Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

Why I'm not Charlie and never will be watch

Announcements
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by plasmaman)
    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?
    I can respect racist people because I believe they are only misguided human beings, AND refuse the idea of them taking over the #JeSuisCharlie movement. Your point might be valid, but it holds no causal link and just highlights two unrelated statements.

    And on your point about racism and freedom of expression, I'm going to quote something I said a few posts ago (sorry for the pomposity):

    "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."

    The intent is what matters most.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mr Inquisitive)
    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.
    Yes but at the same time, you shouldn't suggest for somebody to stop believing in what they believe in just because other people mock them for it. It's not a reasonable solution. You don't stop doing something because you're being mocked for it. The blame lies on those who are mock.
    I'll show you what i mean with two examples.

    the KKK killed black people because of the KKK's beliefs.
    The terrorists killed those in the attack because of their beliefs.

    The KKK are Christian. However, Christians are not mocked and judged for the KKK's actions because it would be absurd to judge an entire religion by extremists.

    The terrorists are Muslim. Muslims are mocked and judged by the terrorist's actions.

    Why should the Muslims stop believing in Islam because other people think it's wrong from what they have seen in the media with the terrorists?

    Shouldn't people stop mocking muslims instead of muslims stopping being muslims because people mock them?

    The analogy wasn't so great and i forgot my point after a while lol but it's late.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by generic_man)
    #JeSuisAhmed? You would die to protect a publication like Charlie Hebdo? That is very admirable of you.

    #JeSuisCharlie

    #JeSuisAhmed
    Rather not protect a low life who gets a hard on when drawing stupid cartoons.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by IdeasForLife)
    I'd just ban something like that tbh, there is no need for it. I guess my perception of what people should be allowed to say or not differs from yours

    Whoevers the side getting mocked in these situations, hindus, sikhs, jews w/e, I'll speak up for them.
    Well I guess that's where we'll have to agree to disagree
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Surrey Bubble15)
    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'.
    Then you would probably be interested in knowing that I am left-wing and so is Charlie Hebdo?

    Oh, and also, it's about criticising fundamentalism, not Islam - but subtlety doesn't seem to be your strongest suit.

    If you've got nothing of interest to contribute to this debate, we don't need you and your randomly generated keywords bashing 'lefties'. One of the most important aspects of #JeSuisCharlie is that the movement doesn't care about political affiliations - that is, except for racism and fundamentalism.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I am not charlie. I do not get hard on when drawing pictures insulting other religions and people.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    Not sure, if anyone has pointed it out yet but I've noticed a few people referring to Charlie Hebdo as a person. Just wanted to clarify that Charlie is a reference to Charles de Gaulle and Hebdo is short for hebdomadaire which is French for a weekly newspaper.
    Sorry, for the mini French lesson, I just thought it was worth pointing out.
    Offline

    1
    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

    I don't think you've understood what 'satire' really means.

    Edit: sorry generic_man, didn't mean to quote you.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HeavyTeddy)
    Charlie Hebdo was a disgusting human being, to put it mildly
    Charlie Hebdo is not a real person lol just the name of the newspaper
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by generic_man)
    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.
    I think that once we identify with the cause, we also believe that the views of the victims must align with our own, which I think is misguided.

    On another note, some brilliant cartoons have been produced in response to this tragedy. I am particularly partial to this one

    Spoiler:
    Show

    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gaiaphage)
    I agree, Charlie's actions are completely inhuman! It's almost as if he's not even a human at all! Oh wait...
    lol you got there first
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joe01223)
    Rather not protect a low life who gets a hard on when drawing stupid cartoons.
    But that's what Ahmed did, and he's a hero for it.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    If only the dead Palestinian children got this much worldwide attention.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Opiece)
    I don't think you've understood what 'satire' really means.

    Edit: sorry generic_man, didn't mean to quote you.
    Ha, that's OK. Good response.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lady Comstock)
    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. 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?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.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.
    All of this seems irrelevant to the original topic of why "I am not Charlie Hebdo" and your subsequent arguments are Straw man. Where did I say that the Quran shouldn't be criticised?

    I'm not "basically saying" we should "pussyfoot" around criticizing Islam, I said I don't like the way that Hebdo chooses to do so. Our differing interpretations have nothing to do with the topic of conversation or the thread between me and the other user.

    The only thing I agree with is the part about passion, but showing your passion about a topic does nothing but for yourself or anybody impressionable enough to let the way you give your opinion outshine the opinion itself. Which although is a good thing is again IMO irrelevant to the original thread.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Opiece)
    I don't think you've understood what 'satire' really means.

    Edit: sorry generic_man, didn't mean to quote you.
    According to Charlie Hebdo satire involved insulting other people's religions.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mr Inquisitive)
    How is it remotely hypocritical to preach freedom of expression in a country that limits freedom of expression? It's absolutely *imperative* to do so.
    When that freedom of speech is used to isolate Muslims in that community, limiting their freedom of expression. Charlie Hebdo was by no means preaching freedom of speech, it was mocking the beliefs of those who were already limited in their expression. Mockery on the grounds of race/belief is considered wilful discrimination. In a society where such controversial images are well received despite breaching a basic human right in equality, the defence is freedom of speech, though it is that very freedom of speech that has caused such an atrocity to take place.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by xylas)
    Charlie Hebdo is not a real person lol just the name of the newspaper
    I realise that now...Went full retarded lol apologies.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Asurat)
    All of this seems irrelevant to the original topic of why "I am not Charlie Hebdo" and your subsequent arguments are Straw man. Where did I say that the Quran shouldn't be criticised?
    Understand the term "straw man" before you utilise it. I said that's where your logic extends to, which is a reasonable argument to make.

    I'm not "basically saying" we should "pussyfoot" around criticizing Islam, I said I don't like the way that Hebdo chooses to do so. Our differing interpretations have nothing to do with the topic of conversation or the thread between me and the other user.
    It is entirely relevant to the topic. The root of the OP is the concept of subjective offence, which our debate relates to.

    The only thing I agree with is the part about passion, but showing your passion about a topic does nothing but for yourself or anybody impressionable enough to let the way you give your opinion outshine the opinion itself. Which although is a good thing is again IMO irrelevant to the original thread.
    See above.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Muaaz98)
    When that freedom of speech is used to isolate Muslims in that community, limiting their freedom of expression. Charlie Hebdo was by no means preaching freedom of speech, it was mocking the beliefs of those who were already limited in their expression. Mockery on the grounds of race/belief is considered wilful discrimination. In a society where such controversial images are well received despite breaching a basic human right in equality, the defence is freedom of speech, though it is that very freedom of speech that has caused such an atrocity to take place.
    Limited in their expression in what way?

    Also the bold is nonsense
 
 
 
Poll
Do you like carrot cake?
Useful resources

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.