Je Suis Charlie - The Bear and Badger

[Deleted User]

Brooks wrote:

mistercrayon wrote:

They're having their cake and eating it. At best their intentions are to parody other racists. The method of doing it involves flopping onto gross stereotypes and patronising goading.

Exactly. The core complaint has never been that omgracist so much as they are crap at their job. They should know who they are within the context, and know they should be a lot better at this. Again, they didn't deserve to be shot for being crap at their jobs, but they definitely deserved some scrutiny which, tragically, has only occurred after a particularly nasty fact.

The question is simply, "Should you be allowed to talk bollocks?". And the answer is yes.

Bollockoff

Bill Maher is a bit of a nob.

Brooks

SpaceGazelle wrote:

Brooks wrote:

mistercrayon wrote:

They're having their cake and eating it. At best their intentions are to parody other racists. The method of doing it involves flopping onto gross stereotypes and patronising goading.

Exactly. The core complaint has never been that omgracist so much as they are crap at their job. They should know who they are within the context, and know they should be a lot better at this. Again, they didn't deserve to be shot for being crap at their jobs, but they definitely deserved some scrutiny which, tragically, has only occurred after a particularly nasty fact.

The question is simply, "Should you be allowed to talk bollocks?". And the answer is yes.

I think this gets a bit trickier when the 'talking' is being done by a corporate entity, which has a more clout by virtue of size of mouthpiece alone, but generally I don't subscribe to censorship, no. Criticism is a function of discourse, censorship denies discourse.

equinox_code

Cameron defending the 'right to cause offence'. His hypocrisy is baffling. How many people have been imprisoned in recent years for telling a 'sick joke' on twitter or fb?

acemuzzy

But they were inciting violence towards other people, not towards themselves

equinox_code

Who's inciting what?

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/12/23/glasgow-crash-tweet_n_6371428.html

The most recent case i can remember. Not imprisoned as far as i know, but arrested nonetheless.

acemuzzy

Yes but that's different

acemuzzy

(I'm just being annoying, cos I have work to do, and would rather avoid it / am feeling grumpy. It's obviously BS.)

Facewon

Brooks wrote:

SpaceGazelle wrote:

Brooks wrote:

mistercrayon wrote:

They're having their cake and eating it. At best their intentions are to parody other racists. The method of doing it involves flopping onto gross stereotypes and patronising goading.

Exactly. The core complaint has never been that omgracist so much as they are crap at their job. They should know who they are within the context, and know they should be a lot better at this. Again, they didn't deserve to be shot for being crap at their jobs, but they definitely deserved some scrutiny which, tragically, has only occurred after a particularly nasty fact.

The question is simply, "Should you be allowed to talk bollocks?". And the answer is yes.

I think this gets a bit trickier when the 'talking' is being done by a corporate entity, which has a more clout by virtue of size of mouthpiece alone, but generally I don't subscribe to censorship, no. Criticism is a function of discourse, censorship denies discourse.

Yeah, there's nothing about this that is exactly simple.

Haven't been in a space to write at length about this, but have had lots of musings floating around. Will try and express myself somewhat clearly in broad terms and hope I don't clusterfuck the thread.

I'm mindful reading through this that Ian and bad hair are saying some things that I may have said in a god thread somewhere, and I agree with them that religion shouldn't get off scot free in this. tbh I'd be interested to read some of my own posts from previous forums to see how much I'd facepalm and how much I'd +1 myself.

But this whole thing has made me see the point hozno and others, as I recall, were trying to make to me back in the day about other factors.

In the case of hebdo, it's clear that these specific attacks wouldn't have happened without Islam, but in a very trivial sense. It's a very specific ill, it requires a very specific reading of a very specific text. But it's trivial in the sense that saying "no Islam = no attack" misses the point. Society would still have ills, and it's all the other stuff that primes people for the specific nastiness that religion can induce.

Quoting chapter and verse also proves not much. Yes, various religious texts say nasty stuff, and yes, theology and textual interpretation isn't an exercise in good reasoning, IMO, but people do in fact do it, and do in fact, honestly believe what they believe.

Ian and BH seem far too ready to assume that every believer (particularly of islam) is on a slippery slope to literalism. It's clearly just not the case, Islam is just as varied as any other religion and there's every flavour of believer and non-believer in relation to them all. I know "cultural muslims" in the same sense as "cultural jews" and I know plenty of young folk from an evangelical christian and muslim background who cherry pick and ignore their folks just like everyone else.

I can 100% agree that liberal religionists of most stripes have reached that point through some funky disonance, but that doesn't mean I'm not glad they're liberal. It also shouldn't imply that my own reasoning and beliefs have all been reached through some perfect means.

On the free speech front, brooks and kow have covered most of it.

There's a big issue with the punching down. Personally, I have an issue with the fact that all these free speech agruments seem to be stemming from people/entities with plenty of freedom of speech, and who are generally not saying anything particularly interesting or substantive. There is a right to offend, and no one deserves to die, but I'd rather you were offending with a purpose. (Minchin's Pope song springs to mind as a good example of offense and purpose.)

Being in a position of power/very free speech, and then being offensive in a fairly bland and uninsightful way seems counter-productive to me.

bad_hair_day

Islamist Extremism

I don't speak for Ian, but we've stated ad nauseum that the majority of followers of the Islamic faith are non violent as are Christians, Jews and Jedi's.

However, when the MET say they foiled five Islamic extremist plots last year, I worry, admittedly it's out of selfish concern as my wife could have been sent to hell too soon. (Please nobody trot out the 'under a bus' statistics etc.)

Freedom of Speech

If we take some care to understand the correct translation, context and nuances of their work, Charlie Hebdo punched up and down, but only one group attacked them, twice. Could have been the right wing Catholic League, but we're correct to say that it wasn't.

Here's to the cultural religious, long may their influence increase and continue to be a part of the solution.

Brooks

I cannot extricate the mildly hysterical from your posts itt. 'Don't mention other death stats', well why the fuck not.

Diluted Dante

I'm more worried about shark attacks in city centres than terrorist attacks.

Bollockoff

The fact I know what sharking is means I can't tell if you're joking.

IanHamlett

Kow wrote:

You identify your enemy in a variety of ways. If one of those is by the religion he professes, then so be it. But don't confuse that with a religiously motivated attack, even when it is reported as one religion attacking another.

It's not just reported as that. It was a sectarian conflict. The people jumping out of a van with hoods on and shooting a postman weren't all fired up about shit that happened 400 years ago, they were fired up about what the other guys did the week before last.

Religion was little more than a marker, but you try getting bad blood to trickle down from Percel to Pearl Jam without that marker.

IanHamlett

I really shouldn't have come back in here. I'll let myself out. Sorry that I won't read your replies.

Skerret

Bollockoff wrote:

The fact I know what sharking is means I can't tell if you're joking.

I think he means land shark.

Bollockoff

I blame global warming.

Skerret

equinox_code

So sort of on the subject of offending people, i'm a bit curious about the Native American headdress. I don't really get the offence caused in wearing one, despite doing a little background reading on the subject today.

I can understand how one might be offended at playing up to the stereotype; becoming a caricature, dressing the complete part and carrying around a bow and arrow etc. But just wearing a headdress? They're aesthetically very pleasing, and this alone i would think makes it quite different from blacking up, for example (the couple of articles i read today likened wearing of a headdress to blacking up)

Outlaw

War bonnets are only used by very few tribes, and they are symbolic and sacred to those tribes. Obv. Native Americans aren't a homogenous group and some care deeply while others couldn't give a shit, but the general consensus is that it's offensive and disrespectful because it takes an important item of their culture and trivialises it to a meaningless fashion statement.

It's not an issue in isolation either though, it's intertwined with white people systematically destroying or co-opting Native culture to the benefit of the whites and the detriment of Native peoples. Native Americans STILL suffer horribly from racism and the effects of that; unemployment, poverty and alcoholism are rampant in Native communities and at much higher levels than white, mainstream America.

My stance on these issues is: is the minority group in question generally comfortable with the language I'm using/behaviour I'm displaying? If the answer is no then I stop doing it.

Diluted Dante

I didn't know that was a thing.

I found an article on the Beeb that said they are earned apparantly. I always mentally filed them alongside lederhosen, flat caps, beret's and stetsons rather than blackface.

GooberTheHat

I can see how, if they are a culturally significant symbol of prestige and status, it would be offensive to have that symbol belittled and used as fancy dress.

GooberTheHat

However, I would see it being more of a problem being done in the country of the subjected by the subjacators than in foreign lands by foreigners.

equinox_code

Outlaw wrote:

War bonnets are only used by very few tribes, and they are symbolic and sacred to those tribes. Obv. Native Americans aren't a homogenous group and some care deeply while others couldn't give a shit, but the general consensus is that it's offensive and disrespectful because it takes an important item of their culture and trivialises it to a meaningless fashion statement. It's not an issue in isolation either though, it's intertwined with white people systematically destroying or co-opting Native culture to the benefit of the whites and the detriment of Native peoples. Native Americans STILL suffer horribly from racism and the effects of that; unemployment, poverty and alcoholism are rampant in Native communities and at much higher levels than white, mainstream America. My stance on these issues is: is the minority group in question generally comfortable with the language I'm using/behaviour I'm displaying? If the answer is no then I stop doing it.

That's generally my stance too.

But at the same time, we do live in a world full of meaningless fashion statements. It'd be nice if we could at least appropriate the most aesthetically pleasing of these- cross culturally- without guilt. Not for sake of provocation (like drawing the prophet), but because they're actually much nicer to look at than most body decorations. They certainly beat beanies or baseball caps.

My wearing of blue jeans isn't destructive of American culture. Quite the opposite. To some extent it's an embrace. And while someone wearing the pope's fancy hat (which he had to earn) is obviously somewhat taking the piss, again, these feathery headdresses actually have aesthetic appeal.

I'm not actually thinking of wearing one btw

g.man

equinox_code

changed my mind

g.man

Facewon

Also a bit more charged when the redskins is still a team name.

mistercrayon

They should change their logo to a potato or grape then it would be fine.

Kow

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories