ComputerMKII
Banned
Michel Houellebecq says he is Charlie, mourns his friend Bernard Maris: http://www.canalplus.fr/c-divertiss...nal/pid5411-le-grand-journal.html?vid=1196506
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Special edition of Charlie Hebdo will feauture caricatures of Mohammed
- Thread starter RandyBobandy
- Start date
- Status
Censorship through religion is offensive to the spirit of France. This is a country that had an 'atheist' revolution over 200 years ago. Cultural sensivity to religion is offensive to their core.
Naked Snake
Member
Wonder how much they'll end up going for on eBay... Scalpers, rev your engines.
TheLostBigBoss
Banned
Inciting violence via free speech to tell people with delicate sensibilities to get over themselves? Do people expect them to NOT deal with the death of their employies in their next issue? What do people except them to do, act like nothing happened and give in the will of people who write death threats and express agreement that what took place was right?
If one doesn't adhere to Islam then what ever practices people who follow the religion don't apply. Telling people to be "sensitive to Muslims" with depicting Mohammad should be equally sensitive and start boycotting markets that sell pork, for the sensibility of all the Jewish people who don't eat pork.
I would guess militant Jihadism is the problem that the world is trying to solve here. Free speech is of up most importance sure but I'm quite sure that by now most terrorists understand quite surely that a lot of the western world doesnt respect their ideals and probably never will. Hell its the "platform" that most of these guys campaign on. So knowing this, I find it hard to argue how effective this gesture is as a message against terrorism. Sure it does send the message that the people are not scared to continue offending others but does it really deter terrorists from making moves like this or does it incite them? Are there better ways to send the same message? I'd say yea.
captainnapalm
Member
It should be noted and reminded that while religion has been separated from the state atheism is not enfoced onto anyone. The public sphere is religion agnostic (unless you consider atheism as a constitutional religion) while the private sphere is where religion can be fully entertained.
That's perfectly fine, this is a free country, you're allowed to voice your opinion, however uninformed and lazy. Much like I'm allowed to call you out for how little you're bringing to the discussion by refusing to go beyond the "Me see drawings. Me not like them" school of criticism.
I think packing it up would be far worse. That would show the terrorists that they can do as they please. Which they should never ever feel. Charlie Hebdo continuing and people of the whole world endorsing free speech, including the catholic paper reprinting catholic satire, is important. I mean, nobody liked IS before and some were opposing it, but now there is a whole world burning with passion for free speech, satire and against IS.
Ah, thank you!
Are non-muslims obliged to stick to islamic art standards?
Edit : got it wrong, don't bother xD
Of course not, that might bother some of them but that won't stop French people for speaking their mind.
Chittagong
Gold Member
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.
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.
biggersmaller
Banned
A sentiment of wanting to "stick it to someone" is the very basis of satire. Their comic sensibilities takes aim at all of Islam (and other religions). You don't have to think it's funny, but there's no underlying message to 'agree' with here, as that's not the point.
Think of all the American race-related comedy done, a touchy subject to say the least. If you don't find it funny to generalize black people, then that's fine, however the majority that do laugh at comedy stereotyping black people aren't looking to have anyone literally "agree" with taking minorities down a peg. They just want a laugh. They are jokes, and even if papered from the air are still just funny words and pictures.
That's actually the conclusion to be taken from this. Without the terrorists there would have been around 65000 people seeing these. Plus whoever saw them last time there was a scandal on this theme, but it was anyhow way past this now. Now, following their stupid action, there will be 3 million editions printed and probably bought in the world. Well done!
(it seems the some people need to learn the Streisand effect on their own)
captainnapalm
Member
No, I was just highlighting that to show that there is a very clear historical and artistic precedent for the feelings muslims have towards representations of people.
It's a shame this has turned into such a negative thing, because if you look at the art this particular quirk has created, it's quite fascinating and beautiful.
In a sense, it's something that has made humanity and the history of art richer.
Stereogatari
Banned
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.
This is totally irrelevant to the issue, though.
Whether or not there's a historical precedent does not validate it either.
Naked Snake
Member
Great, I was hoping for Arabic.
So, nothing should be off limits except the things that should be?
I don't think not publishing the cartoons is "packing it up" in any way shape or form. I think its logical fallacy to think this way.
As I said there are better ways to show strength and reluctance to terrorism. Ways that don't unnecessarily offend innocent bystanders. The "million" man march in Paris is a great example of one.
Funky Papa
FUNK-Y-PPA-4
Just as it happens with gay marriage, nobody is being forced to buy Charlie Hebdo.
Religious people need to stop pushing their beliefs into people who don't want them.
Doc Holliday
SPOILER: Columbus finds America
Don't Muslims get upset when they asked to dump their long held beliefs in order to intergrate to French society. Yet people want the French to not be french. Charlie is a really French institution wether you like it or not.
Won't somebody please think of the innocent bystanders! Something that almost pisses me off more than people getting offended over nothing, is people (not offended themselves) defending hypothetical offended people. Surely this must offend somebody so it isn't right....
Showing strength is to continue the day to day life and not let that be affected by the actions of lunatics. Charlie Hebdo is doing just that.
The killed muslim policeman has been buried in Bobigny's muslim cemetery near Paris. He was posthumously rewarded with La Legion d'honneur.
A french flag is wrapped around his coffin. A big crowd has gathered to pay tribut to our dead hero. Some people are standing with a " JesuisAhmed " (I am Ahmed) signs.
R.I.P
A french flag is wrapped around his coffin. A big crowd has gathered to pay tribut to our dead hero. Some people are standing with a " JesuisAhmed " (I am Ahmed) signs.
R.I.P
captainnapalm
Member
Maybe if I was a muslim I would feel differently, but I guess as an outsider I choose to respect this aspect of their culture. Maybe once upon a time I would have thought fuck that, but now I just think, it's important to them, it's not important to me.
Also in terms of France, muslims there have in the last few generations turned into a disenfranchised, ghettoized underclass, who already experience a wealth of social problems in urban centres. This doesn't seem to me like a great target for satire. As someone else pointed, satire should really be about punching up, not punching down. If you're going to punch down, I think it's OK if it's lighthearted and friendly.
Extremists are already only too happy to give these lost young people a purpose and something to believe in. I'm not sure how this will help the situation.
But I see both sides to this story. People have raised good points in their rebuttals to me as well.
biggersmaller
Banned
I think comedy is primarily for the people who think it's funny. However, look at suburban moms getting upset at South Park's depiction of Jesus on steroids. It's normally fun to watch someone get outraged over a 22 minute cartoon nobody forced them to watch. She's adding to the humor, and ultimately she's the one with the problem - not South Park or those that enjoy watching her rant on FOXNews.
This Charlie Hebdo issue is the same scenario just with higher stakes. They are aiming to offend while delighting their readership. Anyone indignant about it - whether Muslim, Jew, or Christian are the ones with the problem as nobody required them to read it.
South Park had problems with depicting the Muslim prophet, hopefully they will be able to reap the benefits of the whole turmoil.
biggersmaller
Banned
Exactly my point. Many find humor in infuriating unreasonable people - whether by creating or enjoying offensive material. That's South Park and Charlie Hebdo's brand of comedy.
How is it them pushing their beliefs on anybody? I'd imagine that someone who was Muslim had no hand in making the cartoons. So what are you talking about?
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?
Again, you could totally show strength against terrorism without the cartoons.
People conflating the Muhammad cartoons as if they represent some just political or social movement is rampant. They exist only to mock people who follow Islam, its intellectually dishonest to suggest otherwise. Whether or not you care if other people are mocked is your prerogative but let's not disingenuously pretend that they dont have easily quantifiable consquences and detract towards a peaceful world.
ComputerMKII
Banned
The point is that the cartoons are not a response to the terrorists. They existed before. Stop doing the cartoons now would be a response: "we got your message, be free to kill us next time you want to impose something".
Are you insinuating that the quantifiable consequences of these cartoons are the victims of the murderers?
I can't help but think you are trying to shift fault away from the attackers and onto Charlie Hebod, which is ludicrous.
Apart from the threats made against them for their 200 Episode special, did they ever get in trouble for their Super Best Friends episode? I can't remember there being much talk about it back then.
No, this is fallacy. Literally hundreds of thousands of people took the streets where these shootings occurred to make the response abundantly clear.
I'm pretty sure you'd love to think this, lesbihonest. But no, it has nothing to do with blaming anybody other the people who do the actions. Nice try though.
Red Liquorice
Member
The idea that an ideology cannot be questioned or analysed is frightening. We cannot bow to that idea, if anything we should push even harder against it than we are now. I applaud the magazine for doing this so soon, it's very much the right course of action.
Doesn't the Islamic world have it's own satirical publications and organisations that question and poke the establishment? If not, maybe it's about time it did.
I do worry that politicians are using this and similar events as a way of pushing draconian surveillance laws, there's news reports here in the UK already of tighter internet snooping laws - keeping tabs on people's every move has never stopped terrorism. It doesn't stop the root cause of the problem, it just drives it to use a different method of communication.
Doesn't the Islamic world have it's own satirical publications and organisations that question and poke the establishment? If not, maybe it's about time it did.
I do worry that politicians are using this and similar events as a way of pushing draconian surveillance laws, there's news reports here in the UK already of tighter internet snooping laws - keeping tabs on people's every move has never stopped terrorism. It doesn't stop the root cause of the problem, it just drives it to use a different method of communication.
What ? You have to go out and buy this publication. This isn't pushed in your face any more than a porn mag is. If you don't like it, don't buy it, end.
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
?
Funky Papa
FUNK-Y-PPA-4
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.
Stereogatari
Banned
Yes. Lets blame cartoons for world violence. This is dumb shit people are spewing.
Oh no! People are being mocked! Get the fuck over it.
Red Liquorice
Member
There are Islamic paintings of Mohammed, they've been posted in this thread. Do you not even question in your head why they can't depict Mohammed? He was a guy, he didn't have six eyes or rainbow coloured hair - what's wrong with drawing him? Not to even mention the fact that any sketch of some guy from the 700s CE is entirely made up.
Mohammed is a lot like Jesus - there's a huge Arthurian-type legend built around some dude that may or may not have existed at all, and even if he did he certainly wasn't the unquestioned, perfect Übermensch some people want them to be. We should not be building modern society around the channelled scribblings of quasi-legendary mythical characters, and to bend to people who are driven to mass murder in the maniacal quest to have the world do so is wrong, very wrong.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked