The Big Picture: Je Suis Charlie

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NEXT
 

Je Suis Charlie

Super-serious episode time.

Watch Video

An interesting stance.

I, myself, have been wondering about the whole 'getting back at them' sentiment with 'Draw Mohammad Day' response.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/cartoonist-promises-to-draw-mohamed-every-day-for-the-rest-of-the-year-in-protest-of-charlie-hebdo-attack-9964703.html

Super-serious? Well, I suppose, but I find this attempt at being serious much less condescending than the censorship episodes or the Jack Thompson episode, so this is well received by me.

Thanks for this one, MovieBob! I couldn't agree with you more on this issue.

The only "simple" take-away from the Charlie Hebdo attack is that murder and terrorism is always wrong and horrible, and that the right to free speech is a concept more nuanced than most people seem to realize.

Yeah, you've hit the nail on the head when it comes to power, it's an easy enough to say truisms like "punch up, not down," but it's very difficult to pin down exactly who is powerful and who isn't in our messy world and that is multiplied tenfold when you cross international borders into different cultures.

I'm not a reader of Charlie Hebdo, I can read at best only a little French so I can't be completely certain but from the screenshots of the magazine I've seen, it doesn't really cross the line into racism and is actually very critical of far-right parties like the FN. It hits on religion a lot but even then the Prophet Muhammad got off fairly lightly when for example in the past they've done a magazine cover of the Holy Trinity of Christianity having a threesome :-P

Well, that was far better episode than I feared.

I'm not French, but I do know some things of French culture (and was vaguely familiar with the work of some of the cartoonists killed) and know French people (including muslims, feminists, LGBT+ people etc) and some of them were offended by the Charlie Hebdo drawings, some weren't, some thought they were punching down, some disagreed with that.

But what all of them are saying is that people who have no context should stay away from the discussion.
Especially on the Internet where American views and English-speakers tend to dominate the discussion.

Evonisia:
Super-serious? Well, I suppose, but I find this attempt at being serious much less condescending than the censorship episodes or the Jack Thompson episode, so this is well received by me.

I agree! I just kept watching this video thinking "I'm actually agreeing with Bob for once, wow." Not sure I agree with him implying that Charlie Hebdo is racist, but I'll let that slide since the rest of it was right on the nose.

I'm not a fan of people calling him "The Prophet Muhammad" Just call him Muhammad if you aren't Muslim. Otherwise its like always referring to Jesus as "Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ"

Since this happened all the news channels keep calling him "the Prophet Muhammad"

Great video btw

Love the intro, but I feel like we're going to disagree.

EDIT: Nevermind, this video is pretty legit. I apologize for assuming your SJW tendencies would muck this up, as this video is one of the better takes on issue that's not only thorny, but where many people pretend like those thorns don't exist.

I'm really sick of that "punching up/down" bullshit when it comes to saying what jokes you're allowed to make. If you have a point to make, it shouldn't matter how "privileged" you are compared to the person or entity you're ripping on.

Condemning South Park for "punching down" instead of "punching up" completely misses the point about the show. South Park is not about social justice and speaking truth to power, it's about confronting ugly truths and being irreverent to a fault, which has its own value.

Also, this:

JMac85:
I'm really sick of that "punching up/down" bullshit when it comes to saying what jokes you're allowed to make. If you have a point to make, it shouldn't matter how "privileged" you are compared to the person or entity you're ripping on.

Yeah, I pretty much share Bob's views on this one.

The killings were wrong, as murder tends to be. Full stop. No caveats.

With that said, I'm not Charlie and I have no intention to defend the publication. I'll only argue for the right of its employees to live.

Burnouts3s3:
An interesting stance.

I, myself, have been wondering about the whole 'getting back at them' sentiment with 'Draw Mohammad Day' response.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/cartoonist-promises-to-draw-mohamed-every-day-for-the-rest-of-the-year-in-protest-of-charlie-hebdo-attack-9964703.html

Not only that but that magazine company that got attacked will publish Prophet Muhammad on its cover tomorrow-http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-30790409

Yeah I can see this being punch up and punch down. Punch up as they are defining the terrorist but punch down by offending the Muslim who do not support terrorism.

I think that most people are getting annoyed at those criticising Charlie Hebdo is because they're making arguments that basically amount to victim blaming. Given that the majority of people making these arguments are those from Tumblr and social justice crowds, them crying out against victim blaming for rape victims, but saying "Oh the cartoonists didn't deserve to get shot, but should not have made these dodgy cartoons" is hypocrisy of the highest order.

Yeah, I see that happen a lot. I mean, there are a lot of jokes and insults directed towards Feminists but feel as though they are just attacking women. Then there are jokes against Radical Christians which feel like they're attacking Christianity as a whole. It's hard to enjoy humor in these cases.

When it comes to cartoons like South Park, mockery is a form of satire of real hatred. The characters in it do such ridiculous things that it's hard to take them seriously. When a character becomes part dolphin or characters decide to establish "cis" and "trans" bathrooms, their ridiculousness is clear. They are obviously exaggerations and representations of what bigots might believe certain groups' agendas are.

excellent episode bob, a lot to digest maybe have to watch it a few times so I can properly consider your points.

Exactly the video I was hoping for from Bob. As the saying goes, free speech is not freedom from consequence, and though getting shot isn't a consequence that should be expected, we can't allow that speech to become untouchable. Its a tough line of thought for people to adhere to, even when not caught in an emotional hurricane the likes that the attack has created. Just because you should be allowed to say something doesn't mean that I have to agree with it, or even that it should be said. This goes for all speech (that isn't directly harmful in its creation), as just because you can and should be able to write an incredibly distasteful cartoon (which I'm not necessarily saying Hebdo are) doesn't mean you should or that it should be defended from criticism the same way its defended from censorship or fanatics with guns.

The MAMA picture showing 15 attacks against Muslims in France were 7 are graffiti? so graffiti is an attack now?

15 'attacks' resulting in 1 assault that of a 17 year old by a gang of teenagers that happen all the time anyway against everyone who's a teenager.

endtherapture:
I think that most people are getting annoyed at those criticising Charlie Hebdo is because they're making arguments that basically amount to victim blaming. Given that the majority of people making these arguments are those from Tumblr and social justice crowds, them crying out against victim blaming for rape victims, but saying "Oh the cartoonists didn't deserve to get shot, but should not have made these dodgy cartoons" is hypocrisy of the highest order.

That, and the hypocrisy of crying "we should respect their culture" when they just got through a diatribe about "the patriarchy" and "rape culture" here in the West.

It was a good episode, though some of it felt argumentative for the sake of it. The punching up and punching down thing is a strange thing if for no other reason than it all is a matter of perspective. For instance, anything about Obamacare is essentially about punching at the current administration for not fixing healthcare and at the same time making it significantly more complicated. No one is sitting in their chairs saying, "poor people don't deserve healthcare". The border stuff is punching up at legislation because it doesn't level the playing field as much as it plays favorites with people wandering over a specific border. With the citizenship stuff, they could have changed the laws so it's easier for illegal immigrants to become US citizens, but instead they want to summarily make them all citizens while leaving the same broken rules and laws in place for people coming in every other way into the country. My good friend spent about $20k of his own money and three years of his life to make his Scottish wife a US citizen. There is no equality in that legislation, it amounts to buying votes for the next election.

Anyway, I couldn't agree more with a lot of the video though. I'm sure they stepped over the line at Charlie Hebdoe because the people making that stuff don't have any personal connection to any of it. That said, no one is allowed to go murdering people because they said or published something they don't like. I am forced to sit and roll my eyes at all the headlines treating it like an insane attack on freedom of speech as if they are 100% innocent of outright offending people and that is OK. I don't want anyone to be murdered, but everyone should be culturally sensitive enough to know that as you would not like your beliefs attacked, others also do not want theirs attacked.

JMac85:
I'm really sick of that "punching up/down" bullshit when it comes to saying what jokes you're allowed to make. If you have a point to make, it shouldn't matter how "privileged" you are compared to the person or entity you're ripping on.

Well then expect people to get offended and call you things like bigot/misogynist. When you punch up you are condemning those who already empowered, it's not mean-spirited because those groups already hold social and political power. Punching down only further marginalizes minorities, it's like looking back at all those racist cartoons and saying that they aren't racist because all they're doing is punching down.

This was definitely something that needed to be said.

True, the satirists did not deserve to be shot, but it is safe to say they weren't exactly on the side of angels either. In fact...

Burnouts3s3:
An interesting stance.

I, myself, have been wondering about the whole 'getting back at them' sentiment with 'Draw Mohammad Day' response.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/cartoonist-promises-to-draw-mohamed-every-day-for-the-rest-of-the-year-in-protest-of-charlie-hebdo-attack-9964703.html

...THAT is definitely not cool. Especially since it sort of borders on punishing the innocent along with the guilty. In this case, attacking Muslims in general for the acts of the extremists. This also happened as a result of 9/11 when American Muslims were vilified for the attacks DESPITE those very same American Muslims speaking out against what Bin Laden did.

JMac85:

endtherapture:
I think that most people are getting annoyed at those criticising Charlie Hebdo is because they're making arguments that basically amount to victim blaming. Given that the majority of people making these arguments are those from Tumblr and social justice crowds, them crying out against victim blaming for rape victims, but saying "Oh the cartoonists didn't deserve to get shot, but should not have made these dodgy cartoons" is hypocrisy of the highest order.

That, and the hypocrisy of crying "we should respect their culture" when they just got through a diatribe about "the patriarchy" and "rape culture" here in the West.

Yeah.

If you wanna feel gross, just go on Jonathan McIntosh's twitter (Sarkeesians writer), located here: https://twitter.com/radicalbytes

His stuff about Charlie Hebdo is just clearly being used to push his annoying agenda. People are posting an article around called ""In the Wake of Charlie Hebdo, Free Speech Does Not Mean Freedom From Criticism". That's just an horrible article to be sharing around when the bodies are still warm, and the title heavily implies that they're condoning murder of cartoonists.

daibakuha:
Well then expect people to get offended and call you things like bigot/misogynist. When you punch up you are condemning those who already empowered, it's not mean-spirited because those groups already hold social and political power. Punching down only further marginalizes minorities, it's like looking back at all those racist cartoons and saying that they aren't racist because all they're doing is punching down.

Or, y'know, I just happen to find certain attitudes and actions objectionable and worthy of mockery, regardless of what economic or social strata the people perpetrating it happen to occupy?

JMac85:

daibakuha:
Well then expect people to get offended and call you things like bigot/misogynist. When you punch up you are condemning those who already empowered, it's not mean-spirited because those groups already hold social and political power. Punching down only further marginalizes minorities, it's like looking back at all those racist cartoons and saying that they aren't racist because all they're doing is punching down.

Or, y'know, I just happen to find certain attitudes and actions objectionable and worthy of mockery, regardless of what economic or social strata the people perpetrating it happen to occupy?

Just keep in mind that humor and satire don't exist in a vacuum, and that sometimes when you poke fun at a group, you are actually contributing to it's marginalization rather than it's acceptance.

HemalJB:
Yeah, I see that happen a lot. I mean, there are a lot of jokes and insults directed towards Feminists but feel as though they are just attacking women. Then there are jokes against Radical Christians which feel like they're attacking Christianity as a whole. It's hard to enjoy humor in these cases.

Very true. I think that all has to do with how you as an audience member feel or are apart of that group, even if there is a point behind it. While I myself am a christian I tend to get a little sore at Anti-Christian and religious jokes or sentiment as they hit a little to close to home, even if they are squarely about the more extreme ones. While because I am not a woman feminist jokes tend not to.

Even in this episode there's an example. I'm a big fan of South Park and I kinda don't like how their being presented as bully's hiding behind satire. However, speaking for myself I can separate that and still enjoy and listen to the discussion/joke. But I now a lot of people can't.

daibakuha:
Just keep in mind that humor and satire don't exist in a vacuum, and that sometimes when you poke fun at a group, you are actually contributing to it's marginalization rather than it's acceptance.

Maybe, but bullshit still needs to be called out. The "little guy" is just as capable of being a bully as the big kid at recess.

endtherapture:
His stuff about Charlie Hebdo is just clearly being used to push his annoying agenda. People are posting an article around called ""In the Wake of Charlie Hebdo, Free Speech Does Not Mean Freedom From Criticism". That's just an horrible article to be sharing around when the bodies are still warm, and the title heavily implies that they're condoning murder of cartoonists.

Its a good thing that the article doesn't condone the attacks, and rather does nothing but pretty much say what Bob himself said in this very video.

Also, drop the "bodies are still warm" schtick. Thats politics - recognizing that people will react in a certain way to events when the aftermath of the events have yet to conclude. The world is political, shit happens, and the reality is that pretending like things won't happen in the aftermath of a tragedy is naive, not to mention that its a lost opportunity to have discussions that need to happen. Its about on par to "think of the children!", both in that it gets in the way of much needed discussion, as well as being frequently used by people to defend their positions from being challenged.

MarsAtlas:

endtherapture:
His stuff about Charlie Hebdo is just clearly being used to push his annoying agenda. People are posting an article around called ""In the Wake of Charlie Hebdo, Free Speech Does Not Mean Freedom From Criticism". That's just an horrible article to be sharing around when the bodies are still warm, and the title heavily implies that they're condoning murder of cartoonists.

Its a good thing that the article doesn't condone the attacks, and rather does nothing but pretty much say what Bob himself said in this very video.

Also, drop the "bodies are still warm" schtick. Thats politics - recognizing that people will react in a certain way to events when the aftermath of the events have yet to conclude. The world is political, shit happens, and the reality is that pretending like things won't happen in the aftermath of a tragedy is naive, not to mention that its a lost opportunity to have discussions that need to happen. Its about on par to "think of the children!", both in that it gets in the way of much needed discussion, as well as being frequently used by people to defend their positions from being challenged.

Je Suis Charlie is about showing solidarity with the victims, who have families that have survived them, and about not letting the extremists win and dictate to us what we can and can't print over fear of death.

I personally find the comics in bad taste, but I am not going to criticise it with opposing movements in such a short aftermath of the attacks, because it is simply in bad taste.

Zato-1:
Condemning South Park for "punching down" instead of "punching up" completely misses the point about the show. South Park is not about social justice and speaking truth to power, it's about confronting ugly truths and being irreverent to a fault, which has its own value.

Well, it's that word, "irreverent". If someone consistently targets others who aren't receiving "reverence" anyway- people who are vulnerable and under threat- then it's a little off to call it "irreverent".

Don't get me wrong, I realise that South Park's crosshairs encompass a broad range of targets.

I had this whole long thing written out, but then I decided not to get caught up in what will undoubtedly turn into a stupid discussion so I decided to just post this since I actually didn't know it was based on another image and Bob used that image.

image

Wow. Whenever Bob has anything remotely serious to say I usually don't need to be persuaded. I am typically on the same side from the beginning. On the rare occasions I am not he usually can't convince me. But today Bob, you have made me think, and I feel enriched in a way that episodes about how weird comics or tv are, could make me feel.

This is a thank you from the heart.

bobdole1979:
I'm not a fan of people calling him "The Prophet Muhammad" Just call him Muhammad if you aren't Muslim. Otherwise its like always referring to Jesus as "Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ"

Since this happened all the news channels keep calling him "the Prophet Muhammad"

Great video btw

The name Muhammed is very common among Muslims, Jesus is not common among Christians (save for Spanish speaking countries/communities).

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here