also believe, on this same topic…”
It can have other connotations, because it’s the mongrel English that we’re talking about, rather than some language that doesn’t have roots in three different language families, but “but” also can have the property of being just a conjunction, chosen over “and” specifically because of the opposition of the two concepts being introduced.
I know we have a number of non-native speakers on this thread, and thought the nuance here might not always be apparent from foreign study rather than native usage. In no way is that intended to imply that anyone here doesn’t speak or understand English, as the level of writing here by our non-native speakers is remarkable. But mastering the ill-defined connotations is generally the hardest task in second or foreign language acquisition, and it occurred to me that this might be having some I’ll effect.
And Doug Hudson and Daz are way ahead of me.
Anglicans have a bloody history and a bloody present. That they are no longer a particularly bloody religion in white Europe doesn’t mean they aren’t a harmless bunch of people in fancy clothing. Especially, as pointed out, in Uganda.
Catholics, too. Boy was I shocked when I found out that Thomas More, a saint, actually burned people at the stake for rejecting catholicism. And not one or two, either.
So false alarm, all religions are bad!
For Russophones, this is a similar distinction to that between а and но, where one has a “but” quality as Giliell was using it, and the other is “but” as in “I’m not racist but” or “I think rape is bad but”.
Oh, I dunno, the Quakers are pretty harmless. (Which made the Puritan harassment of them in the 17th Century so weird.)
Same thing with the Baha’i faith.
The really nasty stuff seems to happen when religions acquire temporal powers. Oh sure, before that they can still do horrible things to their own members, but it’s when they start getting troops and passing laws that religions really go off the rails.
It’s not all that hard to conclude that on the spectrum of religious intolerance, Wahhabist Islam is far more intolerant than the bloody Anglican Church is:
David Wilford @295,
Again, I suggest you study the anti-Catholic pograms carried out by the Anglicans in the 17th Century.
The Anglicans are only less violent now because they don’t have the same power to enforce their religious laws.
Because Islam is such a fucking monolith.
Who died and made everybody Muhammed?
Sorry to double post, but as I mentioned before, there are branches of Christianity that you could compare favorably to Wahhabbism, but Anglicanism ain’t one of them.
And, of course, there are branches of Islam that compare favorably to the Wahhabists. Sufis aren’t nearly as violent–in fact, curiously enough, some Sufis don’t even prohibit depictions of Mohammed.
David
Just… no.
If you were gay in Uganda today, you’d be in as bad a situation as Raif Badawi is right now.
Which leads me to…
Why is it so important to conclude that Islam is indeed the worst of all religions? Why? Why is it so important to believe that it is so bad, that all its adherents must be, somewhere deep down, all bad themselves, no matter the cloak of moderation they put on to fit into proper, civilized life, only to show their barbarity at the first opportunity?
Why is it so difficult to accept the existence of ordinary, moderate muslims living their quiet lives, just like all those ordinary, moderate christians? Why? I don’t get it.
kolnnauzer #286:
All religions are damnably bad. Too many people look around the world (or at their tv’s) and see the Islamic extremists, but what about the extremists of other religions? They exist. There are homegrown right-wing fundie Christian extremists in the U.S. who are more than willing to engage in acts of violence to achieve their goals. There are also Hindu and Sikh extremists. Islam doesn’t have the market cornered on religious extremists. I think it’s a bad idea to walk down the road of “Islam is the biggest bad of all the religions”, bc too often it leads to people ignoring the harms done in the name of other religions .
Plus, many times, when people talk about the harm done by militant extremists Islamists, the focus is on the death and destruction they cause. Other religions are responsible for death and destruction as well. And where there isn’t death and destruction, there’s often human suffering. Look at the Catholic Church’s history of child sex abuse or their opposition to abortion which causes women around the world to suffer. While the children and women who suffered are (in many cases) still living, the harm done to them cannot be easily measured. Nor is there an easy way to compare that harm to the harm done by militant Islamists.
Also, anti-Muslim bigotry often accompanies claims that “Islam is the worst of all the religions” (please note that I’m not accusing you of anti-Muslim bigotry-a term I prefer to Islamophobia).
No, you’re right, it isn’t, if you use THAT SPECIFIC EXAMPLE, at that specific time. another example, a different time… the tables turn.
trying to say one specific religion’s dogma is more relevant to violent expression than another, is very much like arguing whether Star Wars or Star Trek has the more realistic universe.
it’s not the point.
it’s people. people are the ones who utilize excuses to act out their violent behavior, to reinforce their authoritarian personality tendencies, who manipulate others to gain power and influence.
the specific religion involved is superfluous. It’s why many have correctly argued that you’d STILL have violent sectarianism happening all over the world, even if all the major religions in it disappeared overnight.
I fully believe that LIMITING the tools used to vent authoritarian violence would be a good thing, but I don’t think one sledge hammer is significantly different from another.
this venting on Islam in specific is generated more out of fear than reason, and it is that very fear that is literally fomenting ever more increased radicalization within sects of that religion.
the more you press, the worse it will get. in the end, all you are doing is trying to demonize an entire people based on their belief system, in order to make it easier to say that basically they all should die.
why do you think the term “final solution” was used in WWII? because with your logic, that is the only direction you can go.
rq@299,
‘Cause most of the adherents aren’t White? That’s my guess.
That and lingering effects of a millennia of Christian brainwashing.
Doug Hudson @ 296:
The fact that the Church of England has over the past twenty years become tolerant as an institution towards homosexuality and gay marriage would seem to belie your assertion. I can’t even begin to imagine that sort of thing taking place in Saudi Arabia.
In fact, we’ve seen the expression carried forward in clarity by Azuma on the other thread!
excercise for you:
ignore the religions in both countries as anything but political tools.
look at both countries histories.
then tell me what the differences are.
do that, and your argument will melt like butter.
Doug Hudson,
There’s a reason why I said Wahhabist Islam, and not Sufism.
David Wilford @303,
Perhaps because the Anglican Church has no direct political power in England? Whereas the Wahhabists control the government?
You can’t compare religions that possess the powers of a state with those that don’t. Hell, even the Quakers might start oppressing people if they ever got power (which their code pretty much prohibits, thankfully).
people are full of ignorance and hate.. or haven’t you been noticing that?
or are you so enmeshed in your own ignorance and hate you can’t even see it?
CaitieCat @291/293:
Thanks for writing both comments. It adds a perspective on things I hadn’t thought of (hell, it’s a perspective I wasn’t even *aware* of).
I wonder if the various ways to use the word ‘but’ have contributed to some of the problems some have in understanding Giliell’s earlier comment.
Ichthyic @ 305:
If you read the BBC News blog report I linked to, the point is explicitly made there about the politics entwining Wahhabism and the Saudi royal family. If that was all there was to it though, we wouldn’t be discussing it here at all, since there wouldn’t have been terrorist attack in Paris two days ago. Religiously-inspired violence can and does operate independently of the politics it sprang out of.
Well, I think christianity is the religion of ignorance and hate! Inquisition! Dark Ages! Witch hunts! Anti-abortion laws! Magdalene Laundries! Uganda! Paedophile priests! The Russian Orthodox Church! The USAmerican Christian right! Stephen Harper! Ha!
Or, alternatively, I can accept that Ichthyic is correct in saying that it is people – and especially but not only, people with power over other people – who make things terrible for other people. I bet in the 17th century, those anglicans never thought today’s anglicans would be so soft and moderate and accepting of any manner of sins, too. Saudi Arabia may yet come around, somehow. Stranger things have happened.
you’re the one who brought it up, in a specific context, and you completely ignored the point of tracing the history and differences between the UK and SA, which have FUCK ALL to do with religion.
fail.
rq
@299
Basically, because they know that they’reprejudiced, but since they think of themselves as objective and rationalist they need to find a justification.
15 attacks on muslim institutions so far. some of them bombings and shootings.
My husband doesn’t do internet, but of course closely followed the news. I asked him if he’d heard of it. Of course he hadn’t…
David Wilford
You think that Alan Turing could imagine gay marriage in 2014?
kolnnauzer @306:
See, and this is where I start to wonder what biases and prejudices you have that lead you to think of Islam in this way. Islam is not the only religion with adherents who are hateful or ignorant. There are Christians who are hateful and ignorant. There are Christians who will use violence to achieve their goals. And just like Islam, there are those who condemn such horrible actions.
Islam has no unique claim to ignorance and hate. Stop trying to give it the World’s Worst Religion Award (or some warped version of Oppression Olympics), bc to do so, you have to ignore the harm done in the name of other religions
Ichthyic @ 313:
You may have missed this, so please check it out and read Packer’s essay:
Comment 230
It does have to do with religion, and we need to recognize that and not pretend otherwise.
@279 nich
My bad, thank you for pointing my mistake out. I was thinking of Giliell’s quote, which has been used several times throughout the thread but is worded differently. Like you say, though, that quote still doesn’t say what they want it to say.
This isn’t a matter of whether Islam (of whatever variety) is the worst religion of all space and time. It’s a matter of there being a definite cause and effect relationship between what some Muslims are teaching that inspire terrorist acts such as occured in Paris over the past two days. Historical comparisons are all well and good, but it’s the here and now that’s the immediate concern.
You know, I’m sure that somewhere out there, there is what amounts to a book on the subject:
“How to maintain a Caliphate”
and strangely, it will contain a lot of the same lessons a similar book on “How to maintain a republic” would have in it.
I keep thinking back to the words of Goerring during the Nuremberg trials, who echoed those of people who came long before him even.
and religion is the first and primary tool used in every circumstance to organize and inspire authoritarians to be nationalists and attack the “other”.
go back to the time of the Islamic Revolution in the 70s. Look at the rhetoric the leaders were using.
you will find Goerring’s words echoed there.
go to 9/11. look at the text of the speeches the hawks made. you will find Goerring’s words echoed there.
you think this is about religion? you’re playing their fucking game.
David Wilford @316,
Actually, I would dispute that it has anything to do with religion, when you get right down to it. Much of the recent history of the Middle East has been driven by the power struggle between the Sunnis and the Shia, and that is largely about tribal possession of territory–the fact that the tribes in question happen to identify by religion does not make it a “religious struggle”.
“Islamic terrorism” in the West derives largely from Saudi and Iranian efforts to expand their conflict into the West, and to manipulate western countries in various ways.
Religion has virtually nothing to do with it, not at the top anyway. The recruits who do the actually fighting might believe that, but I doubt the King of Saudi Arabia really cares about cartoonists in Paris. Except that they give a convenient excuse to rile up the masses.
An interesting take on things from Glenn Greenwald:
https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/01/09/solidarity-charlie-hebdo-cartoons/
Not sure I completely agree, and in any case anti-Semitism certainly exists and is a problem, but it’s a thoughtful take on the “offending everyone” trope.
Or what Ichthyic said in 319. :P
Sadly, no. I wish he could have lived another 15 years and been around at the end of the 1960s and witnessed gay liberation, both in the U.S. and U.K.
David @318:
Yes, and in the here and now, religious extremists willing to use violence to achieve their goals exist in many religions. Not. Just. Islam. And these religious extremists cause a fuckton of suffering in the world.
Then there are the religious extremists who don’t use violence, but use the power of the state to cause the suffering of others.
Fuckin’ A.
The suffering human beings have endured at the hands of religious fanatics should not be measured solely by a body count or property damage.
Doug Hudson @ 320:
I assure you, the two terrorists who attached Charlie Hebdo two days ago didn’t do it to strike at the Shia. They did it because they were out to punish those who were insulting their religion.
David Wilford #303:
Umm. You mean the only branch of the British government which is not only allowed to discriminate against LGBT people, but actually managed to get it passed into law that it must do so, unless further changes to the law are made. That Church of England?
David @323:
Uh, pardon me, but did I blink and miss this gay liberation? Last I checked, yes things have gotten better for lesbian, bisexual, and gay people in the United States, but they are *FAR* from ideal. We still suffer, and often religion can be found at the heart of that suffering. And what about trans people? Religious believers trample on their rights quite often as well.
actually, the best intelligence has it that the purpose of the attacks was to generate more anti-Islam sentiment in Europe, so putting more pressure on Muslims there, thus encouraging more Muslims to join Al Qaida.
not kidding.
so… you’re playing right into the narrative they hoped for.
good job you?
fucking fool.
Caitie
I’m wondering if it would have made any difference if I’d written “I also”, which works just fine.
But I seriously doubt it. People saw something that was NOT glorifying Charlie Hebdo and jumped at it. Which is kind of funny since they jumped at it to defend CH’s “everything goes nothing is off-limits” approach…
David @318:
What about the relationship between what some Christians are teaching that inspire countries like countries like Uganda to push for ‘Kill the Gays’ legislation? I mean, there’s a definite cause and effect relationship there too.
Tony! @ 324:
If it was just the attacks that have happened in Paris over the past two days, that would be one thing. But of course there’s ISIL and their current reign of terror, the Taliban’s attacks in Afghanistan and Pakistan against anyone, including teenage girls, who they’ve deemed to be blasphemous, the attacks by Boko Haram in Nigeria, the religiously-inspired violence in neighboring Mali, etc., etc., etc. There is a problem that has its roots in aspect of the Islamic religion that these all have in common. Pointing this out is necessary if it’s going to be countered.
Islam is a religion that was created from day one by a warlord (and that is the nicest thing I can say about the guy) and was specifically constructed with the aim of building an ruthless and oppressive empire.
As I understand it, even the 3 classical schools (which in some ways toned down the barbarity) were imperial at heart.
The fact that the term “muslim lands” is used so commonly by Muslims, is just one of the tell tale signs that give away the imperial nature of the religion.
It is a thoroughly unpleasant and thoroughly oppressive ideology. The fact that people have used Christianity as a control tool historically is nether here nor there. We are not faced with such an issue with Christianity in Europe, and we have not been for a long time.
Suffi’s seem to have gone off at a tangent somewhere along the way. To all intents and purposes, we are most often talking about Sunni Orthodoxy whenever terrorism comes up.
Most Shia are too busy running away from Sunni oppression around the world to spend much time worrying about the satanic west (notwithstanding Iran, or course).
Tony @327
You didn’t know? You’re free!
Tony! @ 327:
I don’t know if you were alive and aware of the changes that happened at the end of the 1960s and the 1970s, but I was and yes, there really was a gay liberation movement that was visible and politically effective, and we’re all better off for it.
David Wilford
So, what does make you so sure about the various flavours of Islam and Saudi Arabia? Are those people less capable, less human?
It’s ironic, given that Salafism and Wahabiism weren’t big 50 years ago…
Caitie
He’s already being accused of anti-semitism, of course.
David @331:
Did you even read the comment you’re responding to? I’m not denying the shit done in the name of Islam. I’m trying (and failing in your case clearly) to point out that Islam is not the worst religion (I don’t believe *any* religion is worse than any other). Moreover, claiming that it is often causes people to overlook the harm done by other religions. That harm, while not always manifesting as [immediate] death and destruction, still causes human suffering.
Yes, Islam is bad.
So is Christianity.
So is Judaism.
They’re *all* bad.
Tony! @ 330:
Yes, there is a relationship, but it’s between the Ugandan leadership and reactionary fundamentalist Christians in the U.S. In the Anglican Church there’s currently a schism between those who want to end the intolerance against gays and those who still insist they’re sinners.
firsttimereader @332:
The suffering human beings have endured at the hands of religious fanatics should not be measured solely by a body count or property damage.
… And yet here in this thread we are discussing how some people seem to be disproportionately intolerant of practitioners of islam.
kolnnauzer @338:
“Lately”?
Oh, and there are plenty of atheists with a heaping ton of anti-Muslim bigotry.
kolnnauzer
Some christians fall apart over not being allowed public christmas displays. Your point?
Tony! @ 336:
For the sake of argument, I prefer to think you’re just pretending not to see that Wahhabist Islam is more intolerant and violent than Unitarian-Universalist Christianity. As George Packer said, there’s this propensity to engage in pretzel logic to maintain the stance that there isn’t a particular problem with the religious beliefs that provoked the attacks in Paris, and it needs to be recognized as a rationalization that isn’t helping us deal with the problem it poses.
kolnnauzer
Somehow it’s bad when done to you..
Although in your case it’s quite accurate…
BTW you really gotta choose one.
They’re either bloodthirsty savages or weakling cowards.
rq @340:
And it seems for every head we metaphorically chop off, another one or two takes their place.
Giliell
Easily frightened bloodthirsty savages. Just wave some boom-sticks at them and they will succumb to your might with lots of gnashing of pointy teeth!
There something about sentencing a blogger to 1000 lashes for blasphemy in 2014 that does make one wonder a bit about that question.
Tony
Like an islamophobic hydra.
David @344:
I didn’t know we were discussing specific strains of Christianity vs specific strains of Islam. Fuck.
I’ve had about enough for now. And I’ve got to go to work.
Ya’ll have fun dealing with the anti-Muslim bigots in this thread and those who think Islam is the Big Bad.
Whooops.
David:
Don’t know why you’re paraphrasing him to me. I never denied that there was a religious component to the GH attacks. What I deny is that Islam is the worst religion.
David Wilford
Go back to the Alan Turing comment, rinse and repeat.
*sigh*
This is really not hard: the future isn’t written yet. But it IS going to happen. And we can shape it. But with lots of people believing that this other group of people is inherently incapable of changing it will become more unlikely that they WILL change.
Also, you’re American, right? If you are: you don’t get to point your finger at other people for torture and declare them somehow inherently less civilised. You really, really don’t.
Tony! @ 351:
The point is to recognize how the particular sort of religious fanaticism that we’ve seen occur in Paris is being inspired and counteract it. I’m all for not making vast generalizations about one huge branch of religious faith versus another.
Get back to me when bloggers in Saudi Arabia can repost cartoons from Charlie Hebdo without fear.
Ah, good old collective guilt for being a member of a group. Just like being a Muslim or something, I guess. As we used to say in the U.S. back in the 1970s, that’s mighty white of ya.
David Wilford
Exactly!
Get back to me when people in the USA can uncover that their government is engaging in illegal activties without having to flee the country or being imprisoned forever.
YOU are the one who declared that you really see no way that those countries could make societal progress towards more liberty. You ride your fucking moral high horse when you yourself are part of a country that is THE violator of human rights on planet earth and you are obviously too convinced of your everlasting civilised goodness to see the irony.
No, you don’t get to deem other people less capable, less human just because they inflict their violence for differnt reasons than your government does and in public.
Like that?
Oh no, you just declared such statements to be so unfaiiiiiiir.
Fuck me.
I came in here to offer my perspective as an ex-Muslim from Pakistan to address photoreceptor’s post about what Muslims in general can do to help prevent Islamic extremism only to read shit like this.
So never mind. I’m not offering a criticism of Muslims in an environment like this.
David Wilford,
Were Europeans less capable, less human when they were torturing, burning, hanging, disemboweling and quartering each other for blasphemy and heresy? What changed between then and now? How come in those very same European lands, I can now easily mock the Virgin Mary and not even have the police take me in for questioning? Europe wasn’t depopulated and then repopulated with nicer, ennobled people. The same people underwent a gradual change generation after generation. Blasphemy death penalties, conquest and forced conversions, and religiously motivated wars didn’t abruptly stop there.
It’s the same thing with Muslim societies. They’re not fundamentally different from the old European societies. They’re on the same shitty spectrum of religion; they just happen to be on the diarrhea end of it rather than the healthier stool end of it like the U.S. is. Organized religion is still crap. The Islamic world is behind in reformation; there’s nothing fundamentally wrong with it or its followers that can’t be changed from within. And you better believe it’ll be a very gradual and painful change with a tragic death toll. That’s simply how it was with Christendom; that’s how it will be with Islam.
You cannot solve a problem caused by humans by pretending that those humans are monsters. Strip them of their humanity and a whole host of solutions, final and otherwise, become available. Evil solutions that will be Ineffective because you cannot stop ideology by physical force.
Always err on the side of humanity.
Always.
To do otherwise is to take a mighty stride towards committing the very evils you seek to prevent.
that’s easy, as the demonstrators in Paris showed the very night of the Hebdo attack.
don’t be afraid.
you David, are much too afraid.
you’re EXACTLY what Al Qaida wants.
what
But we are in Uganda… we are even in the US of A.
Saad
Hey, it’s not for our lack of trying. We worked hard on the depopulation part!
PZ, you once expressed regret that no one informed you of Greenwald’s take-down of Harris until a couple of years’ after. Well, here is Greenwald’s piece de resistance about the pro-Christian/Jewish anti-Mulsim bias of our press. Please share far and wide: https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/01/09/solidarity-charlie-hebdo-cartoons/
was Breivik a Muslim?
nope.
is the right wing populist movement in Europe being driven by Islam, or Christianity?
hmm….
@ #362, But for going after the wrong people, you really did try exceptionally hard.
what about the plague?
that certainly had a depopulation effect.
Tomathy
Ah, you know the old saying: If your prodominant characteristic is genocide, make it a virtue!
Or was it a lemon? Genocide, a lemon, I always confuse those…
+++
That Greenwald piece.
It makes me uncomfortable. And it should. Nobody should look at that display of dehumanising anti-semitism and say “but it’s satire, don’t you care about freedom of speech, are you a terrorist?”
What makes me more uncomfortable is that this is exactly what happened with the CH pictures.
Ichthyic
There was some flu going around in 1918 or so, too. So I guess it’s a work in progress, this depopulation of Europe? :P Just as long as the replacements are magically better people!
Do I actually want to sit through a Pat Condell rant in order to find out what point is being made…?
Nope. Life’s too short, plus I’m drinking. Alcohol and spluttering rage seldom mix well.
kolnnauzer,
And if you strip away the fear-mongering and hatred from religions like Christianity, they become science, right? No ignorance and delusions in modern Christianity at all.
Daz
You mean you don’t enjoy broken furniture and fixtures? :P
rq #372:
Cathartic, but expensive.
Saad @358. I broadly agree with what you wrote.
Regarding the origins of Islam, you called what I wrote “shit”. How so?
If you discount the possibility that “god did it”, then how would you characterize it?, other than a warlord threatening people with eternal hellfire unless they went to war for him and paid taxes as he (or god…lol) wanted them to.
All these people vehemently insisting that Islam is somehow worse than Christianity (or Buddhism or Shinto or whatever, though it is usually Christianity) are either 1) completely unaware of the bloody history of Christianity, which has only diminished (but not vanished) thanks to the Great Enlightenment) or 2) have some reason to ignore that history.
Hmm, I wonder what reason a person could have for insisting, despite millennia of evidence to the contrary, that Islam is the most violent religion in history?
Could it be that most of the practitioners of Islam aren’t White? Yep, that’s exactly what it is, when you get right down to it. Those savage swarthy folk are cutting people’s heads off! The white race must be protected!
Daz
Buy cheaper furniture. :P
(Or, you know, just … no Pat Condell. :P)
kolnnauzer@376, excellent example of Islamophobic bullshit.
Seriously, most American Christians “[lack] lacking any awareness of the fact that the majority of the people on the planet do not hold their beliefs in any great reverence, and that they don’t get to respond by demanding that we treat their superstitions as sacred.”
C’mon, people, if you’re truly going to argue that Islam is worse than Christianity, you’re going to have a hard road to climb. Hell, for most of the Middle Ages, Islam was fucking enlightened compared to Christianity. Ask the Jews, they can tell you all about it.
Doug Hudson
You must admit that killing them with a drone is much more hygienic. At least for you. Cut off somebody’s head and you have to wipe up the mess, kill them with a drone and their relatives will do it for you!
I hadn’t noticed muslims killing random people. I’ve noticed that islamic governments have been killing people supposedly insulting their holy book, intentionally or however they choose to define ‘insult’.
I have friends who are muslim, and yes, I do care that they get sprayed with the splash damage of people exclaiming that ISLAM IS THE WORST!!! Because they’re my friends and even if they weren’t, they’re still people.
As mentioned above by Saad, Islam is currently lacking in awareness, but not too long ago, christianity was lacking that same awareness. Humanity is a work in progress, and simply writing off a significant portion because of one aspect of their lives seems more than a little inconsiderate.
Also, the Eebil Mooslims in Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan and Iraq have been mentioned, but does that include those in Myanmar and Cambodia and the like? Because there are muslim people over there, too, quite a few of them – and yes, some terrible governments, but less western-focussed extremism. Could it be that it isn’t Islam at fault, but the terrible government systems that are in place in the Middle East? (Not that the governments of, say, Myanmar are shiningly spotless, but somehow the anti-western all-islamic extremism doesn’t quite reach to Europe…)
Giliell@380, Oh, I agree! Plus with drones you get the possibility of all sorts of collateral damage. Hard to “accidentally” wipe out a civilian wedding while beheading someone with a sword. We are so much more advanced that those people!
Sigh.
Oh, another thought that has been in the back of my head all thread–I wonder what the reaction would have been if a guy had posted what you did? I think I catch the slight whiff of misogyny here and there, though its mostly overpowered by the stench of racism.
kolnnauzer #376:
FTFY
Notice the word I bolded? You should watch for that.
Islamic terrorists make for great, ratings-boosting, news footage, with lots of bangs and explosions and a body-count running in a banner at the bottom of the screen. And, yes, they’ve targeted western counties. White people died. Instant, easy outrage which makes great, attention-grabbing paranoia-creating TV. So they seem worse.
Which generates more ratings-friendly shock-value, a slo-mo clip of a bomb going off, with a body-count scrolling across the bottom of the screen, or a half-hour, in-depth report on poverty, disease and death inflicted on millions and caused in large part by strictures on contraception?
Open your eyes. Religion can hurt, oppress and kill without recourse to firearms.
Killing is so much more dramatic when done with guns and bombs; Christian terrorists these days get elected to state and national legislatures and kill people with laws.
I really fucking hate this “which religion is worse” conversation. It’s bloody pointless and it’s obvious that racism is the main animus behind all the anti-Islam sentiment. Looking at the various religions without that racial animus yields helpful, nuanced observations. With the racial animus, you get this simplistic insistence that Islam is the worst of the worst, somehow uniquely prone to violence and full of savage, bloodthirsty, cowardly, misogynist believers. The end result of all of THAT is things like the incident a few weeks ago in Michigan where a Muslim teenager became a double amputee because some bigot decided that he wanted to run down Muslims with his car, or the 2012 shooting at a Wisconsin Sikh temple that left 6 people, including the shooter, dead, or the multiple attacks on mosques and visibly Muslim people currently proliferating in France.
Doug, history can be fascinating, and can inform us plenty.
However, as we stand today, in Europe (which is where the atrocities are taking place) and also as reflected in the texts, Islam is “worse” than Christianity.
There is no doctrine of holy war in the new testament that I could ever see. Don’t ask me how the Pope managed to make out like there was, because I don’t know. Jihad however runs though Islam like the letters in a stick of rock.
You are making the same arguments as made by many Muslim apologists. The history of Islam is (like that of Christianity) riddled with sectarian viciousness. I can’t really say that I see a significant and meaningful difference between them in that sense.
Sure there were times when Muslims had plenty of money (stolen from the indigenous peoples), and sure they had times when they had plenty of cash to build houses of learning and nice gardens and translate the science they “obtained” from the Greeks/Persians.
Don’t tell. The old “If I leave out all the horrible things in the Bible it’s actually a mediocre book” argument…
Also: Breivik
Breivik
NSU
Did I mention Breivik?
NSUNSUNSU
ETA
IRA
PUP
Breivik, Breivik, Breivik
firsttimereader@386,
Yeah, because the Muslims have killed so many Europeans. Madrid Train bombing — 191 dead. London bombing — 52 dead. Attacks in Paris–12+ dead
Anders Brevik–77 dead.
The one Christian killed more people than the Paris attacks and the London train bombing combined, and almost half as many as the Madrid train bombing.
The Christian terrorists certainly seem more efficient, at any rate.
If you’re American, this particular attempt at criticism is profoundly ironic.
And once again I get beaten to the punch by a regular. :) [punch being purely metaphorical, you understand.]
Also the hypocrisy of chastising Doug Hudson for not sticking to the here and now, and then going straight on in the next minute to talk about Muslim intellectual theft from the Persians and Greeks.
See? Racial animus and the attendant cognitive dissonance leaves little room for actual critical thinking and logic.
My post @388 should not be taken as dismissive of the train bombings, or the recent attacks, mind you–they were horrible.
But to suggest that they are somehow evidence that Muslims are more violent than Christians is laughable. For example, if you type in “London Underground Bombing” in Wikipedia, the first four or five incidents were all IRA-related, only the last was Muslim.
This blog stream has wandered away from the original subject, that of the unjustifiable murder of the CH workers. Since I haven’t seen it written anywhere, CH usually sold at 10,000 copies a week. Their next issue is running at 1 million (please, no sick jokes – even though such humour would be right up their street). There have been pledges of government aid to keep the magazine afloat, and other publications are lending them office space. So one can hope, though of course these are very early days, that the fanatics aim of silencing free speech has had the exactly opposite effect. Good on you Daesh.
For the record: Charlie Hebdo’s copy editor was an Algerian Berber Muslim. Some of their cartoonists were Jews. Tunisian and Algerian Jews. (I’m paraphrasing Gayathri Brown-Iyer, from Facebook, who also pointed out that “the exaggerated features are regularly used by cartoonists in Arica and MENA region.”)
Again: the people seeing those covers would understand the context. They would have seen the news reports of right-wingers condemning welfare recipients and calling Christiane Taubira a monkey.
Gilliel and others are free to argue that they think the cartoons are punching down in effect if not in intent. But satire is strongly culture and context dependent, and ftr I’m hearing non-white non-Westerners defend CH against charges of racism.
Gilliel@387. You quote me stating something about a religious doctrine, but give a list of actions which are not supported by religious doctrine (at least that I can make out).
My point was, you really don’t have to mess about with Sunni Orthodoxy very much to conclude that fighting for Allah will get you into heaven. I don’t see that with Christianity. If you know otherwise, then cool, I may lack knowledge. I wasn’t aware that Brevik claimed any biblical doctrine to support what he did, or the IRA for that matter.
And Don Lemon is a racist black person. Your point?
That’s nice, Lady Mondegreen. However, I think the main point of contention, at least for me, is that people ought not go around deliberately re-printing those (maybe racist, maybe not) cartoons in a misguided attempt to express solidarity with the victims, or to “show” the Islamists (how that’s supposed to work is beyond me; I think anyone who buys the idea that this is about the offense given by the cartoons and not larger geopolitical strategy is being naive) because THAT is DEFINITELY racist in that it has the effect of encouraging racists to go around attacking innocent Muslim or Muslim-appearing people, which, if you have been paying attention to the news out of France since Sunday, is already happening.
firsttimereader
I believe there was this small thing called The Crusades wherein people participated in order to achieve Heaven and/or indulgences for their sins. Hm, though that may be too far in the past for you.
And Breivik was a loudly-self-proclaimed christian, and the IRA… well heck, do you know anything about christianity’s dark side?
Firsttimereader, your criticisms are hypocritical. You should fix the inconsistencies in your thinking before you can expect anyone to take you seriously.
firsttimereader #396:
Fighting for Allah may indeed be counted as a fast-track to paradise. Suicide is a big no-no, though. Kinda complicates things, don’t it. Makes you wonder if blaming it all on a simplistic reading of the holy lore might be, well, simplistic.
Count the dogwhistles:
@152 Giliell
The construction of your comment made it look like you did to me. Perhaps that is why your earlier comment got the reaction it did. I accept that that was not your intent.
Criticizing islam, no. Criticizing the imam of the mosque that was bombed when talking about the terrorists that bombed it, would be in poor taste and a bit shitty though. I don’t take issue with criticizing CH. I take issue with doing so in the same context as talking about their murder by terrorists that were trying to silence them. It isn’t exactly victim blaming, but it does reek a bit of ”they shouldn’t have been killed to shut them up, but they should have shut up.”
I thought I had mentioned in my earlier comment that I also heard about the violence by right wing elements in France from mainstream media and other outlets before I came here. I still don’t know why you think I learned about it from you or people like you or what you mean by people like you. I am not on twitter, so I never learn about anything directly from twitter.
@212 rq
That is the root of the French immigrant problem. The immigrants, particularly those from north Africa, have been ghettoized. The conditions are terrible and the unemployment rate of the youth in those ghettos is startlingly high (last I looked over 20%). If you keep people in those conditions problems are going to flow from that. A fair number of those immigrants are muslim, but there are quite a few christians, animists, and others there as well. The news coverage seems to always paint any trouble to come out of those ghettos as muslim. Witness the coverage of the riots a few years back.
@photoreceptor
It’s very difficult to do without creating a bigger problem than you are solving. As tragic as these deaths are, that tragedy pales in comparison to the injustices that could be done to the French immigrant community in the name of safety. At this point it looks like the French police had all the tools necessary and dropped the ball. The answer is not to create more laws that make the already touch life of a north African immigrant in France tougher.
You can’t without creating a bigger problem than the one you are solving. Free speech get’s us a lot of speech we really don’t like, but the alternative is so much worse. If that speech does cross the line into incitement to violence or other criminal activity, then legal action can be taken, beyond that I think we are where we are for better and worse, but mostly better.
Doug 393, I’m not the type to try and catch you out or make points, I know what you are getting at.
Brevik was efficient and successful towards his aims, that’s for sure. What a Bastard he is.
My point though, is not “how many Christians do bad things” vs “how many Muslims go bad things”, or of course “how many atheists do bad things”.
It’s how many of them commit (or try to commit) atrocities in the name of their god (or lack of god), in recent times.
As an atheist, I have had plenty of conversations with religious people where they throw Stalin around as an Athiest and claim checkmate.
Oh?
why do you think the American military is so heavily infused with xian indoctrinated military leaders?
what do you think they said to xian soldiers during the crusades?
just because you don’t see it, doesn’t mean it isn’t there.
you might try opening your eyes instead.
now go back and direct quote what PZ has said about the christian creationists.
find anything similar?
oh, why bother, you’re an asshat with an agenda. hey, shortcircuit your fuckwittery, and just ask PZ why not?
firsttimereader@404,
Ironically, your last paragraph demonstrates why your arguments about Islam are flawed.
The muslim terrorists are no more representative of “Islam” than Stalin is of “atheism”.
Nice own goal, by the way.
Why do the Balkan wars of the ’90s always seem to be missed by the “Islam is totally more violent than Christianity!’ crowd? In the former Yugoslavia religion was mixed with ethnic identity, with the primarily Orthodox Serbs and the primarily Roman Catholic Croats continuing antagonisms that had festered since at least the mid 19th Century, including the actions of the German backed Fascist government of Croatia in WW2, while both groups tried to ignore the aspirations of Bosnia’s Muslims. Or how about the Rwandan genocide of 1994, where Hutu Catholic clergy advocated for the murder of Tutsis? Yeah, Christianity, religion of the Prince of Peace.
Daz@401
Re the suicide issue, I have discussed this with Muslims, and the ones who want to justify it, do so by comparing it to a story in the Qu’ran where Islamic soldiers charged into a “near certain death” situation without any realistic hopes of getting our alive. That’s how they do it. At the same time, the majority of scholars these days at least, don’t allow that interpretation.
Regarding the IRA, I was asking if they claimed to be doing gods work and following a particular catholic doctrine. I don’t remember that they did.
kolnnauzer,
Ooh, this one is mine, isn’t it?
I remember that. That was a good one. Just like a lot of Christians are cool with LGBT people being officially mistreated, a whole lot of Muslims are cool with apostates being officially mistreated.
firsttimereader #404:
And we’re telling you to stop watching the loud, flashy explosions caused by the one religion you have a particular hard-on for, and consider that all religions oppress, hurt and kill. Just because most do it in less photogenic, easy-to-present ways, or in countries not so close to your home, doesn’t mean they aren’t as bad.
I have no problem with people criticising Islam. I have a huge problem with people who pop out of the woodwork to criticise only Islam, and are never seen when the conversation turns to other, less exciting atrocities, committed by other religions. It makes me seriously wonder whether they might have a motive other than, and more sinister than, secular humanism.
Firsttimereader and kolnnauzer are flailing and reaching, not thinking. As evidenced by the difficulty they have in avoiding hypocrisy and self-contradiction.
Doug@407.
Yea that’s what the religious apologists always say….checkmate atheist eh?.
Except Stalin didn’t do what he did in the name of Atheism, because atheism isn’t an ideology.
He did it for reasons of his own. Having said that, he may have claimed support from the socialist social theories to support his brutality. I genuinely don’t know if he did or not.
Bah, this is pointless. Most of the Islamophobes are simply racists; Islam is just a convenient hammer to use against one particular group of brown people. (Although I wonder how many of the Islam-haters in this thread realize that Iranians, for example, are basically Caucasian?)
Also, I should add that I’m not exactly a huge fan of Islam, but living in the U.S., Christianity scares me a hell of lot more.
Sally, I came across you once before some time ago on a different blog, and I’m not playing. I know your MO.
You mean to tell me that a strict textual analysis of the Quran is perhaps not the most pertinent factor in understanding why Islamist terrorism is a thing right now?? Do tell.
firsttimereader #409:
Well there ya go. Islam isn’t a big scary monolith after all. Some people interpret the lore in one way, some in another. Which makes it even more silly to talk of ‘Islam’ as a big scary monolith that is the worstest and mostest nastiest religion evar.
Who cares what they claimed? The fact is, the lines were drawn on religious grounds. And hey, if we want to talk about experience of terrorism: we had to wait four hours to find out if my sister was alive or dead, after a bomb attack took place near where she was visiting in London. Want to guess which ‘not as bad as Islam’ religion we should place responsibility for that bomb on…?
How delightful. What is my MO?
@Doug 294
I think that is the heart of it. The reason so many people in Western industrialized countries think that Christianity is more peaceful and less oppressive than Islam is the Christianity they see is Christianity constrained by a secular society with laws specifically limiting the power of the church. At present there are more theocracies and near theocracies in the muslim world than in the christian world, so we see more of islam unconstrained than we see of christianity unconstrained. One need go no further than Uganda or southern Sudan to see what happens when christianity unconstrained. Hindus and buddhists despite their reputation in the West are responsible for some terrible things where they hold power. Religion with strong secular power in every instance I am aware of leads to a bad and often bloody outcome.
sallystrange
Destroying your debate opponent with well thought out, logical, and well supported arguments. Yes, I can see why firsttimereader does not want to discuss it with you. Apparently ze thinks that as long as we ignore all the proscriptions against graven images in the old testament, and the second commandment, then we can safely say that islamic terrorists are way scarier and more irrational in comparison to those christians who want to nuke the entire middle east into glass.
Daz@417. It’s not a big scary monolith. I took care in an earlier post to focus on Sunni. Even within the various schools, there are differences. However, it is a fact that Jihad is all over it. I’m not making it up.
You can’t find the same thing in the new testament. I don’t know how Pope shithead the third managed to get people to fight the crusades, as I said earlier, but it wasn’t by simply quoting a few bible verses.
The cartoons being reprinted “has the effect of encouraging racists?”
As opposed to, I dunno–the attack itself stirring up already existing animosity?
Sorry. I’m not as sure as you seem to be about causes and effects here.
I’ll just show myself out.
kolnnauzer@403,
Well that explains why “your” comments were such an incoherent mess: you’ve assembled a mishmash of unconnected snippets, some of which are unexceptionable, some of which I’d strongly disagree with, whether it was PZ or anyone else who said them. I’m sure you think you’re very clever, but I’m not impressed. I think PZ’s views have changed significantly over the past few years, and I like to think I’ve had something to do with it – for example, by pointing out what a vile racist Pat Condell is, when PZ was regularly featuring his rants. Few if any of the regulars here are unwilling to tell PZ he’s wrong if that’s what they think; nor does he – with very few exceptions – take that amiss. So whatever point you thought you were making, you’d do better making it honestly, in your own words.
Why can’t both those be true?
If you don’t know even that much about Stalin, maybe you’d be wiser not to pontificate about his motives.
No, but if it bothers you, you are on your way to Islamophobia. Islam doesn’t bother me. I’m more worried by the next Timothy McVeigh.
firsttimereader #421:
Yeah you did: I’ll give you that.
But how does this help? We’re supposed to think that every Sunni is a terrorist-in-training?
I do not give a toss what the holy book says. I don’t care what every Muslim—or every Sunni—is ‘supposed’ to do and to think, and nor do I care what Christians are told by the New tasty Mint. I care what they do. The fucking book may or may not ‘really’ tell the pope that condoms are evil, but the Catholic Church’s proclamations to that effect have still condemned millions to death, disease and poverty.
Islamic lore may or not tell Muslims—or just Sunnis—to commit atrocities, but some of them still do; and many of them don’t, just like not all Catholics support the proclamations on condoms.
This ‘X-religion is worse than Y-religion’ claptrap is useless, and only becomes vaguely useful when applied to much smaller groups than ‘Catholics’ or ‘Sunnis.’ Some groups and individuals within those major groups are truly nasty people, and Some groups and individuals within those major groups are not.
@ Gileal
The anti-islamic bigotry / our religion is better or less violent than yours has been well handled by you and others, but this jumped out at me.
Do you really believe that the US is THE violator of human rights on the planet. Does the US have a worse human rights record than China, Russia, Saudia Arabia, Venezuela, and Iran to name a few?
photoreceptor
Holy victim-blaming, Batman! Have you read none of this thread, you nitwit?
Doug Hudson
Or, for that matter, the drinking of alcohol.
Hell, look at Richard Nixon.
rq
Everyone knows Johnny Klatchian will run at the first taste of Ankh-Morpork steel!
I can find you a few million christians who lack that awareness right here in my very own home country. Tens of thousands of them within a hundred miles of me, in fact.
firsttimereader
“Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.”
Matthew 10:34
“I have come to bring fire on the earth, and how I wish it were already kindled!”
Luke 12:49
That’s because you’re profoundly ignorant of the history of Christian holy wars.
And apparently, you’re just plain profoundly ignorant about history and current events generally. Maybe you should educate yourself a bit before you open your fool mouth again.
Grewgills
And? There’s lots of people I’d like to see shut the hell up, and I have no problem saying so. Many of the cartoonists at CH fall into that category: They should, indeed, not have written and drawn the things they did, and other people should not be republishing those cartoons for the same reasons. None of this means they deserved to die for what they said. As people have noted countless times in this discussion, the statements about problematic material from CH are in the context not of the murder of the originators of said material but in the lionization of said material in the wake of the killings.
One thing I noticed about the wording from the Yemani group claiming responsibility for the Paris attacks. The word “honor”. These folks are caught in the old [dis]honor system, where anything they consider an insult must be avenged. Like killing their female relatives for getting pregnant out of wedlock, or wanting to marry the “wrong” man. Not so much about religion per se, as the culture and their *snicker* manhood.
Grewgills @402
Notice where I said a good integration policy? The things you list are signs of a not good integration policy. Canada was offered up as a better example. Not a perfect one, but a better one – things seem to be going okay over there. So all you did? Was demonstrate that France has a crappy integration policy. Thank you.
re: Stalin
Umm, he was an atheist, and he banned religion pretty violently, as his socialist etc. theories were atheist in nature, so I would say that yes, he did terrible things in the name of atheism. ‘Scientific atheism’ was a course in school (obligatory), and churches were converted into warehouses, concert halls (secular only, please) and other large-type buildings. Sounds like forcing an ideology onto an unwilling populace to me.
Apologies if there’s any disconnect, it’s late. Will return tomorrow.
firsttimereader
Apparently you have never read revelations. Who cares about which chapter contains the stupid rules against graven images, idolatry, and apostasy? The bible is littered with the same ideology, and disregarding the old testament merely shows you to be making a disingenuous argument. Murder over dogma is always bad, no matter which fictional deity you claim to follow.
Grewgills
I dunno, are any of those places engaged in a couple wars of aggression that involve randomized death and mutilation from the skies?
@rq 431
Which was exactly my intent, so you’re welcome. :-)
To add to your Canada example I have an example of my own. I have lived in the bible belt, the western US, western Europe, and in Hawaii. Of those places, Hawaii seems to have found the best balance to dealing with multiple cultures living together. Perhaps that is because there is no majority ethnicity or religion. Depending on how you draw the lines, mixed race is either the 2nd or third largest of those minorities and only by a couple of percent. There is still bigotry, but it is more evenly distributed and less virulent than anywhere else I have been. Being surrounded daily by people with a variety of backgrounds makes it harder to view them as other and hate them.
@433
Russia is involved with at least one war of aggression and both Saudia Arabia and Iran are actively engaged in proxy wars and are state sponsors of terrorism. Saudia Arabia is also part of the coalition that is fighting alongside the US in Iraq and Syria.
Consider the human rights within each of those countries. The US has some serious human rights issues both internal (to our citizens) and external (to both people designated enemies and allies), but we are pikers compared to the Russians. Being less bad than the Russians is VERY faint praise and we need to do much better, but “THE violator of human rights on planet earth” is more than a little hyperbolic.
Nope, he like the atheists rants but detested the islamophobia you are so proudly showing.
kolnnauzer #434:
Links please. I want context. I also wonder why you quoted and linked the one you did bother to link. There’s nothing there which I would argue against, even if someone were to quote it out of context. It certainly wouldn’t get the author ‘argued against, insulted as a racist bigot, and verbally abused by the same people who now comment on his blog and shower him with praise,’ as you so charmingly put it.
kolnnauzer
Also, I would like to know in light of this claim, how many of your words have truly been your own words. At what point in the conversation did you begin this strategy? Because, frankly, this smells a helluva lot like you entered this thread with an agenda of some kind.
Neither. It’s being driven by secular xenophobia.
Of course he did; and judging from what I’ve read about his private letters, he really believed it. (Whether he really was an atheist is actually less clear.)
Be careful with the word “socialist”, though. It means several different things, most of which don’t remotely include Stalinism.
That’s the second time you act as if Christians didn’t care about the Old Testament at all. …But… actually… wait…
That’s Jesus speaking in the Gospel of Luke. No need for the Old Testament to start a crusade!
And, an alert has been sent.
Dishonest fuckwit.
Yep, I have definitely disagreed with PZ several times and those disagreements tend to cluster around issues relating to Islam.
Wow, shocker. Hivemind fail, huh?
Why don’t you go hang out on Reddit, kolnnauzer? Seems more your intellectual speed.
Oops, I forgot to refresh.
…and then abruptly stopped when religion was no longer a danger to him, but a potential ally in the Great Patriotic War (WWII).
You’re not even trying to understand what’s going on in people’s heads, are you?
kolnnauzer: Why don’t you just take all your little snippets of received wisdom regarding Islam and combine them into a blog post somewhere, it’ll save everyone lots of time.
Golly gosh, you mean PZ’s views have evolved over time? Knock me over with a feather.
HIVEMIND FAIL
*flail*
I’m not
“Kolnnauzer,” as brought to you by those wonderful folks at a certain palace of slime.
Daz
Don’t you see?
kolnnauzer won
Now we are all just going to go away.
Right?
Chigau, I’m fading as we speak.
It’s okay though.
I have the cure.
Beer.
Grewgills @428
I don’t know enough about all of that to say definitively whether the US is “worse”.
I can say, however, that the US is pretty fucking awful on some fronts, human rights being one of them. We could do far worse, yes, but we should be doing far better.
kolnnauzer
Quoting without citations is plagiarism.
You naughty … person, you.
—
Do you know how to <blockquote>?
or are you just being a git?
Daz
I’m feeling a wee bit wan myself.
but I have rum
@451 WMD Kitty
By modern liberal standards (standards I share btw) pretty much all of human history everywhere has been a horror show. Most everywhere on earth is terrible on the rights of whatever group is not dominant there at the moment. That said, the only countries that are potentially better on internal human rights v the US are other western style democracies. The only countries that are potentially better on external human rights are either other western democracies or countries that don’t have the power to negatively effect others.
I would certainly not want my daughter to grow up at any earlier time in history and not outside of a western democracy today. I want her to experience other places and she’ll travel as much as we can afford (not much), but living outside those relatively safe confines, not a chance, particularly not in any of the countries I mentioned.
If anyone can think of a non western style democracy that treats its citizens better than the US I’d like to hear of it.
Grewgills
Canada.
Since you were purposely dishonest, everything you say can be dismissed. Honesty and integrity are required for me to listen to you. You admitted you failed the test. You and all you said are hereby dismissed as fuckwittery.
Weird.
Agree with PZ Myers on Every Fucking Thing: HIVEMIND! SYCOPHANTS!
Disagree with some things PZ Myers has said* on One Single Topic: HYPOCRITES!
Slymepit logic; how does it work?
*Has he since changed his mind on those things? I don’t know.
Would I have agreed with him at that time, in those contexts? I don’t know, but I don’t now, assuming the quotes were even in context, my own thinking on this general topic having certainly changed over time.
So what has been proved? Fuck all.
@456 Chigao,
Canada is a western style democracy.
Oh noes, not a True Muslim! How dare he call himself a Muslim (and an Imam!) if he’s cherry picking about homosexuality! He seems so incompatible with being able to live in the enlightened West.
I love that his partner is Christian. That must really upset both the Muslim and the Christian conservatives.
And a great attitude towards those who hate him too:
Grewgills
Did you know that you can copy-paste commenters names?
Did you know that you can make paragraph breaks?
@461 chigau,
What does that have to do with my question or Canada being a western style democracy?
You misunderstood the question or simply missed the non western style democracy part of my question. How would paragraph breaks have helped you not miss a phrase in the final sentence of my post?
If misspelling your name is what has you in a snit, sorry. I am regularly called greg wills if that makes you feel any better.
BTW chigau,
I was curious about your parenthetical appellation and am now curious if google translate steered me wrong. Is it (differences, cormorant)?
I am assuming google translate is messing up a colloquial expression. Google translate has previously told me that one of our Japanese friends said our daughter had oysters eyes or some such. Apparently it is a euphemism for very light blond eyebrows.
You know I was wondering how kolnnauzer kept sounding like different people…
They reaaaally think we’Re PZ’s loyal cult-followers. Woke up to some nonsense on Twitter about how PZ was such a horrible person. Funny enough, when I tried to look at the profiles of some of the people who tweeted at me, I found that at least one of them had me blocked. So much for Frozen Peaches…
firsttimereader
Are you aware that about every muslim clergy and scholar in most of the world is saying exactly that right now? The only ones saying something else are IS, Al Quaida and Boko Haram, i.e. terrorist groups who spend most of their time killing muslims.
Ah, grewgills
Giliell’s law: the more ridiculous the spelling of my Nym gets, the more ridiculous the argument gets.
You know, there’s some things we call facts. How many wars have countris engaged in over the past 2 decades? Sure, there are a few, yet they don’t get to that level of violence the USA has inflicted on the planet. You know, the horrible death toll of Isis pales in comparison to the US death toll in Afghanistan and Iraq. You don’t need cartoon like villany to commit horrible crimes against humanity, though the US torture definitely rises to that level.
And that’s “just” the horrors they inflict on foreign populations. The USA has the highest level of incarceration in the world and they almost exclusively lock up black men for petty crimes. Just because they don’t clearly state “we’re going to throw those people into jail cause they’re black” doesn’t mean that this is not what they’re in effect doing.
Sure, trans* people don’t get banned from driving, but it’s totally OK to inflict religious (!) conversion therapy on trans* children. they also can get murdered without much fear of judicial consequences. But just because it’s not written in the law it’s not a human rights abuse, right?
The level at which the USA get excused from their attrocities rises to ridiculous levels when some years ago the European Parliament condemned Cuba for the crimes of Guantanamo. When the Left pointed out that that’s nonsense and that they wouldn’t vote for such a ridiculous resolution they were, of course, called totalitarians who support torture…
Remind me again, who’s Saudi Arabia’s biggest ally?
David
Not exactly. They draw heavily on the “christian occident”. What is true is that both RCC and Lutherans are remarkably sensible on this. Unlike the one party with “christian”* in their name…
*funny thing about German politics is that those two parties that call themselves “christian” are constantly at loggerheads with the two big christian churches….
BTW, the pit are now making Ophelia Benson and Maryam Namazie their official heroes*. Because they’re not white dudes lauding CH and you know, once you get ONE member of a minority group to agree with you that means no matter how many members of that group disagree with you, you’re right
People, how do they work?
*If I were hailed by some of the vilest people on the net I’d probably pause…
Really good article about the us vs. them rethoric.
Giliell, link borked
Next try: click
That’s a great article, Giliell.
We need to be able to hear more voices like Assia’s.
Semi-related, while going through various articles about this, I found out about Paris massacre of 1961. It’s horrifying that something like that was swept under the rug.
Kolnnauzer got me good. All this time, I’ve been insisting that 1) Islam (and all religions) are not detestable, 2) all my commenters, are in lockstep with me, 3) I never ever change my opinions on anything, and 4) my opponents, especially the slymepitters, are rational, reasonable people…and damn, but he absolutely proved me wrong on every single point.
I also believe that Kolnnauzer would never entertain himself by whacking himself in the skull with a ball-peen hammer. I sure hope he doesn’t prove me wrong with that one, or I’d be devastated.
On the racial segregation and racism of France: Hatred breeds Hatred
Very good article on “Islam isn’t a race!!!
Is this a repost, too? (On trolls and martyrdom.)
Wow, Giliell, that’s a new low for you.
Daz @384:
Holy fuck, I never thought about this (the bolded portion). I mean, of course I *knew*, but I never stopped to wonder how irate people would be if Islamic militants slaughtered lots of People of Color. I wonder what the reaction in certain circles would be…
****
firsttimereader @386:
What criteria are you using to make this determination? What is accomplished by declaring Islam to be worse than Christianity? Once you’ve declared Islam is the worst…what then? Start pouring time, energy, $$, resources, people-power, etc into combating Islam?
@404:
Well then, I hope you’re paying attention to all the times, across the planet, that believers of religions *other* than Islam commit atrocities in the name of their god. As I’ve pointed out several times, human suffering is not measured solely in death and destruction. The RCC has refused to address the child sexual abuse scandal and continues to tell lies about condoms and contraception. Both the refusal to confront child sexual abuse and the lies/misinformation about contraception have a detrimental impact on human beings in the here and now. No, it’s not as flashy a detrimental impact as destroying buildings and killing the staff of a satirical cartoon, but that’s not the point. The point is that a wide variety of religious people use their religion as a justification for causing human suffering. Those who point to Islam as being the worst of the worst don’t pay attention to all the ways that Christianity, or Judaism, or Sikhism, or Hinduism also have followers that use that religion as a justification to fuck over other human beings.
Not sure why this is so difficult to grasp. Come on, apply those critical thinking skills people!
****
Doug Hudson @390:
Apropos of nothing in particular, I consider you a regular :)
****
Lady Mondegreen @395:
That’s unsurprising. Whether its outright, blatant, intentional racism, or subtle, racism perpetrating satire, there are always people ready to leap to the defense.
****
Grewgills @402:
What would it take for you (and others) to properly comprehend Giliell’s meaning? After all, many of the rest of us easily understood her point back @3.
Well, thank you for your well-reasoned argument!
@Giliell
No, you really suck for saying that. Your intent isn’t magic.
theoreticalgrrrl
You know, I’m really not a mind reader. I obviously don’t believe that I suck for saying that, so you have to make an argument. You know, we’re not against people throwing insults around here, and honestly, after being called “filth” and told “to die”, you barely register, but the generally approved mode is insult+argument.
Let me demonstrate: You’re one of all the assholes I don’t give a fuck about because all you do is jump the “hate Giliell train” without making any argument that actually demonstrates why something I actually said is actually wrong.
timgueguen @408:
(springboarding from the above…)
Reminds me of how Islam is often intertwined with ethnic identity, such that a fuckton of people around the planet, when they think of Muslims, think about people of a particular ethnicity. This is why so-called criticism of Muslims gets called out for being anti-Muslim bigotry (or in some circles, Islamophobia). I love how so many people play that goddamned stupid fucking argument “Islam isn’t a race”. They completely ignore the fact that many people associate only one particular ethnicity with Islam and attack those followers. Looking at Sam Harris for instance, and his insistence that its a good idea to profile Muslims and that you can profile them by looking at them.
To people like Harris, that think you can profile Muslims…how do you look at someone and reach the conclusion that they’re Muslim? What visual characteristics do Muslims share?
theoreticalgrrrl, what are you talking about?
I agree with Giliell. If some of the vilest people on the planet started hailing me as a beacon of free speech, it’d at least give me pause. If, say, a bunch of MRAs began applauding my position on feminism, I’d worry.
Tony
Very obviously those used to portray them in cartoons. Actually, when they say “muslim” they mean “middle eastern”*. And since they’re also ignoramouses, they then go out and kill Sikhs, cause they’re swarthy, bearded and wear a turban. Not that it would be any better if they killed actual muslims (I’m going to get shit for that one, too, right? “Giliell says killing randomn muslims if you can make 100% sure they’re muslim” or something like that, right?)
*I doubt that most of them even know that Indonesia is the largest predominantly muslim nation on earth
Tony! #475
They did; Saad posted a link in the Lounge about ~2,000 deaths from a Boko Haram attack in Nigeria. There’s been a resounding silence in Western media about it.
Giliell #465
Indeed
This is cross posted from the Lounge.
More rightwing religious nonsense in reaction to the Paris attacks. This particular nonsense is from dunderheads in the USA:
Right Wing Watch link.
@Giliell, Anne, & theoreticalgrrrl:
quoting Anne:
Which, of course, doesn’t preclude holding to one’s position after the pause.
I think, theoreticalgrrrl, that you’re assuming that after a pause for introspection Giliell would then insist on an apology and reversal.
No.
Periodically examining one’s thinking is a necessary part of life – especially but not even only a life well lived. Sometimes that leads to apology and reversal. Sometimes it leads to increased certainty in one’s past conclusions. Sometimes it leads to increased certainty in conclusions but a modification of tactics or clarification of rhetoric.
It is not “low” to suggest that one of the things, among many, that might lead a person to pause is a clamor of approval from persons with demonstrably and prominently horrid writing to their names.
@Dalillama, #482, and Tony!:
Yeah, I was about to comment on that in response to Tony!’s original musings, but your statement cuts as deep as a well, as obvious and wide as a barn door. It will serve.
SallyStrange has an M.O.?
****
Doug Hudson @414
A-fucking-Men.
It isn’t Muslims fighting tooth and nail to prevent me and millions of LGBT people from being recognized as human beings with rights in the USA. It isn’t Muslims fighting tooth and nail to force women to carry all pregnancies to term in the USA. It isn’t Muslims in the USA trying to turn this country into a theocracy.
****
Daz @417:
My sympathies. That must have been horrific. I hope she was all right.
****
Grewgills @419:
DING DING DING!
Where would you like your prize shipped?
I’d also add that the people who think Islam is bad and Christianity is “less bad” seem to think that the harm done in the name of religion ought to be measured by the number of humans killed.
****
firsttimereader @421:
You don’t know this:
But you do know this?
If you don’t know how he got people to fight in the Crusades, then you don’t know if it was by simply quoting a few bible verses (I’m not saying that’s what he did. Just trying to point out how nonsensical your comment is.)
****
Further to Nerd’s #426:
I am as well.
In fact, the homegrown domestic terrorists in the U.S. are far more frightening to me than Islamic terrorists.
100+ terror plots, conspiracies, and racist rampages from right wingers since the Oklahoma City Bombing.
I look at that ↑ and am baffled by the people in the U.S. quaking in their boots over Islam.
Giliell @465:
Interesting. I thought they loathed Ophelia.
****
theoreticalgrrl @474:
What’s so horrible about pointing out that someone like Ophelia (who-from my experience reading her-is a progressive who generally supports human rights) ought to stop and think about their opinions when they’re echoed by some of the most vile people on the net? That’s not to say that she (or the Pitters) are automatically wrong, but I know *I’d* definitely pause if those scummy scumbags started rallying behind the things I say.
This is a cross post from the Lounge.
Oh, FFS, conspiracy theorists have already created a Charlie Hebdo Truther category of nonsense.
For example:
– It’s all Israel’s fault. Mossad was involved.
– It’s President Obama’s fault. He emboldened the terrorist.
– U.S. Intelligence services are to blame. They want to wreak havoc in Europe.
– France itself is to blame because the county allowed Muslim immigration.
The summary above was culled from a Mother Jones article.
Lynna
Wait, no “inside job!” yet?
Darn.
I wanted to say “inside job”.
@386
Since Tony reminded me upthread that this gem of a sentence had been said, i thought i’d say something back:
Are you high? Islam has negligible, very zero effect on europe. Aside from things like this, which are indeed horrible, but are also rare and localized, it has no power…Christianity however is fucking everywhere…it impacts our lives on a daily basis….from the fact that abortion laws are still being debated and fought for in many countries, to marriage equality, tax collection, you name it…it pervades our cultures. In Europe, islam is a mosquito bite…christianity is a pest…the former can potentially and occassionally be deadly, the latter is everywhere…obstructing your pipes, spreading disease…
Tony,
“Hey, that’s our job!” – some police departments
Giliell,
That shows just how idiotic those people are. Maryam’s talking about Muslims and Islamists is totally different from Ophelia doing it. It’s almost as clueless as when Gamergaters assumed people like Colbert would be on their side. They probably just saw “Hey, there’s someone talking negatively about Islam. Let’s hail them as heroes!”
Thanks for this thread.
@CaitieCat #291, about the infamous “but”: I have the feeling that some think the structure “they didn’t deserve it, but…” is inherently bad, because they are used to the classics “I’m not racist, but [something racist]” and “she should not have been raped, but [something victim-blaming]”. That they don’t understand the “but” is a mere dogwhistle, and that what’s important is what follows (and that the context matters, of course). I may be wrong, and the linguistic explanation is interesting, but not sufficient (it does not explain some of Ophelia Benson’s posts, for example).
For those who read French, a few articles written long before the attack and discussing the problems with CH’s satire :
* Une histoire de Charlie Hebdo (Acrimed – 2008)
* Charlie Hebdo, pas raciste ? Si vous le dites… (Olivier Cyran, former journalist at CH – 2013)
* L’obscurantisme beauf : Le tête-à-queue idéologique de Charlie Hebdo (Mona Chollet – 2006)
And this article by Joao Gabriell (a French PoC) from yesterday : Retour agacé sur les discussions concernant le drame à Charlie Hebdo, basically explaining the same things Giliell and others did on this thread.
Also, just wanted to warn Giliell that the specific attack on the pregnant muslim woman actually happened long ago (June 2013). Of course there have been actual attacks on muslims in the last few days, not to mention more or less violent threats [1][2][3]…
No, it wouldn’t give me pause if some misogynist agreed with me that something like female genital mutilation or stoning women to death are atrocities. I’m not responsible for their other shitty ideas just because they may say they are on the side of women on certain issues.
Please stop playing naïve as to what comparing Ophelia or Maryam to the ‘slimepit’ means.
Here we have political cartoonists being murdered over the depiction of a prophet and it has to be turned into, yes, victim-blaming. Deny it all you like. People investing in proving they are hip, progressive and anti-“Islamophobia” have to turn this crime into something else and have to shift the focus back on the murdered victims, otherwise you’d have to admit it is stupid to give Islam a free pass while being not so tolerant of Christianity or any of the other stupid and dangerous religious beliefs out there.
An aside regarding context. I’m not sure how many of you remember (and I haven’t read all the comments, so maybe some of you do) but among the cartoons in Greenwald’s piece, the one with Moses and the 11th commandment was from an Israeli contest. Back during the controversy surrounding cartoons of Muhammad in the Danish publication in 2005 an Iranian newspaper announced a contest of Holocaust cartoons in response. In a preemptive move, someone in Israel announced a contest for antisemitic cartoons drawn by Jews (well, people self-identifying as such).
For details and some examples, see Israeli Anti-Semitic Cartoon Contest.
To quote the originator:
@Giliell,
Grewgills law: the more greater the concern over typos, the less reasoned the argument.
First, all of the things you mentioned are real problems with the US. The US has never really been the shining city on the hill that people mythologized. During the cold war we managed to be that for some people because 1) most of our sins were not known to the people that looked to us as that shining city and 2) the alternative (the Soviet block) was so horrible.
That said, your list while it includes serious human rights abuses, still puts us at worst in the middle of the pack. For the sake of brevity, I’ll stick to two issues that you raised across all countries and one country across all issues. I can come back and go into more depth later if you like.
One issue is the treatment of LGBT people. Every non-Western style democracy in the world with the possible exception of a few Polynesian cultures treats their LGBT population worse than the US does. In Russia simply talking well of the LGBT community can land you in jail and it gets worse from there. Throughout much of the Middle East, central Asia, and Africa it can get you legally killed. In at least a third of the 190 some odd nations in the world, coming out is a near guaranteed death sentence. While the US has a long way to go, we’ve come a very long way from that.
On Iraq and Afghanistan, I disagreed with and protested both wars from the start, but all of NATO and a fair number of other nations joined in, so that doesn’t really separate us from them morally.
Now, Russia. Russia has started at least two wars of aggression in the same period of time with exactly zero international support (against Georgia and the Ukraine). They threaten and bully all of their neighbors in ways that make US exertion of hegemony look pollyanna by comparison. They are nightmarishly horrible to ethnic minorities, still quietly killing them and forcefully relocating them. Talk to the Tatars if you doubt this. As alluded to above their treatment of LGBT people is among the worst outside of a few religiously repressive regimes (Uganda for example). Any dissent is crushed and freedom of speech, assembly or much of anything is not even close to approximately realized. If you think Russia doesn’t utilize torture, political imprisonment and assassination as routine tools of state then you are kidding yourself. For all of the failings of the US and there are many, it isn’t even in the bottom half of nations when it comes to internal human rights abuses. We are a hell of a lot better than Russia. Now, admittedly that is VERY faint praise, but is sufficient to show that we are not THE human rights violators of the world. To think so requires enormous blinders.
There is a difference between blaming someone for getting killed and saying when they were alive they published some shitty/questionable/problematic things.
@theoreticalgrrrl, #494:
Way to miss the difference between ONE misogynist merely agreeing with you and a sizable group of misogynists lionizing you
way to miss the difference between, “completely obvious and simple question of ethics,” and, “error of emphasis and/or analysis that is neither completely obvious nor simple.”
Holy fuck, no one has ever said anything remotely like that in this thread. We’ve asserted that people can be wrong, and that when people with a known history of being shitty think that one’s thinking on an issue is punk fucking rock we have enough respect for our own fallibility to use that as a prompt to check our thinking.
The idea that anyone here makes one person “responsible” for another person’s actions because of agreement “on certain issues” is so far from what’s been discussed it feels a deliberate lie.
Why don’t you point out where someone has said that in this thread and/or clean up your own vomit so we don’t have to?
Please point out where anyone “compared” Ophelia and/or Maryam to the slymepit, and then prove it wasn’t a comparison that has “meaning” of real consequence, not the equivalent of “Ophelia and Maryam both seem to represent their ideas on the internet using the same character set as the Slymepitters”.
fFs theoreticalgrrrl, were you having a Hitchcock-Birds type day or something? I can’t think of any other excuse for these straw men you’ve erected everywhere.
@OaringAbout, #497:
Ummmm, you don’t really seem to have much of a point, at least not one you’re willing to support.
So, the atheist community should, according to Kathleen Johnson, VP of American Atheists,
Why don’t you actually quote someone in this thread doing one or more of these things. Else your quote is a platitudinous waste of time.