Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Asurat)
    In terms of my casual link, I'd quite like to point out that you said "cartoons do not cause violence". I did not say that cartoons caused death, they don't.
    Two separate points as violence in this case -> death, but that's inconsequential. There is no causal link stemming from cartoons, is the answer. This violence stems from a clutch of hysterical people who follow the teachings of a totalitarian creed.

    "Beyond just disrespect" in my opinion is attacking something objective with no intent other than damage. As far as my understanding the word respect means acknowledging the feelings and wishes of others. Disrespect being a disregard of those feelings and wishes. So isn't it logical that "beyond" disrespect would be an outright attack as well as disregard? I think this is a sort of trivial thing to quote but I'm open to your interpretations of any of my posts.
    But who's doing that? No one in the public domain that is mocking and satirising Islam has 'no intent other than damage'. It is a totalitarian and very real threat which must be resisted.

    In my opinion advocating free-speech is as simple as not attacking it. Advocating ALL of Charlie Hebdo's publications would also arguably make me an Islamophobe as well as generally religiously intolerant.
    Intolerance is perfectly virtuous. There's nothing wrong with refusing to tolerate certain things.

    I know friends people who don't like Islam for whatever reason, but they don't at the very least draw pictures of Mohammad. I mean come on, if you want to argue that Islam is a religion of hate and violence, is that in any way relevant at all? That creates no meaningful debate and just inflames.
    It's *satire*. The people that take this religion seriously think it is the final religion, and that its teachings are absolute. The aim of such a creed is to monopolise education and shut down criticism. We cannot allow that to happen and must dutifully resist in every which way we can - which involves satirising their foolish idea of a prophet.

    Generally, the issues that Charlie Hebdo raises (such as homophobia in Islam) are totally justified, but I struggle to see how they actually help solve anything. Exercising your freedom of speech to the utmost extremes does nothing meaningful apart from keeping the limits wide. So yes I would definitely say that I advocate the right and the duty for the cartoons to be published, but I will 100% refuse to affiliate myself with the publications because of their content. Isn't that fair?
    Bold: good. If you don't want to affiliate yourself with the publications that's your prerogative. Odd, I'd say, but nonetheless your prerogative.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by generic_man)
    I have no idea of the context of the cartoon about the Rabaa massacre but the one with the politician as a monkey does indeed seem to be pretty disgusting.

    However, I think you're missing the point of #JeSuisCharlie. One of the perks of living in a democratic society is that we are (or ought to be) able to say and think whatever we want, but the price we have to pay is that we need to allow others to say and think what *they* want, no matter how unsavoury those things might be. I'm a leftist atheist and I despise most religions and I despise organisations like UKIP and the BNP, but I believe they should be allowed to exist and that they should be able to say what they want because that guarantees my freedom to do the same.

    So #JeSuisCharlie doesn't mean that you agree with every cartoon that has ever been published in Charlie Hebdo - I mean, they're a publication that sets out to mock pretty much every group there is after all - rather, it means that you support the right of such publications to exist and are against violence being used to suppress freedom of speech.
    Hear, hear. (The monkey cartoon is very carefully orchestrated irony though)
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Opiece)
    See, that's why we have something known as "juridical institutions", which condemn racist people and defend those that did nothing wrong. That's also why Charlie Hebdo was never condemned while Minute (the newspaper which said that our Black Justice minister "a la banane" - a French phrase involving bananas) was.
    Why is it worse to be racist and mock a race than to mock somebody for their religion? Genuine question here. Is it because you can't help what Race you're born into and religion is a conscience choice? well if that's the case, then the only option is to stop being religious just to stop being mocked. Surely it's worse then to mock religion than race? Perhaps those who mock religion should be condemned like racist people then since a majority of those religious people did nothing wrong either.

    I'm not saying this exactly, it's just a thought. kinda.
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Welcome Squad
    I'm Catholic and they mocked the Pope often enough, but still JE SUIS CHARLIE.

    it's the whole thing of



    I personally dislike satire but freedom of speech is imperative if we are to retain our rights at all.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by wellholathere)
    Why is it worse to be racist and mock a race than to mock somebody for their religion? Genuine question here. Is it because you can't help what Race you're born into and religion is a conscience choice? well if that's the case, then the only option is to stop being religious just to stop being mocked. Surely it's worse then to mock religion than race? Perhaps those who mock religion should be condemned like racist people then since a majority of those religious people did nothing wrong either.

    I'm not saying this exactly, it's just a thought. kinda.
    You answered your own first question.

    Particularly 'if you want to stop being mocked for your religion, stop being religious' - that's spot on.

    It's definitely not in any way worse to mock religion than race. There is no substantive reason to mock someone's race - it makes absolutely no sense. Mocking religion is essential.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PinkMobilePhone)
    I'm Catholic and they mocked the Pope often enough, but still JE SUIS CHARLIE.

    it's the whole thing of



    I personally dislike satire but freedom of speech is imperative if we are to retain our rights at all.
    Props for quoting the correct person. The amount of people I've seen attribute this to Voltaire
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by generic_man)
    I have no idea of the context of the cartoon about the Rabaa massacre but the one with the politician as a monkey does indeed seem to be pretty disgusting.

    However, I think you're missing the point of #JeSuisCharlie. One of the perks of living in a democratic society is that we are (or ought to be) able to say and think whatever we want, but the price we have to pay is that we need to allow others to say and think what *they* want, no matter how unsavoury those things might be. I'm a leftist atheist and I despise most religions and I despise organisations like UKIP and the BNP, but I believe they should be allowed to exist and that they should be able to say what they want because that guarantees my freedom to do the same.

    So #JeSuisCharlie doesn't mean that you agree with every cartoon that has ever been published in Charlie Hebdo - I mean, they're a publication that sets out to mock pretty much every group there is after all - rather, it means that you support the right of such publications to exist and are against violence being used to suppress freedom of speech.
    I agree with you, however the second cartoon is not racist in the context in which it was published (I posted the context above in response to another post).
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by wellholathere)
    Why is it worse to be racist and mock a race than to mock somebody for their religion? Genuine question here. Is it because you can't help what Race you're born into and religion is a conscience choice? well if that's the case, then the only option is to stop being religious just to stop being mocked. Surely it's worse then to mock religion than race? Perhaps those who mock religion should be condemned like racist people then since a majority of those religious people did nothing wrong either.

    I'm not saying this exactly, it's just a thought. kinda.
    Yet you still don't get my point, and while your question is interesting it's not relevant to what I said. There's a difference between mocking a religion to insult people, and mocking a religion to make people laugh and take a step back. One is called a hate crime, the other one satire.
    It's the debate we're having in France, with Dieudonné and Charlie Hebdo: if we're defending Charlie Hebdo's freedom of expression, why should we condemn Dieudonné (an antisemitic humorist)? Well, because Dieudonné's politically affiliated to far-right movements, is clearly antisemitic and only ever mocks Jewish people. On the other hand, Charlie Hebdo mocks absolutely everything and they defend no other ideal than tolerance and open-mindedness.
    It's all about what's the message behind the mockery.

    Besides, we don't use the word "race" in French, simply because it's racist. We much prefer ethnicity, or skin color.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Asurat)
    "Beyond just disrespect" in my opinion is attacking something objective with no intent other than damage.
    Who are you to conclude on the intent of the cartoonists? The evidence points to their intent being to, a) satirise a figure who is promoted as being perfect and who has a stranglehold over a group of people and to, b) protest against censorship.
    As far as my understanding the word respect means acknowledging the feelings and wishes of others. Disrespect being a disregard of those feelings and wishes. So isn't it logical that "beyond" disrespect would be an outright attack as well as disregard? I think this is a sort of trivial thing to quote but I'm open to your interpretations of any of my posts.
    The problem being that "feelings" and "wishes" are entirely subjective and relative to the person. The Qur'an, and other religious texts, probably "attack" the feelings and wishes of people who are gay, feminist, non-believers, etc. Do you see where your logic is going?
    In my opinion advocating free-speech is as simple as not attacking it. Advocating ALL of Charlie Hebdo's publications would also arguably make me an Islamophobe as well as generally religiously intolerant.I know friends people who don't like Islam for whatever reason, but they don't at the very least draw pictures of Mohammad. I mean come on, if you want to argue that Islam is a religion of hate and violence, is that in any way relevant at all? That creates no meaningful debate and just inflames.
    People shouldn't have to pussyfoot around when criticising ideologies, particularly harmful political ideologies (such as fascism) as one example. You are basically saying: "oh, make sure you say 'not very nice' instead of 'hate', and 'a bit physical' instead of 'violent'". Ridiculous. Many people who have left Scientology feel strongly about how harmful the ideology is. They should be free to use whatever strong language they want to condemn it.
    Generally, the issues that Charlie Hebdo raise (such as homophobia in Islam) are totally justified, but I struggle to see how they actually help solve anything. Exercising your freedom of speech to the utmost extremes does nothing meaningful apart from keeping the limits wide. So yes I would definitely say that I advocate the right and the duty for the cartoons (and other controversial media) to be published, but I will 100% refuse to affiliate myself with the publications because of their content. Isn't that fair?
    An image says a thousand words. Exercising freedom of speech "to the utmost extremes" raises awareness and lets you get across your passion for a topic. See the satirical cartoons against rulers in 18th and 19th centuries. People who were distraught over Nicholas II's rule used satire, which many found grossly offensive (to the point that the creators should be executed), as a means of raising awareness of the flaws in his rule.
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by Mr Inquisitive)
    Props for quoting the correct person. The amount of people I've seen attribute this to Voltaire
    I did my research before quoting. Always helps to make sure you've quoted the right person
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by IdeasForLife)
    The cartoons below are drawn by Charlie Hebdo, the french magazine which recently got attacked by gunmen.

    It shows a muslim man using the Quran as (bullets going through it) with the caption "the Quran is s*** it doesn't stop bulllets" after the Rabaa massacre in Egypt. Over 1000 Egyptians were killed by their own military whilst peacefully protesting.

    This is one of the reasons I am not charlie. I do not make fun of massacres.I am above that. If someone where to make fun of holocaust victims, they would be called quite a few bad names(and rightly so). It shouldn't be any different when people make fun of other atrocities.

    The other cartoon shows, Mrs Taubira, a government minister, as a monkey simply because she is a black woman. I do not support racism, so yet again, I am not Charlie.

    Just to add - I do not support the gunmen or anything of the like.

    The images are in the spoiler, you may find them offensive, so I've given you the option whether you wish to view them or not.
    Spoiler:
    Show

    fundamental inconsistencies and misunderstanding throughout your post.

    1 the quran bullet part is a reference to the fact many of the perpetrators were themselves muslims, their beliefs did not stop them commit these actions. as well as a general criticism of religion as being ineffective as a force for good.

    2 The "racist" images was not actually racist. The caption is a reference to the blue marine gathering (blue racist gathering) an extreme far right party in france that had recently made fun of the women depicted in a racist manner, the image pokes fun and their ludicrous racism.

    you say you dont make fun of massacres, but the image you selected is not making fun of the massacre, it is mocking religion by using recent events, do you oppose the images used of people to mock the beliefs of those committing the attacks in france. If not why not.

    All in all it seems you had issue with "charlie" due to the fact they made images that were offensive to Muslims rather than the idea that they made fun of massacres or acted racist, which they did not ( at least based upon the images you described)
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PinkMobilePhone)
    I did my research before quoting. Always helps to make sure you've quoted the right person
    *wishing I could doubly rep you*
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Welcome Squad
    Voltaire (well, used to describe his work)

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    So thrilling to see intelligence filtering into the thread. A marked difference to how it started.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Opiece)
    Yes, it's okay to draw satirical cartoons mocking the Holocaust. It's funny you mention that, because Charlie Hebdo actually did. But obviously you could not know, because you're completely ignorant about this topic.

    That's a whole another question, but I don't agree with your definition of "respect". To me, respect is not a self-centered thing which forbids everyone to make fun of anything because it might offend you. I believe it's about respecting everyone's point of view, and most of all respecting their right to mock you and disagree with you. You have a very egotistical vision of respect, while I think it's more about having a respectful society as a whole where every topic can be debated without those narrow-minded people that "feel offended" all the time because they just can't take a step back.

    What I mean is, in the end, we're all human. We're not defined by our religion, our ethnicity, our history, our political opinion, our culture, our language or our looks, but by our human nature. So before hating someone for their religion or their freedom of expression, we should love them for being human.

    To be honest, as a French person, people like you scare me because of the impact your message has on our society. I don't want other Muslim French citizens to feel 'left out' of the movement, and nor do I want racist people to jeopardise the movement to attack Muslims. We should include Muslims and exclude racists, not the opposite. Because in the end, Charlie Hebdo was much closer to Muslims than racists.
    Lets love everybody for being human and respect their point of view regardless of how it differs to ours...
    But exclude the racists because they don't really count. Do you see the problem here?


    If you're going to subscribe to some halcyon "let's accept everyone" world view then you have to committ to it fully, not just when it suits you. I mean, racism has a platform because of the freedom of expression you hold so dear, right?
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ThatPerson)
    I agree with you, however the second cartoon is not racist in the context in which it was published (I posted the context above in response to another post).
    Thanks. I read your post and I'm glad to hear that. I have no problem with Charlie Hebdo mocking groups that people actively choose to be a part of but if they mocked people for their race or sexuality or any other quality that people don't choose for themselves then that would have been a bit disappointing.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I'm going to have a satire day on Monday. For work I will be wearing a swastika on my head. I hope I don't offend anyone.

    #Je Suis Ahmed
    #Free Palestine
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    Good to see the lefty PC ***** think they're more intelligent than everyone else by arguing "they are not Charlie", by implication that everyone claiming they are is a moron and 'ignorant'.

    Only TSR eh. The place where criticism of feminism, Islam, Labour, multiculturalism, immigration and the EU is met with scorn by naive middle-class Guardian-reading 'lefties'.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joe01223)
    I'm going to have a satire day on Monday. For work I will be wearing a swastika on my head. I hope I don't offend anyone.

    #Je Suis Ahmed
    #Free Palestine
    #JeSuisAhmed? You would die to protect a publication like Charlie Hebdo? That is very admirable of you.

    #JeSuisCharlie

    #JeSuisAhmed
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mr Inquisitive)
    Two separate points as violence in this case -> death, but that's inconsequential. There is no causal link stemming from cartoons, is the answer. This violence stems from a clutch of hysterical people who follow the teachings of a totalitarian creed.



    But who's doing that? No one in the public domain that is mocking and satirising Islam has 'no intent other than damage'. It is a totalitarian and very real threat which must be resisted.



    Intolerance is perfectly virtuous. There's nothing wrong with refusing to tolerate certain things.



    It's *satire*. The people that take this religion seriously think it is the final religion, and that its teachings are absolute. The aim of such a creed is to monopolise education and shut down criticism. We cannot allow that to happen and must dutifully resist in every which way we can - which involves satirising their foolish idea of a prophet.



    Bold: good. If you don't want to affiliate yourself with the publications that's your prerogative. Odd, I'd say, but nonetheless your prerogative.
    The way I see it is if people choose to be muslims who am I to try and resist that? If that is for you what Hebdo's cartoons represent then, that considered I'm still not Charlie Hebdo.
    When I see Muslims actively threatening to infringe upon the freedoms that me living in a secular society brings in a general election I will take a stand. If people want to be Muslims that's their business, whether I disagree with them or not.

    Aside from that, it's clear that this thread isn't going to go anywhere if you're of the opinion that intolerance is "perfectly" virtuous, or that just the presence of Muslims is a threat so I'm done. I would like to say thank you for engaging with me though.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you rather give up salt or pepper?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.