|
Nilbop posted:I assumed you were arguing for a change in legislation because that's something that can be achieved. Charlie Hebdo voluntarily decided to publish things aimed to ridicule a faith though, so your point is moot. It's hardly moot; they can decide to lay off of Muslims and/or other oppressed minority groups any time they like. They've chosen not to up to this point, and I think that's unfortunate. quote:I and others have also pointed out numerous times now you are conflating religion, race and immigration. Are you willfully ignoring that or do you not see the reason to differentiate between the three? I understand the distinction between three things; what you don't seem to be understanding is that bigotry does not differentiate between those three things. As I've said multiple times, in the West, Islam has become a racialized religion, widely perceived as a faith for "non-white" people. As generic metric pointed out, abandoning practicing Islam and embracing secularism does not actually mean that the barriers toward assimilation get lowered.
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2020 22:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 01:56 |
|
|
Majorian posted:It's hardly moot; they can decide to lay off of Muslims and/or other oppressed minority groups any time they like. They've chosen not to up to this point, and I think that's unfortunate. They've already made the decision to post the images and both they, their readers, their publishers and their government has stood by their decision as the right thing to do. quote:I understand the distinction between three things; Then have the awareness to stop making the arguement that "This particular religion should receive special treatment because it's practiced by immigrants." That's a nonsense arguement. quote:what you don't seem to be understanding is that bigotry does not differentiate between those three things. As I've said multiple times, in the West, Islam has become a racialized religion, widely perceived as a faith for "non-white" people. And France has had anti-racism legislation in place for over a century. This legislation does not discriminate between whether you are an immigrant or not, nor what faith you follow.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2020 22:59
|
|
|
Majorian posted:
You are deliberately misreading my post, even though I helpfully bolded the crucial part. Of course I didn't absurdly imply you have control over police, I said you were following the spirit of an autocratic, nationalistic regime. You are saying "I don't approve of violence, but..." and then proceeding to blame the victim. As for the rest of your points, I'd prefer French posters chimed in. Is the Muslim population increasingly oppressed in France? Often victims of white supremacist violence? I honestly don't have that information.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2020 23:05
|
|
That's a bit of a stretch there. I'm not the French government; I don't have any control over extending or not extending police protection to an art exhibition or a satirical publication's offices. If I did have that control, I probably would have; these were oversights on the part of their respective governments. It doesn't change the fact that Charlie Hebdo punches downward on Muslims.
|
Nilbop posted:And France has had anti-racism legislation in place for over a century. This legislation does not discriminate between whether you are an immigrant or not, nor what faith you follow. Well, that must mean racism in France is a solved issue then
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2020 23:13
|
|
|
Doctor Malaver posted:You are deliberately misreading my post, even though I helpfully bolded the crucial part. Of course I didn't absurdly imply you have control over police, I said you were following the spirit of an autocratic, nationalistic regime. By...saying that Charlie Hebdo should elect not to publish things that are hurtful to an oppressed minority? I'm not sure you and I have the same definition of "authoritarian" or "nationalistic." quote:You are saying "I don't approve of violence, but..." and then proceeding to blame the victim. That's just flat-out false. quote:As for the rest of your points, I'd prefer French posters chimed in. Is the Muslim population increasingly oppressed in France? Often victims of white supremacist violence? I honestly don't have that information. It's a pretty well-documented thing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2020 23:37
|
|
|
No, I'm going to call you on that this time. Charlie Hebdo publishing an image of Mohammed is not "hurtful to oppressed minorities." It does them no damage, it does not unfairly prejudice them. It is uncomfortable for some of them, because they have come to a secular state where their religion, just as everyone else's, may be freely mocked. You're advocating to protect the emotional sensitivity of a portion of Muslims at the cost of the freedom of expression and of the press, and you seem to think that's a fair trade.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2020 00:01
|
|
|
Yeah you are not blaming the victim, you are just insinuating they deserved it for prodding the wrong hornets' nest one too many time.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2020 00:08
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Yeah you are not blaming the victim, you are just insinuating they deserved it for prodding the wrong hornets' nest one too many time. Saying "It is wrong to punch down on a marginalized group of people" is not the same as "They deserved to be killed for this"; you're conflating a discussion on the bigger issues of race and immigration in France with blame for Charlie Hebdo - Majorian has not put any blame on Charlie Hebdo thus far. What would your opinion on the cartoons be had the attacks on Charlie Hebdo never occurred? I'll hazard a guess most people on this board would call it out as an out-of-touch punching down on a stigmatized group of people in that country and Europe in general. As for the other issue of "they were satirizing the religion, not the people", that argument falls flat when that religion is associated with a very specific group of people, especially in that country. Nilbop posted:French Muslims are protected under the law just the same as French Christians, French Hindus, French Satanists and French Mormons. It is not the obligation of the French state to change their laws to make the followers of one religion more welcome or protected than any other. That is the wrong thing to do. I have no words for this. Wow.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2020 00:21
|
|
|
Ham posted:Saying "It is wrong to punch down on a marginalized group of people" is not the same as "They deserved to be killed for this"; you're conflating a discussion on the bigger issues of race and immigration in France with blame for Charlie Hebdo - Majorian has not put any blame on Charlie Hebdo thus far. Majorian has explicitly stated that "one time was too many" in publishing the image of Mohammed. quote:I have no words for this. Wow. Treating all religions as equal before the law is foreign to you, I see?
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2020 00:29
|
|
|
Nilbop posted:Majorian has explicitly stated that "one time was too many" in publishing the image of Mohammed. A one time racist publication is too many racist publications? How does saying that justify violence against the publisher? Nilbop posted:Treating all religions as equal before the law is foreign to you, I see? No, but dealing with this level of naivete is. You responded with that law quote to Majorian's following: quote:All right, try, "Making the French Muslim population feel increasingly unwelcome in France." If the law says there's no bigotry, that must mean there's no bigotry. Indeed.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2020 00:36
|
|
|
Ham posted:A one time racist publication is too many racist publications? How does saying that justify violence against the publisher? This is surely bad satire? quote:No, but dealing with this level of naivete is. You responded with that law quote to Majorian's following: I'm not sure how you get "if the law says there's no bigotry then there's no bigotry" from "It is not the obligation of the French state to prejudice one religion above another."
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2020 00:41
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Yeah you are not blaming the victim, you are just insinuating they deserved it for prodding the wrong hornets' nest one too many time. Nope. Islamist extremism is terrible, violence is never justified unless it's directly and clearly defensive, Charlie Hebdo's staff did not deserve to be killed or hurt for exercising their freedom of speech, and no laws should be passed to limit their free speech. Also, while what Charlie Hebdo prints in no ways warrants violent responses or legal action, it's sometimes pretty racist or xenophobic, and I think they shouldn't print that. Nilbop posted:No, I'm going to call you on that this time. I get that you think that, and so does Charlie Hebdo, but French Muslims don't agree. They feel it's dehumanizing to them, and that it's targeted to make them feel unwelcome in France. In a society that supposedly values inclusivity, that seems like something you'd want to avoid. quote:You're advocating to protect the emotional sensitivity of a portion of Muslims at the cost of the freedom of expression and of the press, and you seem to think that's a fair trade. I'm highlighting the fact that the staff of Charlie Hebdo has agency, and can choose not to punch downward at an oppressed minority. Majorian fucked around with this message at 00:51 on Oct 30, 2020 |
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2020 00:45
|
|
|
Nilbop posted:This is surely bad satire? What do you find satirical about it exactly? If you criticize a racist punching down dogwhistle segment from Tucker Carlson, is that to be considered as a call for violence against him or Fox News headquarters? Nilbop posted:I'm not sure how you get "if the law says there's no bigotry then there's no bigotry" from "It is not the obligation of the French state to prejudice one religion above another." Majorian is almost exclusively talking about how a French publication publishing bigoted imagery meant to punch down on a stigmatized minority is wrong, even if it is their full right to do so. You chose to follow that with multiple appeals to French law "protecting everyone regardless of religion" when no one in this thread was making any appeal to French law in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2020 00:52
|
|
|
Majorian posted:I get that you think that, and so does Charlie Hebdo, but French Muslims don't agree. They feel it's dehumanizing to them, and targeted to make them feel unwelcome in France. You are describing purely emotional damage, which is a) not shared equally by all members of the group you are referring to and b) not what people generally refer to when they say "this action is harming oppressed minorities." quote:In a society that supposedly values inclusivity, that seems like something you'd want to avoid. This is such a dishonest comment I barely know where to start. Entering a secular society means that you leave your protective theocratic bubble behind. Immigrants are made welcome with aid and paths to citizenship, equality before the law and equal opportunities to providing for themselves and their families. It doesn't mean they get to stop everyone from criticizing their belief system.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2020 00:55
|
|
|
Majorian posted:By...saying that Charlie Hebdo should elect not to publish things that are hurtful to an oppressed minority? I'm not sure you and I have the same definition of "authoritarian" or "nationalistic." The Serbian regime is authoritarian and nationalistic. They reacted to an attack on art in authoritarian, nationalistic manner. Your reaction to another attack on art is a carbon copy of theirs, even though you had different motives (obviously, since you're an American individual and not a government of a European country). I believe most other posters got my point even though you insist on misunderstanding it. quote:That's just flat-out false. You didn't explicitly blame the victim but you implied they deserved it. The topic was killings provoked by cartoons and you joined by saying that they had been punching down and being dicks. That was the entirety of your post, nothing more, nothing less. What was your point if not to hint that they got what they were asking for? Otherwise, why bring it up? Thanks for the link.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2020 00:58
|
|
|
Ham posted:What do you find satirical about it exactly? The fact that you attacked the victim then asked how that was victim blaming? quote:Majorian is almost exclusively talking about how a French publication publishing bigoted imagery meant to punch down on a stigmatized minority is wrong, even if it is their full right to do so. Majorian stated he didn't think Charlie Hebdo should have published the image at all. He then repeated that he thinks they should never have posted it, and that they should stop posting articles and images that upset Muslims. You can attack Charlie Hebdo all you want - as they attack everybody - but unless you can prove that they don't attack everybody equally, then you're wrong when you call them racist or bigoted. quote:You chose to follow that with multiple appeals to French law "protecting everyone regardless of religion" when no one in this thread was making any appeal to French law in the first place. I chose to follow that with quite a lot. Quote me if you have a problem, rather than paraphrasing me for the sake of personal attacks because you disagree with me.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2020 01:01
|
|
|
Nilbop posted:The fact that you attacked the victim then asked how that was victim blaming? Saying that the publication of this images is part of the institutional bigotry in French society is in no way a justification of the terrorist attack. You have been misrepresenting that position for several pages now. Nilbop posted:I chose to follow that with quite a lot. Quote me if you have a problem, rather than paraphrasing me for the sake of personal attacks because you disagree with me. I already have quoted your exact words, and saying you're being naive isn't really a personal attack. Grow a thicker skin.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2020 01:09
|
|
|
Doctor Malaver posted:The Serbian regime is authoritarian and nationalistic. They reacted to an attack on art in authoritarian, nationalistic manner. Your reaction to another attack on art is a carbon copy of theirs, even though you had different motives (obviously, since you're an American individual and not a government of a European country). I believe most other posters got my point even though you insist on misunderstanding it. I never said that Charlie Hebdo's work is "degenerate" or the product of "sick minds," and the Serbian government's statement is grotesque because it's a lame justification for their failure to protect the art exhibit. Your attempt to compare me to them is weak. quote:You didn't explicitly blame the victim but you implied they deserved it. The topic was killings provoked by cartoons and you joined by saying that they had been punching down and being dicks. That was the entirety of your post, nothing more, nothing less. What was your point if not to hint that they got what they were asking for? Otherwise, why bring it up? My point was that institutionalized bigotry against Muslims in France is part of why this tension exists in the first place. Charlie Hebdo's dehumanizing and otherizing of French Muslims isn't helpful. It's punching downward at a marginalized, oppressed minority. That doesn't mean they deserve to be killed or injured or sued or jailed or anything. It means they have agency, and they should maybe choose not to publish bigoted material if they want to stop being part of the problem. Majorian fucked around with this message at 01:17 on Oct 30, 2020 |
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2020 01:14
|
|
|
Ham posted:Saying that the publication of this images is part of the institutional bigotry in French society is in no way a justification of the terrorist attack. You have been misrepresenting that position for several pages now. You called them a racist publication publishing bigoted material. You're aware you don't have to say the words "I blame the victim" to be guilty of victim blaming? quote:I already have quoted your exact words, and saying you're being naive isn't really a personal attack. Grow a thicker skin. You didn't, which is why I invited you to.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2020 01:16
|
|
|
Nilbop posted:You called them a racist publication publishing bigoted material. You're aware you don't have to say the words "I blame the victim" to be guilty of victim blaming? Explain how calling out their racism and xenophobia amounts to victim-blaming, please. I clearly am just not getting it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2020 01:18
|
|
|
Nilbop posted:You called them a racist publication publishing bigoted material. You're aware you don't have to say the words "I blame the victim" to be guilty of victim blaming? I said they published bigoted material yes, not that they're a "racist publication", whatever that means. That doesn't mean I blame them for the attack or think they deserve it or whatever the hell you're trying to infer instead of reading what we're actually posting.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2020 01:25
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Explain how calling out their racism and xenophobia amounts to victim-blaming, please. I clearly am just not getting it. Charlie Hebdo, like South Park, go after everybody they deem worthy of mockery or ridicule. They're not racist or xenophobic, unless they're racist and xenophobic against every race on earth, including the white one. If they were racist as you and Ham argue, they'd only go after Muslims, or Africans, or X, Y, Z. When I pressed you earlier you didn't even know if they'd ever printed an article about Mohammed in their 40 year history. Yet when they the victim of religious extremists, suddenly their work is racist and xenophobic. The obvious through line to that thinking is: because that excuses the attack.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2020 01:29
|
|
|
Ham posted:I said they published bigoted material yes, not that they're a "racist publication", You, a few posts up: quote:A one time racist publication is too many racist publications? . quote:whatever that means. It means a publication which you think is racist, Ham.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2020 01:32
|
|
|
Nilbop posted:Charlie Hebdo, like South Park, go after everybody they deem worthy of mockery or ridicule. They're not racist or xenophobic, unless they're racist and xenophobic against every race on earth, including the white one. But as I've pointed out to you, not every race or ethnicity or religion on Earth has the same status in society. There's an imbalance in a lot of places, and France is definitely one of those places. Muslims in France are an oppressed minority that are constantly bombarded with xenophobia. Comparing it to "South Park" really isn't helping your case - that show sometimes crosses the line into outright racism or xenophobia or transphobia, and I say that as a fan. If, God forbid, and totally as an example, there was an attack on their studios in response to one of their more transphobic episodes, I'd condemn the attacks completely. But it wouldn't change my opinion that the transphobic episodes they've done were really lovely and I wish they hadn't done them. quote:If they were racist as you and Ham argue, they'd only go after Muslims, or Africans, or X, Y, Z. When I pressed you earlier you didn't even know if they'd ever printed an article about Mohammed in their 40 year history. I said that I didn't know what the number of times they've depicted Mohammed is; I know they've done it before, because I've seen it. quote:Yet when they the victim of religious extremists, suddenly their work is racist and xenophobic. What? No, their racist/xenophobic work is racist/xenophobic regardless of whether or not they've been attacked. Nilbop posted:You, a few posts up: He meant a racist edition of their publication. He wasn't calling their entire publishing history racist.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2020 01:36
|
|
|
Nilbop posted:You, a few posts up: I am obviously referring to the time they published those specific cartoons, not to the magazine as a whole. Here's the definition:  At least you're learning a whole bunch of new things on the internet today!
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2020 01:37
|
|
|
Majorian posted:But as I've pointed out to you, not every race or ethnicity or religion on Earth has the same status in society. That hardly matters when the publisher treats them as equal, does it? You're asking a regional newspaper which treats everything as fair game to treat one particular group as special (a group which is farcically broad and differentiated to the point where you're conflating French families from the 18th century and Algerian migrants post 1960s with Syrian refugees in the mid-2010s).
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2020 01:46
|
|
|
Nilbop posted:That hardly matters when the publisher treats them as equal, does it? It absolutely does if it's an oppressed minority in that country, and the publication is helping to further marginalize that group. quote:You're asking a regional newspaper which treats everything as fair game to treat one particular group as special I'm actually asking for them to not punch down at all marginalized groups in France (and anywhere). They should probably stop publishing racist depictions of black people, for example. "We treat everyone as equals by making fun of them" is a lame excuse.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2020 01:51
|
|
|
Majorian posted:It absolutely does if it's an oppressed minority in that country, and the publication is helping to further marginalize that group. But it's not. It's going after everyone, and only very rarely targets Islam. quote:I'm actually asking for them to not punch down at all marginalized groups in France (and anywhere). They should probably stop publishing racist depictions of black people, for example. "We treat everyone as equals by making fun of them" is a lame excuse. It's not an excuse, it's their legitimate operating process.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2020 01:54
|
|
|
Nilbop posted:But it's not. It's going after everyone, and only very rarely targets Islam. That's like saying, "Oh, our publication only OCCASIONALLY publishes racist depictions of black people, and we go after everyone! So it's totally okay!" It's a lame excuse.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2020 01:58
|
|
|
not big on the 'making fun of islam is inherently racist' stance ngl
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2020 02:01
|
|
|
Majorian posted:That's like saying, "Oh, our publication only OCCASIONALLY publishes racist depictions of black people, and we go after everyone! So it's totally okay!" It's a lame excuse. I'm really not sure I'd conflate these two at all.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2020 02:02
|
|
|
Majorian posted:I'm actually asking for them to not punch down at all marginalized groups in France (and anywhere). They should probably stop publishing racist depictions of black people, for example. "We treat everyone as equals by making fun of them" is a lame excuse. Is it incorrect for me to think they're not punching down? In terms of a society wide hegemony against a weaker, more marginalized group, sure. But a magazine who has been targeted multiple times and their staff killed? If I put myself in the shoes of one of their writers who is looking over their shoulder every day, they've lost more battles than they've won. I don't know, maybe it's a bad opinion.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2020 02:04
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:not big on the 'making fun of islam is inherently racist' stance ngl It isn't inherently racist to criticize Islam. It becomes racist in the context of a French magazine doing it, in a country with a significant minority of its citizens that suffer from institutional bigotry due to how they look, sound or what religion they follow, since the concepts of "race" and religion are married in that case.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2020 02:14
|
|
|
thehandtruck posted:Is it incorrect for me to think they're not punching down? In terms of a society wide hegemony against a weaker, more marginalized group, sure. But a magazine who has been targeted multiple times and their staff killed? If I put myself in the shoes of one of their writers who is looking over their shoulder every day, they've lost more battles than they've won. I don't know, maybe it's a bad opinion. Nah, it's not a bad opinion, IMO - it's just an extremely complicated situation. On the one hand, Charlie Hebdo's staff has suffered in a direct, viscerally awful way; their staff got attacked and murdered by violent extremists. There's no denying that that was a terrible injustice, and there was no justification for it. On the other hand, some of their work does reinforce the xenophobia that afflicts the French Muslim population. That demographic is not the same as the extremists who attacked Charlie Hebdo, but those extremists did grow out of that demographic. They became radicalized partially in response to the xenophobia and structural inequalities they had suffered since birth. Unfortunately, poo poo like this is going to keep happening until someone breaks the cycle. It's not all on Charlie Hebdo to break the cycle, and ceasing publishing xenophobic things about Muslims isn't going to solve French Islamophobia overnight. But their Islamophobic work doesn't seem to be helping defuse the situation, either.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2020 02:24
|
|
|
How can I be called a racist if I hate every race
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2020 03:03
|
|
|
Nilbop posted:Charlie Hebdo, like South Park, go after everybody they deem worthy of mockery or ridicule. They're not racist or xenophobic, unless they're racist and xenophobic against every race on earth, including the white one. If they were racist as you and Ham argue, they'd only go after Muslims, or Africans, or X, Y, Z. This is very silly. It's possible to make fun of everyone but still make fun of certain people in targeted ways (some of which may be bigoted). Do you really think South Park hasn't had issues with this just because they also call seth macfarlane a manatee or w/e?
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2020 03:13
|
|
|
yikes! posted:This is very silly. It's possible to make fun of everyone but still make fun of certain people in targeted ways (some of which may be bigoted). Do you really think South Park hasn't had issues with this just because they also call seth macfarlane a manatee or w/e? For me it's like, CH made fun of Jews, Christians, and Muslims through caricature right? So if you don't think the way they made fun of Muslims was okay, do you think there is another way they could make fun of them that is acceptable?
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2020 03:34
|
|
|
Ham posted:It isn't inherently racist to criticize Islam. It becomes racist in the context of a French magazine doing it, in a country with a significant minority of its citizens that suffer from institutional bigotry due to how they look, sound or what religion they follow, since the concepts of "race" and religion are married in that case. the problem then arises as to how one may reasonably criticise islam from a majority european perspective. this is pertinent because islam is an organised and fairly patriarchal religion with a bunch of moral assertions with which i don't agree, and as it is a present and increasing factor in my society it's something i think it's occasionally necessary to say
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2020 04:12
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:the problem then arises as to how one may reasonably criticise islam from a majority european perspective. this is pertinent because islam is an organised and fairly patriarchal religion with a bunch of moral assertions with which i don't agree, and as it is a present and increasing factor in my society it's something i think it's occasionally necessary to say I mean, it seems like it's possible to criticize those things without going for the jugular, though. One can criticize the Christian Right without portraying Jesus as a fraud or a drunk or whatever, and one can criticize Islamists or misogyny in the name of Islam without being dickish towards oppressed Muslims in France. That's part of the problem with Charlie Hebdo IMO - I would be more forgiving if their work was funny, but let's face it, that poo poo's just lazy.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2020 04:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 01:56 |
|
|
but then it's not the criticism you're worried about it's the vulgarity which makes you pretty much exactly the sort of person CH has been targetting since 1970
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2020 04:29
|
|