Support NeoGAF

[Addi]

Uh what? When is unnecessarily(hint I use this modifier for a reason, please don't remove context from my arguments) offending someone ever productive?

Do you not realize that this works to needlessly incite people and helps drive terrorist recruitment?

Really? As somebody said earlier, if a fucking cartoon drives people to radicalise, then absolutely anything else would have done that too. They are absolutely not unnecessarily offending people, there's a context here and they basically couldn't have done anything else than having Mohammed on their new cover!

It's also surprisingly respectful, as they just said in a press conference:

"Look at him, our Mohammed is much nicer than the perverted version the terrorists are claiming to follow"

 

[PopeReal]

This is good, makes it seem like less of a Eurocentric thing.



There are definitely people who are getting a kick out of the fact it's Muslims that are getting pissed off, not out of some noble anti-religious pro-freedom of speech angle, but bigots who enjoy a good superiority complex over a minority. Of course the existence of band wagoners like this is beyond the point of the cartoons but it can't dismissed. Not everyone is in this debate for noble reasons unfortunately.

You realize the magazine has gone after pretty much everybody?

 

[bengraven]

the bigger man would just walk away tbf.....

We're talking about multiple murders, not two people having a huff.

 

[ConanTheKing]

Never so badly had I wanted bad people to be arrested so that they can see their actions had no impact and that people will carry on with their lives.

 

[Deadly Cyclone]

Ah, here it is

Good cover. Wish I could actually get my hands on a physical copy.

 

[Addi]

You realize the magazine has gone after pretty much everybody?

The sad thing is people like PEGIDA using Charlie Hebdo in their marches now when Charlie basically is at the completely opposite end of the spectrum. disgusting.

 

[MIMIC]

That cover is WAYYYYYYYY more tasteful than I thought it would be.

 

[GeordieMark]

I generally don't like insulting people's religious beliefs. When I go to a buddhist temple I don't wear shorts. When I am taken to a Kim-Il statue I photograph it as the locals hope. My wife wears a scarf when we are in muslim countries. I think it's polite.

In this case, however, Charlie Hebdo did the only right thing they could by publishing another caricature of Mohammed. It demonstrates that the terrorists achieved absolutely nothing, or worse. It actually increased the number of people seeing their caricatures by several orders of magnitude, all the while vilifying muslim extremists for their heinous crimes. The responsibility of there being three million Mohammed caricatures printed this week is the direct achievement of the Kouachi brothers - if it wasn't for them the blasphemous caricature would not have got such incredible global reach.

My only point would be that it is extremely unlikely that extremists will look at this and think "hey, that backfired. Let's try a more diplomatic approach". All I can see happening is them becoming further entrenched and using this as a means to recruit more people to their cause.

I'm not saying it is the wrong approach, but I certainly can't see it doing any good either. I don't think there are any winners in this situation, only losers.

 

[Mimosa97]

The sad thing is people like PEGIDA using Charlie Hebdo in their marches now when Charlie basically is at the completely opposite end of the spectrum. disgusting.

So true. At least the far-right in France isn't saying " Je suis Charlie " cause they remember how much the CH staff hated their guts maybe even more than they hated religious extremists.

CH always defended the rights of immigrants and would have mocked the PEGIDA protests in their cartoons.

 

[Stereogatari]

You realize the magazine has gone after pretty much everybody?

It's not the magazine that's getting the bigoted kicks I'm talking about.

 

[Red Liquorice]

My only point would be that it is extremely unlikely that extremists will look at this and think "hey, that backfired. Let's try a more diplomatic approach". All I can see happening is them becoming further entrenched and using this as a means to recruit more people to their cause.

I'm not saying it is the wrong approach, but I certainly can't see it doing any good either. I don't think there are any winners in this situation, only losers.

Nothing will ever make terrorists think that any way. But the least we can do is show them we're not afraid and that they are pathetic.

 

[Kinyou]

Uh what? When is unnecessarily(hint I use this modifier for a reason, please don't remove context from my arguments) offending someone ever productive?

Do you not realize that this works to needlessly incite people and helps drive terrorist recruitment?

If this drives someone into terrorism they're a lost cause anyway.

 

[Raistlin]

I went to use Notepad++ a few minutes ago and it said there was a new version, asking do you wish to upgrade? Downloaded it and installed. Once it launched, a new tab opened and it started slowly ghost typing:

Freedom of expression is like the air we breathe, we don't feel it, until people take it away from us.

For this reason, Je suis Charlie, not because I endorse everything they published, but because I cherish the right to speak out freely without risk even when it offends others.
And no, you cannot just take someone's life for whatever he/she expressed.

Hence this "Je suis Charlie" edition.
- #JeSuisCharlie

 

[Dash27]

Uh what? When is unnecessarily(hint I use this modifier for a reason, please don't remove context from my arguments) offending someone ever productive?

Do you not realize that this works to needlessly incite people and helps drive terrorist recruitment?

I disagree. I'm no fan of CH, I think the cartoons are dumb but whatever, knock yourselves out showing them.

If the magazine and others stop printing them though, or if people stop criticizing, insulting, mocking because of these attacks, that's a very bad example to set. If terrorism works, you get more of it. Capitulate now and you get ever increasing demands that are already absurdly unreasonable. You're talking to lunatics on a level of Nazi's, fuck what incites them.

 

[bishopcruz]

I went to use Notepad++ a few minutes ago and it said there was a new version, asking do you wish to upgrade? Downloaded it and installed. Once it launched, a new tab opened and it started slowly ghost typing:

That's pretty awesome, not gonna lie.

 

[Khaz]

So true. At least the far-right in France isn't saying " Je suis Charlie " cause they remember how much the CH staff hated their guts maybe even more than they hated religious extremists.

CH always defended the rights of immigrants and would have mocked the PEGIDA protests in their cartoons.

They did. I don't have scans but they announced it on their cover from two weeks ago:
https://twitter.com/Charlie_Hebdo_/status/549986965664583681/photo/1
"Anti Islam: l'allemand décomplexé dans la rue"
" Anti Islam: the unabashed German in the streets"

 

[rambis]

Religious people (muslims in this case) want non-religious people to conform to their religious standards (read: not publishing pictures of Mohammed). That is a whole load of bollocks.

I'm all for not offending sensibilities it it can be avoided, but if a magazine wants to depict Mohammed, it damn well should.

I don't think this is true at all. I would think most people would like to not be mocked, or have their leaders mocked. This whole "Islamization" angle is bullocks.

And no, free speech doesnt mean that just because you want to needlessly offend people then you should do it.

How would millions of people on street change the fact that they achieved the target? Where is the fallacy in this argument:

Try something => Be successful => More will be encouraged to try it

?

This is unbelievably obtuse.

If they get millions of people to demonstrate in protest of their wishes, how in the hell have they, terrorists whose goal is terror, accomplished their goal?

 

[John Kowalski]

That's a good cover. Good on them.

 

[dofry]

Facebook Cover photo sized version.

 

[Funky Papa]

I don't think this is true at all. I would think most people would like to not be mocked, or have their leaders mocked. This whole "Islamization" angle is bullocks.

Instilling Islamic values (such as refraining from depicting Mohammed) into non-Islamic societies is Islamization.

And no, free speech doesnt mean that just because you want to needlessly offend people then you should do it.

It's less about should and more about could. Even if it's not in good taste for some people, they should have that right.

 

[Mac_Lane]

Being offended is such a highly subjective notion that it should not even be considered. Hell, I might be offended that you're offended.

 

[rambis]

Instilling Islamic values (such as refraining from depicting Mohammed) into non-Islamic societies is Islamization.


It's less about should and more about could. Even if it's not in good taste for some people, they should have that right.

How are they instilling Muslim values? The response marches included many Muslims and leaders of Muslim nations marching against Islamic terrorism. Which in this case is the attack against people who depict Muhammad in satirical fashion. So outside of the terrorists, who exactly is trying to islamize anything?


And you don't have to mock someone to make it known that you can do it. How is this so hard for you to grasp?

I disagree. I'm no fan of CH, I think the cartoons are dumb but whatever, knock yourselves out showing them.

If the magazine and others stop printing them though, or if people stop criticizing, insulting, mocking because of these attacks, that's a very bad example to set. If terrorism works, you get more of it. Capitulate now and you get ever increasing demands that are already absurdly unreasonable. You're talking to lunatics on a level of Nazi's, fuck what incites them.

Its like that you are arguing in a vacuum where there hasn't been a massive response and demonstration in protest of these attacks. Only way this logic holds any water.

If this drives someone into terrorism they're a lost cause anyway.

Such a flawed myopic view. Do you think any world leader charged with reaching peace with these people would agree with such draconian policy.

Really? As somebody said earlier, if a fucking cartoon drives people to radicalise, then absolutely anything else would have done that too. They are absolutely not unnecessarily offending people, there's a context here and they basically couldn't have done anything else than having Mohammed on their new cover!

It's also surprisingly respectful, as they just said in a press conference:

"Look at him, our Mohammed is much nicer than the perverted version the terrorists are claiming to follow"

Yes? Mocking Islam and people who follow Islam might incite people and cause them to associate with people who recruit using the concept of a war against Islam. I'm not talking about the original cartoon, I'm talking about this ridiculous notion that the only way or best way to stand against these attacks are to mass publish needlessly offensive cartoons.

 

[Zarovitch]

I can't believe someone can be offend by something because a book tell him to be.

 

[Ikael]

Being offended is such a highly subjective notion that it should not even be considered. Hell, I might be offended that you're offended.

But my feels take precedent over your feels because opression and privilege. Take that, you white cis male, ha!

Yes, this type of abrasive, petty "reasoning" won't cause any kind of resentment, nope. Totes multicultural harmony at work here, folks.

 

[Kinyou]

Such a flawed myopic view. Do you think any world leader charged with reaching peace with these people would agree with such draconian policy.

I hope that world leaders focus on stuff like drone strikes and other western interventions (stuff that actually drives people into extremism) than on cartoons when negotiating peace

 

[rambis]

I hope that world leaders focus on stuff like drone strikes and other western interventions (stuff that actually drives people into extremism) than on cartoons when negotiating peace

Ok. We'll just keep pretending that the continued mocking has no effect and remain in this perpetual state that we've lived in for so long

 

[Kinyou]

Ok. We'll just keep pretending that the continued mocking has no effect and remain in this perpetual state that we've lived in for so long

Probably better than letting terrorists influence what cartoons we can draw

 

[KingSnake]

This is unbelievably obtuse.

If they get millions of people to demonstrate in protest of their wishes, how in the hell have they, terrorists whose goal is terror, accomplished their goal?

You said it is a fallacy. Now that it is obtuse. Decide on one. You didn't answer where the logical fault is. Don't give me idealistic bullshits, extremists are obtuse. I would say even that anyone who really believe in blasphemy is obtuse. The goal of the terrorists was to silence Charlie Hebdo and punish the authors. They even said "We killed Charlie Hebdo!". So that was the scope, to silence the magazine. So they would achieve the full scope if no caricature of Muhammad would be published, because then that would not be Charlie Hebdo anymore, would be Kouachi Hebdo. That would mean that others will see this as totally the way to go to achieve their scope. If you believe that the march on Sunday convinced one radical to drop his believes and become moderate I am sorry but you are a little bit naive.

Ok. We'll just keep pretending that the continued mocking has no effect and remain in this perpetual state that we've lived in for so long

The state that we've lived for so long is the state where the sensitive topics are only discussed by extremists which gain more and more adepts on both sides while the moderates (including main parties) choose to ignore important subjects just because they are too sensitive.

 

[Addi]

Yes? Mocking Islam and people who follow Islam might incite people and cause them to associate with people who recruit using the concept of a war against Islam. I'm not talking about the original cartoon, I'm talking about this ridiculous notion that the only way or best way to stand against these attacks are to mass publish needlessly offensive cartoons.

So what? It's not Charlie Hebdo's responsability, they can say wathever they want and that right is what's at stake here. Again, they are not needlessly offensive cartoons, if someone find them to be just that, they are free to drag them to court and lose.

 

[Funky Papa]

So outside of the terrorists, who exactly is trying to islamize anything?

The people who want non-muslim citizens to conform to their religious standards.

And you don't have to mock someone to make it known that you can do it. How is this so hard for you to grasp?

How hard is for you to grasp that Charlie Hebdo is a satirical magazine and thus a venue for mocking and general disrespect. Not only they are doing what is expected from them, but not doing so it would mean they'd be caving to the terrorists.

 

[commedieu]

So what? It's not Charlie Hebdo's responsability, they can say wathever they want and that right is what's at stake here. Again, they are not needlessly offensive cartoons, if someone find them to be just that, they are free to drag them to court and lose.

+ You can't blame cartoons for decisions to join terrorist organizations. This isn't how the world works. Its offensive, great. A lot of things are offensive to citizens around the world, you move on. You don't blow up the magazine company. You write letters to voice your disdain for whatever content it was, and its responded to accordingly. You can't hold the threat of violence over the head of the freedom to offend you. "think about if you cause people to join terrorist groups!" is pointing out that these groups need to understand what freedoms nations provide their citizens.

Or, you have to decide to live in an area that is dictated by the laws of Islam. One can't move to an area with laws and order, then start punishing people for not following Islam.

 

[Phoenician_Viking]

Mildly racist depiction of a Muslim aside, that'sapenis.gif

It´s not racist at all. That´s Mohammed.

 

[ClosingADoor]

Ok. We'll just keep pretending that the continued mocking has no effect and remain in this perpetual state that we've lived in for so long

Don't buy the magazine if you are offended by it. How fucking difficult is that to understand?

You're basically saying we should just give in to lunatics because they can't figure out how to ignore stuff that they don't like.

 

[Phoenician_Viking]

Ok. We'll just keep pretending that the continued mocking has no effect and remain in this perpetual state that we've lived in for so long

No one is pretending. One is defending his rights of free speech. Someone´s feeling got hurt because of drawings, well, too bad.

 

[Stereogatari]

It´s not racist at all. That´s Mohammed.

As discussed a few pages back he's too brown for me. He should be his guy's colour:

 

[theignoramus]

Its tricky. Fundamentally, one has to support the right of the magazine to do this. On the other hand, if the magazine is using the moral arguments of freedom of speech ideals to shit on and lampoon a religious community, then that's not something I find laudable. Some of the satirical cartoons I saw from them on an Al Jazeera report on their activity looked racially charged and inflammatory, like something out a Rupert Murdoch rag.
(Though it goes without saying, no amount of inflammatory or race baiting content justifies murder and terrorism)

 

[Funky Papa]

Its tricky. Fundamentally, one has to support the right of the magazine to do this. On the other hand, if the magazine is using the moral arguments of freedom of speech ideals to shit on and lampoon a religious community, then that's not something I find laudable. Some of the satirical cartoons I saw from them on an Al Jazeera report on their activity looked racially charged and inflammatory, like something out a Rupert Murdoch rag.
(Though it goes without saying, no amount of inflammatory or race baiting content justifies murder and terrorism)

Charlie's cartoons have been grossly taken out of context.

 

[davepoobond]

As discussed a few pages back he's too brown for me. He should be his guy's colour:

How would you even know what color Mohammed was? No one was allowed to draw his picture and they didnt exactly have web color names back then.

 

[Alx]

How would you even know what color Mohammed was? No one was lowed to draw his picture and they didnt exactly have web color names back then.

What if he'd expose himself to the sun anyway ? Didn't he spend some time in the desert that one time ?

 

[KingSnake]

As discussed a few pages back he's too brown for me. He should be his guy's colour:

This would be a Muhammad who spent too much time on GAF or playing games. Go outside and play with Peter!

 

[davepoobond]

What if he'd expose himself to the sun anyway ? Didn't he spend some time in the desert that one time ?

I think he stayed inside a lot and played video games.

He's got a screen tan

 

[theignoramus]

Charlie's cartoons have been grossly taken out of context.

I think I dont understand French satire. On my side of the Atlantic, racist caricatures of a black politician as a monkey or a Hasidic Jew with a long nose dont go over well, regardless of the satirical message or content being conveyed. Those images are generally thought to be in such poor taste, that indulging them in any way is a bad idea.

 

[Khaz]

If he was drawn whiter there would be people offended by the whitewashing. You can't please everyone and that's the whole bloody point.

 

[LiK]

Wish I could get a copy.

 

[Log4Girlz]

As discussed a few pages back he's too brown for me. He should be his guy's colour:

Hawk be like damn you handsome

 

[neorej]

I think I dont understand French satire. On my side of the Atlantic, racist caricatures of a black politician as a monkey or a Hasidic Jew with a long nose dont go over well, regardless of the satirical message or content being conveyed. Those images are generally thought to be in such poor taste, that indulging them in any way is a bad idea.

You don't understand satire, period. There's nothing French about it.

 

[Red Liquorice]

As discussed a few pages back he's too brown for me. He should be his guy's colour:

Sexy Mohammed?

 

[KingSnake]

You don't understand satire, period. There's nothing French about it.

There might just be a cultural clash between US and Europe in this area. Make fun of everything vs. sue about everything.

 

[FoneBone]

I think I dont understand French satire. On my side of the Atlantic, racist caricatures of a black politician as a monkey or a Hasidic Jew with a long nose dont go over well, regardless of the satirical message or content being conveyed. Those images are generally thought to be in such poor taste, that indulging them in any way is a bad idea.

Honestly, most of that site reads like typical white liberals blowing smoke up their asses about how the racist thing they just said/did wasn't really racist.

A fun read for those who have the patience for it - a long piece by a former CH editor on the publication's use of Muslim stereotypes: http://t.co/0g67qkeDjz

 

[SolidsnackooFoxhound]

How would you even know what color Mohammed was? No one was allowed to draw his picture and they didnt exactly have web color names back then.

I know what color he is. Allow me to draw him for you :^).