Anyone else think Charlie Hebdo were provocative?
Scroll to see replies
Original post by Nomes24
Not entirely sure what you're saying, sorry. I'm against racism and if I hear a racist remark I would not respond positively to it. I would try and show the person my opinion- how racism, in my opinion, is completely outdated and wrong. It might not work, but I would try. I would accept that they have freedom of speech... but I'm not exactly going to be happy about their views, personally.
What you mentioned in the previous post was that you don't think that offending someone should result in physical violence. I totally agree with you on that and that was never the point of my argument.
My point was that if you agree that racism is wrong, you need to agree that the cartoons were wrong as well. If one is freedom of speech, the other is as well.
Original post by addylad
Please do tell me what was wrong about publishing something offensive.
There is a difference between an offensive cartoon and a bullet in the brain.
Posted from TSR Mobile
There is a difference between an offensive cartoon and a bullet in the brain.
Posted from TSR Mobile
You people don't read my OP, do you? I'm having to keep repeating myself over and over again here. I DON'T CONDONE THE ATTACKS.
All I'm saying is that they provoked it and should've thought of the possible consequences as their offence was aimed at a group that does have a lot of extremists. The wrong thing was that they didn't foresee the possible consequences despite knowing how extremist some people in the name of Islam can be.
Original post by llpokerll
You people don't read my OP, do you? I'm having to keep repeating myself over and over again here. I DON'T CONDONE THE ATTACKS.
All I'm saying is that they provoked it and should've thought of the possible consequences as their offence was aimed at a group that does have a lot of extremists. The wrong thing was that they didn't foresee the possible consequences despite knowing how extremist some people in the name of Islam can be.
All I'm saying is that they provoked it and should've thought of the possible consequences as their offence was aimed at a group that does have a lot of extremists. The wrong thing was that they didn't foresee the possible consequences despite knowing how extremist some people in the name of Islam can be.
You're not reading what I've written. I'll make it nice and simple for you.
Start by explaining what is wrong with offending someone.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by M1011
No, our standards shouldn't be set to accommodate extremists. The only people at fault are the ones responsible for the crime. If we censor our opinions/satire/images etc so as not to anger terrorists, then the terrorism will never end. Can't reward it - got to whack it with a stick.
It's not about accommodating extremists, it's about respecting Muslims. Muslims that have already been stripped of their freedoms to express themselves in public. I'm sure most muslims in France want to live in peace and harmony. Why is there is necessity to publish offensive and tasteless anti muslim "satire"? So the old racist white men in starbucks can get their ****s n giggles at their broadsheet? Is that what we value in society?
Original post by llpokerll
What you mentioned in the previous post was that you don't think that offending someone should result in physical violence. I totally agree with you on that and that was never the point of my argument.
My point was that if you agree that racism is wrong, you need to agree that the cartoons were wrong as well. If one is freedom of speech, the other is as well.
My point was that if you agree that racism is wrong, you need to agree that the cartoons were wrong as well. If one is freedom of speech, the other is as well.
Ah yes I totally agree with you. Thanks for clearing that up. There's no doubt that the cartoons were offensive and wrong. I just don't believe that they should have been condemned to the extent that they were murdered for it. I don't exactly support Charlie Hebdo's cartoons but support their right to freedom of speech, even if it is offensive (in my opinion).
Original post by llpokerll
Nobody is talking about giving the 'right' to take lives. I agree that it was wrong, but as in my example in the OP, it is simply messing with people that you can't mess with.
The whole point of a terrorist is to project control and spread fear and intimidation without actually being there.
They are bullies of the most vile kind and need to be stood up to or our society becomes paralysed with fear and liberty is severely eroded.
Hence the big clue is in the name 'terrorist'.
Charlie Hebdo is right to make the stand for liberty whether that pisses off a few nut jobs or not, so be it.
The UK did not roll over and stay indoors when a certain Fascist dictator tried to impose his own brand of master-race across Europe.
The extremists are pulling the same stunt and it's every bit as dangerous and insidious as it was 76 years ago.
This time moderate Islam as well as infidels are the targets for eradication.
Staying indoors and closing the curtains is not an option.
Original post by Truths
It's not about accommodating extremists, it's about respecting Muslims. Muslims that have already been stripped of their freedoms to express themselves in public. I'm sure most muslims in France want to live in peace and harmony. Why is there is necessity to publish offensive and tasteless anti muslim "satire"? So the old racist white men in starbucks can get their ****s n giggles at their broadsheet? Is that what we value in society?
It's not about accommodating extremists, it's about respecting Muslims. Muslims that have already been stripped of their freedoms to express themselves in public. I'm sure most muslims in France want to live in peace and harmony. Why is there is necessity to publish offensive and tasteless anti muslim "satire"? So the old racist white men in starbucks can get their ****s n giggles at their broadsheet? Is that what we value in society?
If you don't like it, don't read it. After all, that is what liberty is all about.
Most people couldn't give a rats arse about Islam but tolerate it all the same.
Sometimes a person has to stand up for what they believe in, even if it does cause offense. And creative people, traditionally, aim to inspire thought, and issue challenges. Now, personally I find some of the cartoons rather tasteless (and I am not a Muslim). However, if someone is offended by something, their actions should be proportionate. They could complain to the creator of the piece. They could complain to the publication, or to the press regulation agency. If not satisfied by the response, they could get in touch with their political representatives. Those in the media are subject to the laws of the land, and their audience is equally subject to the laws of the land.
If we allow ourselves to be ruled by fear, if we bow down to extremists who do not abide by the laws of the land, if we constantly question ourselves and live by "what ifs", we will increasingly limit the boundaries of our existence.
Now, I won't draw pictures of Mohammed. I don't not draw pictures of Mohammed out of fear of what would happen if I did so so, though. I don't draw pictures of Mohammed because I don't have a reason to do so. I'm not a satirist reacting to previous extreme reactions and trying to make a point.
I have, however, published political commentary that was (perhaps) rather challenging and have received all manner of nastiness and threats from people with different political views based on that. Thankfully, none of the reactions were ones of actual violence. A friend in the same field attracted a dangerous stalker and had to contact the police. Should I remain silent in case that happens to me? I don't think so. As said, sometimes you have to stand up for what you believe in. In a peaceful, law-abiding manner, of course.
If we allow ourselves to be ruled by fear, if we bow down to extremists who do not abide by the laws of the land, if we constantly question ourselves and live by "what ifs", we will increasingly limit the boundaries of our existence.
Now, I won't draw pictures of Mohammed. I don't not draw pictures of Mohammed out of fear of what would happen if I did so so, though. I don't draw pictures of Mohammed because I don't have a reason to do so. I'm not a satirist reacting to previous extreme reactions and trying to make a point.
I have, however, published political commentary that was (perhaps) rather challenging and have received all manner of nastiness and threats from people with different political views based on that. Thankfully, none of the reactions were ones of actual violence. A friend in the same field attracted a dangerous stalker and had to contact the police. Should I remain silent in case that happens to me? I don't think so. As said, sometimes you have to stand up for what you believe in. In a peaceful, law-abiding manner, of course.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by addylad
You're not reading what I've written. I'll make it nice and simple for you.
Start by explaining what is wrong with offending someone.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Start by explaining what is wrong with offending someone.
Posted from TSR Mobile
The wrong thing is that racism has legal backing, while offending a religion doesn't. They should either be both acceptable or neither.
Original post by llpokerll
The wrong thing is that racism has legal backing, while offending a religion doesn't. They should either be both acceptable or neither.
Racism is abuse. Satire is not. You are trying to compare apples and oranges.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by llpokerll
The wrong thing is that racism has legal backing, while offending a religion doesn't. They should either be both acceptable or neither.
W.t.f?
That old chestnut.
Religion is an ideology and a life-style choice. Ideology should never be immune to critique whatever form that takes - serious narrative or satirical cartoons alike.
Racism aims to eliminate a race of people who have no choice because of their genetic make up.
See the difference?
Terrorism always has an excuse. Do not listen to them...
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Truths
Um no. There is clear bold line between criticism and antagonism. When a gay couple holds hands in public or a tutor teaches evolution, their intention is not to offend. The sole and entire purpose of drawing Mohammed was to offend. There wasn't any constructive debate in that "satirical" comic and you know it.
Charlie Hebdo was a thoroughly left-wing, anti-racist organisation which even tried to get the Front National banned. Their primary intent was to a) satirise a religious figure held up as perfect and beyond reproach, for which they disagreed, and b) to protest censorship.
That's what the evidence suggests; however, neither you nor I know their true intent. I am interested to know what evidence you are basing your conclusion that their sole intent was to offend on?
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by Truths
It's not about accommodating extremists, it's about respecting Muslims. Muslims that have already been stripped of their freedoms to express themselves in public.
It's not about accommodating extremists, it's about respecting Muslims. Muslims that have already been stripped of their freedoms to express themselves in public.
Muslims, or should I say people as it is entirely cultural, have been stripped of wearing the veil because it is seen as an affront to the rights of women, and for which the European Court of Human Rights agrees. As to religious symbols in civic buildings, that applies to all religions and is a traditional part of French secularism.
Secularism has been a deeply ingrained part of French culture for centuries. If you don't like it - Christian, Muslim or otherwise - then you should pack up and leave, as it's as important to the French as the First Amendment is to the Americans.
I'm sure most muslims in France want to live in peace and harmony. Why is there is necessity to publish offensive and tasteless anti muslim "satire"? So the old racist white men in starbucks can get their ****s n giggles at their broadsheet? Is that what we value in society?
Charlie Hebdo published satire about most religions, and identities. These images were not posted through Muslims' letterboxes; they could live in "peace and harmony" without ever coming across the images. Not that a cartoon rationally impacts on a person's "peace and harmony".
I doubt Judge Judy agrees with your comments.
(edited 9 years ago)
I can't express how much "no" I want to answer this with
if I insult someone, are you saying I'll have it coming if they *kill* me? honestly?
if you're saying I could foresee my death from the action, does that mean I "had it coming"?
sickening.
if I insult someone, are you saying I'll have it coming if they *kill* me? honestly?
if you're saying I could foresee my death from the action, does that mean I "had it coming"?
sickening.
Original post by umzz
Our prophet went through more punishment and torture that you could ever think of and all he done in response was forgive. Islam condemns murder simple as.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
Apart from the 109 verses from the Quran that incite violence against non-believers....
Quran (3:151) - "Soon shall We cast TERROR into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority".
Quran (8:12) - "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them"
Quran (3:56) - "As to those who reject faith, I will punish them with terrible agony in this world and in the Hereafter, nor will they have anyone to help."
no, they didn't......freedom of speech trumps offence..
Yes, in the sense that their actions were irresponsible, they knew what they were getting themselves into. However, I do support satire and firmly believe that no idea/belief should ever be above scrutiny.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- I’m convinced my ex is guilty. What do you all think?
- Most women want to be bad girls in 2023.
- Got into a fist fight at the library. Potentially in trouble
- MEI A Level Mathematics Probability
- Help with a level stats question
- Is this normal for a break up?
- Watching movies as a hobby
- English Language Coursework NEA Help OCR
- Is SOAS any good?
- Official Ask Anglia Ruskin Thread
- What film deserves a prequel?
- Which country has the best literature?
- What were your favourite childhood magazines?
- I didn't watch a single minute of the coronation today!
- KCL A102 2023 Offer Holders
- Does anyone have Law a level essay writing techniques??
- York St John Illustration Interview
- maths ocr paper 6
- Official University of Glasgow Offer Holders Thread for 2024 entry
- 3 artists you love, 3 you dont like
Latest
Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
