Attack in Paris

[Flash Flyer - Sakura]

This is sooo sad! I WAS BORN IN PARIS! Whoever did this needs to let people have their freedom of speech! This sorta of reminds of the Sony hacks where Sony had to pull "The Interview" because of these attacks! This is kinda of the same thing! Hope things get better for my hometown!

 

We appreciate your opinions, but there really is no need for you to write in 24-point font for this.

Try to avoid using large fonts except when absolutely necessary, thanks.

 

On another note, it seems that the suspects were killed by authorities today; only one of their accomplices remains.

 

Hopefully things get better for Parisians in the coming days, yes.

[.Rai]

Yup, be careful with spam, guys. Sensitive topic and all.

I don't personally agree with Ali and CowCow's opinion. I'm not really Charlie Hebdo's audience, and it verges on crude for me, but satire isn't exactly hatred-spreading. To condemn Charlie Hebdo, but to ignore the vast, vast majority of columns, comic strips and comedians which do precisely that means that either you have put a line somewhere. It's incredibly difficult to determine that line, but I doubt Charlie Hebdo crosses it: it makes fun of politics far greater, and it would be a huge stretch to call their content Islamophobic, or something along those lines. If anything, it is a condemning of extremism rather than religion. I seriously, seriously doubt their satire is malicious. Controversial, sure, but satire towards anything kinda is.

[Tentacruel]

Yup, be careful with spam, guys. Sensitive topic and all.

I don't personally agree with Ali and CowCow's opinion. I'm not really Charlie Hebdo's audience, and it verges on crude for me, but satire isn't exactly hatred-spreading. To condemn Charlie Hebdo, but to ignore the vast, vast majority of columns, comic strips and comedians which do precisely that means that either you have put a line somewhere. It's incredibly difficult to determine that line, but I doubt Charlie Hebdo crosses it: it makes fun of politics far greater, and it would be a huge stretch to call their content Islamophobic, or something along those lines. If anything, it is a condemning of extremism rather than religion. I seriously, seriously doubt their satire is malicious. Controversial, sure, but satire towards anything kinda is.

I'd personally have to see the cartoons for myself.  Without seeing any we're really just making blind assumptions.  I would agree with you that it shouldn't be banned though.  That's not the answer.  

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

Yup, be careful with spam, guys. Sensitive topic and all.

I don't personally agree with Ali and CowCow's opinion. I'm not really Charlie Hebdo's audience, and it verges on crude for me, but satire isn't exactly hatred-spreading. To condemn Charlie Hebdo, but to ignore the vast, vast majority of columns, comic strips and comedians which do precisely that means that either you have put a line somewhere. It's incredibly difficult to determine that line, but I doubt Charlie Hebdo crosses it: it makes fun of politics far greater, and it would be a huge stretch to call their content Islamophobic, or something along those lines. If anything, it is a condemning of extremism rather than religion. I seriously, seriously doubt their satire is malicious. Controversial, sure, but satire towards anything kinda is.

A few things.

I never condemned him. Just it probably was a bad idea in the current state of things to continue with those comics.

And as you said "you have to put a line somewhere" Maybe not his, but there are obviously some that go too far.

But again. I am not saying he was malicious.

I never said that it should be banned (edit: at least, not every instance should be banned), but there does have to be a line somewhere. And know when is the right time to say some things.

Keep in mind that simply having a depiction of the prophet Mohammad is a serious serious deal for the religion. (Even more so than the "saying God's name in vain" thing) Let alone something seemingly mocking.

 

I've seen the comics but haven't read translated versions. (Google)

[.Rai]

I'd personally have to see the cartoons for myself. Without seeing any we're really just making blind assumptions. I would agree with you that it shouldn't be banned though. That's not the answer.

Their cartoons are ludicrously crude which is why even myself is struggling to come to a coherent conclusion here. http://gawker.com/what-is-charlie-hebdo-and-why-a-mostly-complete-histo-1677959168

The stance they have took is fairly clear though. Firstly, they're willing to mock pretty much anyone and anything, and they've made clear several times that it is fanaticism that they mock, not religion itself. I totally appreciate Ali's view, and I think it's both logical and a valid conclusion to come to, but, well, where to draw the line?

Edit: @CowCow: My issue with that viewpoint is that seeing a 'bad idea in the current state of things' is a rather odd one. One doesn't stop talking about an issue simply because there is turmoil about it. If anything, this is when the strongest viewpoints come out along with most people's fairly conservative ones.

[Madsen]

A lot of the issue lies in the fact that the perception of the comic, despite how it was probably meant, is going to have negative effects - and has had - on the French public. I'm generalizing, but the country is plagued by racism and Muslims get a hard time.

 

Charlie Hebdo itself just looks kinda bait-y. If you're mocking terrorists, it's definitely not quite right to picture the prophet and head figure of a religion getting sodomized.

 

I'm pretty much with Ali on this one, and actual insight is really useful here. Although I agree that the bombings are bat shit crazy and that all the debate over this is over no actual talking point, comes to no conclusion and just serves as a post count whoring topic because it's not simple enough to draw a line somewhere.

[.Rai]

I'd agree that the way Charlie Hebdo goes about satire is not the way I'd go about or indeed most people go about satire. And I equally agree that 'drawing a line' is just hugely oversimplified.

If consensus is reached that there's not much to conclude, I'm happy to lock the thread soon.

[~ P O L A R I S ~]

I don't personally agree with Ali and CowCow's opinion. I'm not really Charlie Hebdo's audience, and it verges on crude for me, but satire isn't exactly hatred-spreading.

 

Doesn't it have the potential to be though? Satire's a form of criticism, and criticism of a certain group such as in Mein Kampf for example, is certainly hatred-spreading. Charlie Hebdo's portrayals of Muhammad were not constructive. They were divisive, blasphemous, and I can't think of any intended to render its targets powerless. Perhaps the targets were extremists specifically, and not Muslims in general, but it's not as though much concern was given to Muslims in general who'd be caught in the crossfire. Perhaps the targets were extremists specifically, but weren't Charlie Hebdo's actions extremist? 

 

And now that Charlie Hebdo has been attacked, we have a division between the #JeSuisCharlie movement, such stanch advocates of freedom of expression that their motto is Voltaire's "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." which sounds awfully extreme to me, and others who hold that certain forms of expression that are harmful and can't be tolerated, some of whom are also willing to die for their cause. I stand with the latter group because I'm disturbed that phrases like "kill all Muslims" are gaining widespread popularity (it's trending on Twitter) and I see words as holding inherent power and that people who abuse that power to intentionally disparage others should be held accountable.

 

I don't condone the attacks by any means, but people should know not to disparage others with desperate forms of expression that have been known to provoke desperate retaliatory measures. Someone who calls someone a slut or whore with disparaging intent might get slapped and could very well deserve it. Someone who uses racial slurs with disparaging intent might get slapped and could deserve it. Charlie Hebdo didn't have to disrespect the prophet Muhammed, but they chose to go that route of desperate shock tactics and retaliatory desperate measures were taken. It's lamentable and I send my condolences to those who knew those who died on both sides. 

[Tentacruel]

The way I see it, outright banning expression of certain ideas, even harmful ones, is dangerous and should be avoided.   

 

I don't think things like Charlie Hebdo's cartoons should be banned or not allowed.

 

That being said, at a personal level, fuck 'em.  Asshats intentionally try to stir shit up (I honestly do not buy the "only extremists," notion) and innocent people, including one Muslim ironically enough, got caught in the crossfire.  I absolutely believe in freedom of expression.

 

I will use mine to say, no, I am not Charlie.  Fuck Charlie.  

 

 

That's pretty much all I have to say on the matter. 

[.Rai]

Doesn't it have the potential to be though? Satire's a form of criticism, and criticism of a certain group such as in Mein Kampf for example, is certainly hatred-spreading. Charlie Hebdo's portrayals of Muhammad were not constructive. They were divisive, blasphemous, and I can't think of any intended to render its targets powerless. Perhaps the targets were extremists specifically, and not Muslims in general, but it's not as though much concern was given to Muslims in general who'd be caught in the crossfire. Perhaps the targets were extremists specifically, but weren't Charlie Hebdo's actions extremist? 
 
And now that Charlie Hebdo has been attacked, we have a division between the #JeSuisCharlie movement, such stanch advocates of freedom of expression that their motto is Voltaire's "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." which sounds awfully extreme to me, and others who hold that certain forms of expression that are harmful and can't be tolerated, some of whom are also willing to die for their cause. I stand with the latter group because I'm disturbed that phrases like "kill all Muslims" are gaining widespread popularity (it's trending on Twitter) and I see words as holding inherent power and that people who abuse that power to intentionally disparage others should be held accountable.
 
I don't condone the attacks by any means, but people should know not to disparage others with desperate forms of expression that have been known to provoke desperate retaliatory measures. Someone who calls someone a slut or whore with disparaging intent might get slapped and could very well deserve it. Someone who uses racial slurs with disparaging intent might get slapped and could deserve it. Charlie Hebdo didn't have to disrespect the prophet Muhammed, but they chose to go that route of desperate shock tactics and retaliatory desperate measures were taken. It's lamentable and I send my condolences to those who knew those who died on both sides.

Good point. There's definitely dangerous potential here. The controversy the magazine has got obviously has some validity behind it, otherwise it wouldn't be getting it so consistently and overtly so. Were Charlie Hebdo's actions extremist? Definitely a discussion worth having. I'm leaning towards unnecessarily insensitive in this sort, rather than extremist, but I definitely agree that there were better ways to go about it. I think my ultimate viewpoint boils down to, what Charlie Hebdo did was insensitive, but I'm not willing to put blame on anyone or anything except extremism at the moment. I'll echo you in simply leaving it at this was a lamentable event (and I sincerely hope avoidable in the future) and respecting the lives lost and affected by it.

Edit: I thought this was appropriate to what you've touched upon, as well.

[Slinky]

More updates:

 

The female suspect was apparantly not even in the country at the time of the shootings (she left like a week ago), but she is still wanted for helping plan it supposedly? details are a little scarce on this, but she fled to Syria and their version of the FBI have been tracking her movements, so she should be in custody soon enough.

 

As for France, these acts have apparantly awaked various terror cells, and police have been warned to stay armed. Whether more attacks will happen or not, we don't know at this point.

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

Polaris, you're an odd one sometimes but there are times I think you really hit the nail on the head. This is one of those.

 

Also. As for banning of harmful ideas...hmm. Well put it this way. If making something would only serve to insult and/or anger a certain group who are not causing any issues (not the extremists, obviously, non-extremist Muslims...or any group) why have it be allowed? I don't think the mere concept of Freedom of Speech should be an argument for something. Which seems to be the case here.

[Tentacruel]

Polaris, you're an odd one sometimes but there are times I think you really hit the nail on the head. This is one of those.

 

Also. As for banning of harmful ideas...hmm. Well put it this way. If making something would only serve to insult and/or anger a certain group who are not causing any issues (not the extremists, obviously, non-extremist Muslims...or any group) why have it be allowed? I don't think the mere concept of Freedom of Speech should be an argument for something. Which seems to be the case here.

The mere concept of freedom of expression is the reason we defend religious rights so fervently in the first place.  

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

The mere concept of freedom of expression is the reason we defend religious rights so fervently in the first place.  

But that's the issue I think. Because if you're argument is just the idea of it....well that's no argument. Sure it might sound nice, but we're talking about real life here and not just a nice thought. Which is why I think it's important to look into it farther than "Well Freedom of Speech/Expression so...".

Religious rights is, I think, a practical application of the freedom.

[Tentacruel]

But that's the issue I think. Because if you're argument is just the idea of it....well that's no argument. Sure it might sound nice, but we're talking about real life here and not just a nice thought. Which is why I think it's important to look into it farther than "Well Freedom of Speech/Expression so...".

Religious rights is, I think, a practical application of the freedom.

You think.  I think that being able to say things that others might to take offense to is a very practical application of that freedom.

 

Look, if you only allow things that you're okay with anyway, that's not freedom at all.  That's just allowing things you like and banning things you don't.  

 

What if the two conflict?  Would you argue to forcibly change religious texts to remove offensive content?  

 

Why do you argue for equal rights?  It's because you find it obvious, self-evident.  I believe freedom of expression, the freedom to not have to hide or lie about what you think or believe is a human right that should not be infringed upon.  There is no other way to put it. 

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

You think.  I think that being able to say things that others might to take offense to is a very practical application of that freedom.

 

Look, if you only allow things that you're okay with anyway, that's not freedom at all.  That's just allowing things you like and banning things you don't.  

 

What if the two conflict?  Would you argue to forcibly change religious texts to remove offensive content?  

 

Why do you argue for equal rights?  It's because you find it obvious, self-evident.  I believe freedom of expression, the freedom to not have to hide or lie about what you think or believe is a human right that should not be infringed upon.  There is no other way to put it. 

I'm really getting fed up with this kind of argument, the first thing in particular.

Of COURSE I think. Who doesn't think the thing that is their opinion? Why do you think I said "I think" so often when giving my opinions.

 

There are plenty of things that are not allowed already because it was determined that they were bad. So. "that's not freedom at all" argument holds no weight.

[Spinny]

You think. I think that being able to say things that others might to take offense to is a very practical application of that freedom.

Look, if you only allow things that you're okay with anyway, that's not freedom at all. That's just allowing things you like and banning things you don't.

What if the two conflict? Would you argue to forcibly change religious texts to remove offensive content?

Why do you argue for equal rights? It's because you find it obvious, self-evident. I believe freedom of expression, the freedom to not have to hide or lie about what you think or believe is a human right that should not be infringed upon. There is no other way to put it.

Let's just walk up to people and tell them what idiots they are and be really horrible. That's your ideal world of freedom.... Nice. I'm all up for giving people criticism but the word tact is there for a reason.

[Tentacruel]

Let's just walk up to people and tell them what idiots they are and be really horrible. That's your ideal world of freedom.... Nice.
 

 

That's arguably harassment and a terrible example.  

 

I'm really getting fed up with this kind of argument, the first thing in particular.

Of COURSE I think. Who doesn't think the thing that is their opinion? Why do you think I said "I think" so often when giving my opinions.

 

There are plenty of things that are not allowed already because it was determined that they were bad. So. "that's not freedom at all" argument holds no weight.

A lot of people think that Islam is bad.  Let's fucking ban it.  

 

But whatever, if you keep saying how annoyed you are in every post, this obviously isn't going to go anywhere.

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

A lot of people think that Islam is bad.  Let's f***ing ban it.  

 

But whatever, if you keep saying how annoyed you are in every post, this obviously isn't going to go anywhere.

That's....you're not getting my point at all and seem to be upset. I said "There are plenty of things that are not allowed already because it was determined that they were bad."

I'm not saying ban everything that people say is bad. I'm saying banning things because they are bad is not a terrible thing.

 

And...keep...saying? I said it maybe a couple times. And no it won't go anywhere if you just go to extremes like this.

[Spinny]

That's arguably harassment and a terrible example.  
 

A lot of people think that Islam is bad.  Let's f***ing ban it.  
 
But whatever, if you keep saying how annoyed you are in every post, this obviously isn't going to go anywhere.

I don't see how its harassment or a bad example, your the one who said we should be able to say whatever we like, offensive or not remember.

[Tentacruel]

I don't see how its harassment or a bad example, your the one who said we should be able to say whatever we like, offensive or not remember.

Yes.  

 

You can express that you think someone is an idiot without approaching them and yelling at them.

 

The yelling-fire-in-a-crowded-theater is a perfect example.  Making that illegal is not restricting expression, it's preventing people from causing a stampede.  You're not keeping people from saying their viewpoint. 

 

Charly Hebdo regularly mocked religion in their cartoons, mine included.  I think they're a bunch of fucking assholes.  I do not, however, think that they should be restricted from saying bad things about religion.

 

On a random note, I would like to point out that, according to the US Constitution (which is irrelevant in this case since it's in France), freedom of speech doesn't cover things that are pornographic, so that's a thing.  

[Maeriberii Haan]

I'm just going to lock this right here, right now. Don't see anymore purposes for this.