Current Affairs - The Bear and Badger

LivDiv

I think when the Charlie Hebdo thing happened, certainly when the South Park thing happened my attitude was fuck it. People should be able to draw what they want.

My opinion has changed since. It is pretty clear that in Islam the prophet Muhammed should not be depicted in imagery. I dont see a good reason to upset a massive population of peaceful people to such an excess for lols.

I think the idea of drawing a sacred man a sin to be ludicrous but its not all about me.

Now I see the visual depiction of Muhammed as just juvenile shit. If you have problems with aspects of a faith or any other organisation then tackle them rationally and sensibly.

The staff who died in the terrorist attacks attributed to to the Charlie Hebdo cartoon did not deserve to die but they were acting the cunt and were knowingly poking the hornet's nest.

Diluted Dante

Na, I can't get on board with that at all. If you kill someone because they drew a man, 100% of the blame is on you.

RedDave2

Diluted Dante wrote:

Na, I can't get on board with that at all. If you kill someone because they drew a man, 100% of the blame is on you.

Totally agree. I also agree with you Liv that it is Juvenile shit but its not an excuse to kill. You open up a hornets nest with that way of thinking. Religions are tricky, they are based on the word of a deity figure in some form or another. But unless you are willing to accept that we all have to follow one religion, we cant have a situation where on particular religion has to be tiptoed around in case of violent, homicidal responses.

LivDiv

Diluted Dante wrote:

Na, I can't get on board with that at all. If you kill someone because they drew a man, 100% of the blame is on you.

Sorry, I've not got my point across well enough.
Nobody should kill someone because of a cartoon but unfortunately will live in a world where that is a possibility.
So publishing such a cartoon is weighting the risk of the consequences vs the importance of the publication.

As far as I can tell the gag is cheap as fuck and serves primarly to provoke. "100 lashes if you don't die laughing". It is hardly deep. It doesn't exist to change minds.

Diluted Dante

Incidentally, this made me look for Jesus and Mo, and I was pleasantly surprised to find out it's still ongoing.

b0r1s

And in no way am I excusing the killers. But second time around you should expect some backlash. Why piss people off. This smacks of freedom of speech bordering on freedom to incite. It’s divisive and doesn’t need to happen. I just hope that no one reacts to this beyond some Twitter outrage.

LivDiv

@Dante
Do you see the difference between Jesus & Mo and the Charlie Hedbo depiction though?

mistercrayon

Who cares if Dante can see the difference.

I don’t see how you can even fathom to be able to understand where to draw the line between okay and not when people got shot.

LivDiv

Publishers have to so people don't get shot.

mistercrayon

I just don’t think you can really get into the mind of a shooter really.

You can imagine a “Trump is a wanker” headline doing the same now.

LivDiv

The concept we have to grasp is that if with all our education and knowledge and rational something seems stupid, none of that matters if another culture disagrees.

If we wish to bring that culture to our way of thinking the answer isn't to mock them and deliberately break their standards.

Edit: Yup some will be too far gone. No need to make replacements.

RedDave2

LivDiv wrote:

The concept we have to grasp is that if with all our education and knowledge and rational something seems stupid, none of that matters if another culture disagrees. If we wish to bring that culture to our way of thinking the answer isn't to mock them and deliberately break their standards. Edit: Yup some will be too far gone. No need to make replacements.

I dont think its about seeing another culture as stupid or less than ours - for me its simply that either you are happy with the idea that the terrorist with the gun is dictating actions within the more or less free world or you dont. There are lots of culture clashes in the world but we dont excuse violence responses in those cases. Would you criticise a Gay man or woman that by not hiding their true sexuality they risk violence from some cultures? Would you tell a Muslim not to dress how they want because it might inflame a bigot to violence?

bad_hair_day

Life of Brian must have helped change some minds.

LivDiv

I've said already that it doesn't excuse violence but that doesn't mean it doesn't provoke violence.

We don't live in an ideal bubble where we can all do whatever without repercussions. Those repercussions may not be fair but they can be predictable and innocent people may he caught in the cross fire.

I think where we wish to challenge aspects of cultures or religions at such a deep level it needs to be done in a thoughtful and rational manner.

There is nothing worthwhile in that Charlie Hebdo cartoon. It has no depth, no rational, no thought.
I would argue it isn't too disimilar to early Nazi antisemtiic propoganda.

Armitage_Shankburn

SpaceGazelle wrote:

Time for some classic Screenwipe.

Gosh, to be back to the Vanilla good days of 2015 eh

monkey

The republishing is more justified than the original.

French cartooning does seem irredeemably naff, even allowing for lost nuance in translation. The first round of Mohammed cartoons seemed to be punching down and mocking a minority group. Defensible from a free speech angle but not really necessary. Now the power dynamic is reversed. I hope they’ve beefed up their security.

hunk

It's the 'free speech' vs 'it's my right to insult you' and your culture just because I can debate again. Where does one draw the line? When does free speech become 'my right to insult' and when does 'my right to insult' descend into overt discrimination of a group?

Have to agree with Liv as he has a valid point, the cartoons are not helpful. If anything they're pushing the debate to the far right giving them ammunition and even more of a hold in politics.

Yes, free speech is important but you're not achieving anything if the other side isn't listening. Waving a red flag in his/her face isn't clever in this case even if you have the right to do so.

If you really want a meaningful debate with Muslims start with the normal folk. Inciting the crazy ones with offensive Muhammad cartoons (red flags) will just give predictable if terrifying results.

poprock

I just feel it’s a bit childish deliberately waving red rags in front of bulls. Certainly doesn’t feel like sophisticated journalistic satire.

hunk

Sophisticated journalism doesn't sell. We want sensationalist rags!

monkey

Fear of publishing a cartoon because a bully with a gun will get upset if you do is the number one reason to publish it.

hunk

Aha.
Except, who was actually doing the enciting (bullying)?

Minnesänger

hunk wrote:

Aha.
Except, who was actually doing the enciting (bullying)?

The people who commit murder. It’s not hard.

monkey

hunk wrote:

Aha.
Except, who was actually doing the enciting (bullying)?

The fascists with the machine guns.

hunk

I'm all for satire and I understand the point Charlie Hebdo was trying to make. Just pointing out that reaching out to crazies will have that terrorist effect. Was it worth it?

Diluted Dante

hunk wrote:

It's the 'free speech' vs 'it's my right to insult you' and your culture just because I can debate again. Where does one draw the line? When does free speech become 'my right to insult' and when does 'my right to insult' descend into overt discrimination of a group?

None of that matters. There are a multitude of valid ways to push back on something you feel is offensive. Killing people isnt one of them.

monkey

hunk wrote:

I'm all for satire and I understand the point Charlie Hebdo was trying to make. Just pointing out that reaching out to crazies will have that terrorist effect. Was it worth it?

Yes, it shows they can’t win.

Funkstain

There is a clear order of odiousness.

At the top you have people who murder others because they publish cartoons insulting the murderers' religion

Nowhere near the top, but vitally importantly, still on the scale, are those who publish cartoons insulting a discriminated-against (especially in France) people's religion

This is not hard to understand. Printing them again is not making some statement about free press. It's about showing the muzzos who's boss, murder spree or not. there are lots of ways of making statements about freedom of press not being cowed by murderers and terrorists. Insulting the religion of a billion people is really not anywhere near the best way. Fuck Hebdo.

Funkstain

People defending Hebdo for publishing insulting cartoons on purpose after what happened, are in my view totally missing the point of what Hebdo are trying to do, which absolutely is "fuck you muzzos"

Funkstain

Diluted Dante wrote:

hunk wrote:

It's the 'free speech' vs 'it's my right to insult you' and your culture just because I can debate again. Where does one draw the line? When does free speech become 'my right to insult' and when does 'my right to insult' descend into overt discrimination of a group?

None of that matters. There are a multitude of valid ways to push back on something you feel is offensive. Killing people isnt one of them.

fucking QFT

LivDiv

Totally agree Funk.

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories