Been thinking about what happened in France...

Post Reply New Topic

In other words, the victim is wrong because he "disrespected" the sensibilities of the criminal.

How can you not call that "blaming the victim"?

The logic there is a total failure. Nobody is forcing anyone to buy a magazine that they do not wish to buy. You are free to buy or not buy the magazine.

The question I ask is why do people buy this magazine in the first place? In my opinion, people should ignore insults for the sake of insults and focus on constructive criticism and real change. If people ignored insults for the sake of insults, people would find it futile and they would change and wouldn't do it. It's just like on the internet...if you feed trolls what happens...they get worse. Same principle here. If you buy a magazine that's nothing but insults for the sake of insults...it's like feeding trolls, no?

And before you accuse me of victim blaming, how many times must I write, I blame terrorists for terrorism, and brawlers for bar room fights and school shooters for school shootings. They are responsible for their actions, no one else.

However, this doesn't deny me the right to question when I feel like questioning.

And I do stand by the strong statement made in that one post-attack cartoon I saw; It is the terrorist who harms the prophet and Islam more than any writer or journalist ever could.

Also, the more I hear of these suspects, the more I can see the conspiracy theorists looming...they seem to be quite known to the French government.

Oh yes, how despicable! The man certainly should not have expressed his ideas in cartoons!

Who could support that kind of thing? </sarcasm>

Why do you choose the moment of this horror to villify the work and lives of the dead?

Don't kid yourself that you are not blaming the victims. It's shameful.

I am talking about it because I have actually taken the time to look at what they have published and am commenting on it. Look, they have published it, so why can't I comment on it? I am free to say how I feel about what they published and I have. I am not making them out to be any more than what they themselves have published. Why can't people understand that?

They have the right to publish whatever they want but I have absolutely no right to say how I feel about what they have published? Is that what you are trying to say?

Are you trying to say because of this despicable act, none of us have any right to have an opinion on what they have made public in the past?

If I were blaming them, I would be saying don't prosecute those terrorists and I would never make such a statement. I say get those terrorists out of society. If you cannot deal with it without harming others, you must be taken to some location away from it which imo should have been the case here before this ever happened. Don't let them go, in other words, when all they want to do is commit terrorism.

I have condemned the terrorists but I will not give up my right to comment on the contents of a magazine.

AND we are finding out right now the French government knew all about these men...can someone explain that one to me please?

Last edited by ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo on 09 Jan 2015, 10:14 am, edited 1 time in total.

Because those people want to buy the magazine.



As we established earlier in the thread, satire is a great deal more than "insults for the sake of insults".



Have you even read it? You're aware that there's a lot more to the publication than the cartoon on the cover, yes?



However you want to salve your conscience, you are pissing on the achievements and legacy of the recently murdered - for no apparent reason.



Who suggested otherwise? The only person with an agenda against protected speech here is you.

You have every right to comment on it, that is not the point. What you have said about them is wrong.

It's OK that you don't actually believe in free speech. You can own that and be comfortable with it.

What I find contemptible is that you characterize the work of these long, accomplished lives as nothing more than those parts of their work that you find personally offensive. I think that is deeply wrong.

Philippe Honore was a very talented artist with an intense, beautiful, woodcut-like style:


Explain to me how this man's work and life deserve the scorn you heap on him now?

I don't think you really have looked into the work of this talented artist.

I think you saw some stuff mocking politicians and religious blowhards with sexual elements and toilet humor and have decided that is all there is to the rich, complicated, diverse lives of the group of exceptional human beings gunned down the other day.

If I am wrong and your reaction is about the cartoons shown in this link--
http://www.slate.fr/grand-format/charli ... nore-96587

Then I can only say I strongly disagree with your judgment.

Well, I am saying they shouldn't feed the insults. What's so bad about saying something like that? Why feed insults? What's the point? Did you know, the vast majority of people who insult others feel like it's satire, cute and funny and that somehow justifies the insults? Not that I condemn all satire because some of it makes valid points and it's not insulting but you could still call it satire. In other words, just because something is insulting doesn't automatically make it satire. At the same time, I refuse to call everything that is mocking and biting satire. Some of it is simply what it is and that's insulting.
And before you make mincemeat of that, just remember, there are all kinds of classifications in the government about what can be made public and what cannot. There are rules and laws everywhere about what you can say and what you can't. Consider yelling fire in a theater. The question is, when does what we say equate that circumstance? When does what we say become a matter of endangering ourselves, others and national security, or is it now alright to yell fire in a crowded room?


Agreed and this is how you make the subtle distinction between the two - satire and insults for the sake of insults.



I didn't have these opinions until I saw copies of the magazines then I thought, why do people buy this? What is the point? People complain about trolls on the internet and they buy this? Those were my exact thoughts. If I saw the magazine a few weeks back I wouldn't have been impressed at all and I wouldn't buy a copy. I can say that for certain.



I am simply commenting on what they published and I am also stating I don't feel like I or anyone should buy this magazine ONLY to prove we support freedom. If we want to support freedom, there are plenty of ways besides this.





The implication is, if you have a comment about what they have previously published, you are blaming them when that is far from the case. You can criticize what they chose to publish without blaming them for anything but what they chose to publish and you have to admit they have responsibility for what they do publish because they published it. That doesn't mean people can break the law over what they published and harm them physically, but it does mean we are free to comment just as they were free to publish and if we don't like what they made public, we can say we don't like it.

I have said it so many times, if a genie gave me one wish, it would be to have everyone resolve their issues through communication and talking, never violence so I am the last person who would ever justify any act of terrorism or violence. Violence disgusts me deeply.

But what you said in your opening post was not "I don't feel I should support this disagreeable publication financially or that buying the last issue should be a political statement." What you said was:

You said, three times, that all they did was to be insulting and cruel, all the time. This is demonstrably untrue.

In what way are you not doing what you say they did when you reduce the complicated artistic lives of these people to a crude caricature?

If you really believe what you say you believe, you should not have posted this at all.

To me, that is a legitimate question to ask. What does being insulting all the time get you? What is wrong with that question? It's very honest and sincere at a time like this. And I have seen images from their magazine Charlie Hebdo and yes they were insulting and distressing and it wasn't just about the prophet but aimed at groups of people. But, they do have the right to publish that, we all do. The question is, who wants to see it, who will buy it? The reality is, the market for that isn't too appealing because people don't like insults. I am just stating reality. It's deeper than just a superficial freedom. We ask ourselves, how free is what just happened? I just ask people to question things. What does freedom really mean?

And they even published when they were advised not to do it by others who had their best interests at heart which is what I do not understand because you see, I like to see good outcomes, not outcomes such as this.

The reason it isn't a legitimate question is that you use hyperbole.

What does being insulting all the time get you?

But they were not insulting ALL THE TIME.

I have shown you a cartoon from Honore about funding cuts for scientific research. There is nothing insulting or cruel about it. Most of his work was like that, even that last one featuring the new Caliph, Al-Baghdadi giving his new year's wishes for good health.

So, this part of your argument is crap. They were not being insulting all the time. So you have to revise your argument to "what does being insulting some of the time get you?"

The little bio of Cabut on CNN should answer that question:

So, your argument about not being successful because people don't like it is also demonstrably false. Who wants to see it? Who wants to buy it? Many, many people.

You say you care about the results, but the results you are talking about are the results of the actions of the terrorists, not the results of the work of the cartoonists.

You ARE blaming the victims, I am just stating reality. I am just asking you to question yourself.

YES they were insulting in almost every issue they published HOWEVER these were talented illustrators if the public simply did not buy the issues that were so insulting, they would have moved on to other things...That is the point I am getting it. Why do people choose to focus on the insults and then they turn around and dislike trolls on the internet because they are so insulting...I just don't get it. I really don't.

There is a huge difference.

The only goal of a troll is to disrupt the conversation. The goal is to provoke and upset people for no purpose other than to be disruptive.

The goal of the cartoonists at Charlie Hebdo was political. They wanted to fight corruption, hypocrisy, lies and bigotry by mocking those ideas and the people who promote them.

This cartoon by Charb is a political attack on the skin prejudice behind some of Sarkozy's policies:


It is meant to make racists uncomfortable. This is not a pointless goal.

I can explain more of the dynamics behind this kind of political cartooning, if you like. I am not sure if you really don't understand the difference or not. Maybe it's a social communication thing?

Like Adamentium states, there's a PURPOSE behind this sort of political cartooning. In this case, it parodies Sarkovy's racist policies. It's also rather satirical, because it makes people think about racism by making use of humor.

Sometimes, it looked like fighting racism with racism, though. This is what I question. And I don't blame the cartoonists for any of this, I blame the terrorists for the acts but I blame members of the public who give the really cheap insults money and attention for the insults themselves. It is MONEY that runs the publishing industry and when people pay their money for insults you only see more and more of them. So you have just enough to keep it going but not enough to make a fortune so this keeps the insult mill in operation but nothing ever evolves, see?

And they are like trollish insults. The troll has goals in mind which is why they do it. When they get ignored they stop and try other methods to meet their goals and it's the same here. It's the same idea.

If people do not buy the insults, they will simply write other things, and onto other ideas.