Current Affairs - The Bear and Badger

Funkstain

you see how it can be both things?

Minnesänger

hunk wrote:

Was it worth it?

Probably not. Different issue than who is responsible if there’s an attack, though.

It’s not helpful, for sure, and given the rise of the right and an increase in attacks against immigrants across the western world - especially brown ones - it’s not something I want to be published. If anything, the ensuing argument over the cartoon is likely to further isolate immigrant communities and, once again, it’ll be the right wing championing freedom of speech arguments. They’re the right arguments, but the wrong people will be making them (including “free thinking classical liberals”) for the wrong reasons, as the left has almost completely ceded that ground.

So, helpful? No.
Something I want to see? No.
Are the people who publish the cartoons guilty of incitement if religious fascists decide to murder them or others? No.

Roll your eyes and vent in frustration all you want. I will. But please don’t for one second take the side of some of the most repugnant people on the planet.

Minnesänger

Pretty much with Dante and Funk here.

Minnesänger

And the “roll your eyes” comment above could come off as flippant. For clarity, the cartoon and the discourse it provokes is deeply fucking nasty and clearly racially motivated.

I just don’t think that to condemn it we have to align ourselves with murderers.

hylian_elf

Minnesänger wrote:

Pretty much with Dante and Funk here.

hunk

Minnesänger wrote:

hunk wrote:

Was it worth it?

Probably not. Different issue than who is responsible if there’s an attack, though.

It’s not helpful, for sure, and given the rise of the right and an increase in attacks against immigrants across the western world - especially brown ones - it’s not something I want to be published. If anything, the ensuing argument over the cartoon is likely to further isolate immigrant communities and, once again, it’ll be the right wing championing freedom of speech arguments. They’re the right arguments, but the wrong people will be making them (including “free thinking classical liberals”) for the wrong reasons, as the left has almost completely ceded that ground.

So, helpful? No.
Something I want to see? No.
Are the people who publish the cartoons guilty of incitement if religious fascists decide to murder them or others? No.

Roll your eyes and vent in frustration all you want. I will. But please don’t for one second take the side of some of the most repugnant people on the planet.

Cheers. Not taking sides with the fascists (doh) as in reality my opinion is much closer to yours. Interesting discussion nonetheless.

hylian_elf

We Muslims need to just learn more restraint and forgiveness etc like our religion teaches us. Not go on murder sprees. And it’s not like you don’t have Muslims not mocking non-Muslims (when they shouldn’t). Cuts both ways.

There are far more important things to fight for/against in the world. Try and do something about something about the Muslims who are being imprisoned and tortured for crying out loud.

Funkstain

Well that's all very honourable but doesn't change my mind about Hebdo being racist wankers

monkey

Funkstain wrote:

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"

Nope.

It doesn't matter how offensive or bigoted a magazine is, you don't change their editorial line by shooting them. If their line was "fuck you muzzos" then, it should be "fuck you muzzos" now. And I will continue to otherwise ignore it.

Funkstain

I...don't get your point.

at least, not in how it relates in any way to mine, which is fuck hebdo for being racist wankers: before, and most definitely now

Dinostar77

If there is another terror attack on hebdo staff then the magazine is to blame for poking the Hornets nest again. There are enough nutters out there who take this stuff far too seriously and are willing to throw their lives away for retribution. So why risk it again? Stupid of hebdo.

monkey

Funkstain wrote:

I...don't get your point. at least, not in how it relates in any way to mine, which is fuck hebdo for being racist wankers: before, and most definitely now

Your point was I was wrong for defending them because they're racists. My point is that's irrelevant.

RedDave2

Funkstain wrote:

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"

If the issue is whats published, thats something for the French law makers to decide. I'm totally against racist bullshit in the media so there's no problem with that argument.

But if the publication of the pictures is something allowed under French Law then thats a poor reflection on french people. Its not an excuse for anyone to grab a gun (and I know no-one here is making that argument). Anyone who feels offended can protest, complain to their minister or whatever it is in france, they can boycott the magazine and anywhere that sells it. They can boycott it because it offends them or they can boycott it because they feel the paper is taking an unnecessary risk. But I'd only ever put the responsibility for violence on the offender in this case.

If Charlie Hebdo put up a particular offensive picture of the pope on their front cover (he is gods voice in the world according to catholics) we certainly would not blame them if a crazy catholic gunman lit up the streets of Paris.

Have a look at the cover guys - I'll spoiler it as opposed to posting it in case anyone takes offence (and if you do, I have no issue with that.)

Spoiler:

Its hardly a "come on bitches" call to arms. Its a fair comment - these 2 people killed 12 of their staff over reprinting of cartoons that Charlie Hebdo did. Was it worth it? No

Should Hebdo have printed the pictures in the first place - thats a different question and a different issue. I've never read Hebdo as it sounds a bit like a toilet rag (and I dont really read French that well), but for the moment they are not doing anything wrong. Maybe that should change under French Law. But it should not be dictated by gunmen on streets, whatever their religion, nationality etc.

monkey

Racists shouldn't be racist because racism is horrible.

Racists shouldn't be forced not to be racists because someone's pointing a gun at them.

monkey

And whatever their history with muslims, this is clearly a fuck you to terrorism.

poprock

I think it’s a failure of Hebdo’s editorial and design team if the most powerful cover they could come up with also knowingly puts them at risk of further attacks. I stand by calling it a childish way of grabbing attention. There are plenty of other ways they could have approached the same message.

Funkstain

There is no-one on this forum who has said anything like " they shouldn't print this cos they could get killed / deserve what they get / etc ". it's a straw man argument and I don't understand who it is for, since obviously everyone in here is in agreement with such an obvious point.

The issue is whether they are arseholes to reprint something they shouldn't have printed in the first place (the context is nuanced, and it helps to have some view of French history with religion and specifically Islam, and contemporary French society and its various racisms).

You can, as has been pointed out by Dante and others, make the point "fuck you terrorists" in countless different ways. One of the least good is to do it by insulting a lot of marginalised French citizens. That's not to say it isn't a fuck you to terrorism, as you can read if you pay attention to my actual words. I'm saying that it is ALSO a fuck you to Muslims in general. I'm calling them out on that, and nothing else.

Funkstain

poprock wrote:

I think it’s a failure of Hebdo’s editorial and design team if the most powerful cover they could come up with also knowingly puts them at risk of further attacks.

The issue with this point is it empowers those saying "they should be able to print whatever they want and this specifically says fuck you to terrorists". Publishing it because it "knowingly puts them at risk" can be heroic, certainly interpreted that way.

It glosses over what they're really doing, which is fuck you terrorists and also muslims. and then we liberals defend them because terrorists are bad mmkay I mean goddamn

Funkstain

They are hiding the message behind their bravery, but it's entirely possible to be brave and also stupid racists

Minnesänger

Je suis Funkstain.

poprock

Funkstain wrote:

They are hiding the message behind their bravery, but it's entirely possible to be brave and also stupid racists

And also not very good at their jobs, which was the only point I was barging in to make.

monkey

Funkstain wrote:

There is no-one on this forum who has said anything like " they shouldn't print this cos they could get killed / deserve what they get / etc ". it's a straw man argument and I don't understand who it is for, since obviously everyone in here is in agreement with such an obvious point.

You should re-read the past couple of pages. There are plenty of posts that say 'why do this when you might get shot?'

Funkstain wrote:

The issue is whether they are arseholes to reprint something they shouldn't have printed in the first place (the context is nuanced, and it helps to have some view of French history with religion and specifically Islam, and contemporary French society and its various racisms). You can, as has been pointed out by Dante and others, make the point "fuck you terrorists" in countless different ways. One of the least good is to do it by insulting a lot of marginalised French citizens. That's not to say it isn't a fuck you to terrorism, as you can read if you pay attention to my actual words. I'm saying that it is ALSO a fuck you to Muslims in general. I'm calling them out on that, and nothing else.

No. It needs to be the same. Unchanged, whatever the faults originally. There's a reason they republished the exact same thing. Terrorists don't get to shut people up, they don't get them to nuance their message. They don't get them to dance around the issue. They have changed nothing. That's the point.

RedDave2

Funkstain wrote:

poprock wrote:

I think it’s a failure of Hebdo’s editorial and design team if the most powerful cover they could come up with also knowingly puts them at risk of further attacks.

The issue with this point is it empowers those saying "they should be able to print whatever they want and this specifically says fuck you to terrorists". Publishing it because it "knowingly puts them at risk" can be heroic, certainly interpreted that way. It glosses over what they're really doing, which is fuck you terrorists and also muslims. and then we liberals defend them because terrorists are bad mmkay I mean goddamn

No one is defending the pictures. In the same way no one is condoning the gunmen. The key issue is are they responsible if another lunatic takes this as a sign from God. In effect have they brought this on themselves.

I'm not a super liberal, I actually think censorship has a point and maybe Hebdo should be reigned in. Just (and I cant say this enough) it should not be because of the threat of violence.

In effect the following sums me up - Fuck Hebdo for publishing these picture, Fuck the French Government for not cracking down on it but also Fuck anyone who thinks being offended by this warrants murder.

Funkstain

Eh, if I'm not making myself clear enough to be understood after all dem posts I guess I have to give up

LivDiv

I would still argue there is an element of responsibility. Freedom of speech isn't consequence free and those known potential consequences have to be factored in. Even if they are extreme and unjust.
They didn't deserve to die but that doesn't change the fact that it must have been known that publishing the cartoon made them a target along with Paris and France in general.

monkey

Funkstain wrote:

Eh, if I'm not making myself clear enough to be understood after all dem posts I guess I have to give up

It's clear. It's just wrong.

RedDave2

LivDiv wrote:

I would still argue there is an element of responsibility. Freedom of speech isn't consequence free and those known potential consequences have to be factored in. Even if they are extreme and unjust. They didn't deserve to die but that doesn't change the fact that it must have been known that publishing the cartoon made them a target along with Paris and France in general.

Thats a fair point and I don't necessarily think its incorrect - I just think that when it comes to someone doing something that is legal encouraging an illegal action, the responsibility is on the illegal party.

@Funkstain - I don't not see your point. I just disagree with it. As said - Fuck Hebdo if they want to promote a soft version of racism. But I think people murdering is a greater crime.

hunk

Funk isn't wrong per se.
I believe Hebdo to be principalist left but their 'statement' is pretty much hijacked by the far right. Not that they seem to care though.

It's all just a bit of a mess now.

Funkstain

RedDave2 wrote:

@Funkstain - I don't not see your point. I just disagree with it. As said - Fuck Hebdo if they want to promote a soft version of racism. But I think people murdering is a greater crime.

I'm finding it very hard to say anything else to this than: no shit

I've addressed this already and explained why it's not relevant to my point. So if you see my point, then you wouldn't make that point in counterpoint. do you get the point?

Funkstain

monkey wrote:

Funkstain wrote:

Eh, if I'm not making myself clear enough to be understood after all dem posts I guess I have to give up

It's clear. It's just wrong.

So - you think that Hebdo were not, and are not being racist? Because that's like, my only point. The fact that they hide behind a "see terrorists you'll never win..." so that they can get away with "...against our racism".

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories