Gunmen Kill 12 at Office of French Satirical Magazine "Charlie Hebdo"

[Arundel Armor Hunter]

I see a lot of praise for Charlie Hedbo for spreading its attacks in all directions, but that just seems unfocused to me. When you punch in all directions you end up punching down a lot, making fun of people who are already oppressed or troubled. I don't think good satire punches down, it's easy to pick on the weak. I think it challenges the privileged and the powerful.

Clearly comedy should have strict rules with 0 spontaniety. Also wouldn't the punching down help muslims take their religion less seriously long term, therefore help women? Would you have a problem making fun of a sect based in rural Kentucky who incorporates the burqa into Chritianity. The majority of the members are very poor.

[Jeff Brady]

Clearly comedy should have strict rules with 0 spontaniety. Also wouldn't the punching down help muslims take their religion less seriously long term, therefore help women? Would you have a problem making fun of a sect based in rural Kentucky who incorporates the burqa into Chritianity. The majority of the members are very poor.

There's a difference between mocking a religion, and mocking its followers.

You are trying to defend assholic behavior without a clear understanding why people are against it in the first place.

[lancerman]

I see a lot of praise for Charlie Hedbo for spreading its attacks in all directions, but that just seems unfocused to me. When you punch in all directions you end up punching down a lot, making fun of people who are already oppressed or troubled. I don't think good satire punches down, it's easy to pick on the weak. I think it challenges the privileged and the powerful.

Gonna be honest, the idea that they are bullies is kind of silly. They are a political satire magazine no different than the ones in America. Worst case scenario is that they push the edge of being provocative. But some people here are acting like are going around and literally bullying instead of criticizing the politics of certain groups.

[Mister Mets]

It's been talked about on here quite a bit, which was why your post surprised, disappointed and upset me even more than usual.

"Inherently flawed" and "inherently bad" are two different things. So either you misspoke at first, or you are moving the goal posts.

As was pointed out before on this thread, communism is much like religion in so far at the intentions behind it are good (making it "inherently good") while the practical applications are usually disastrous (making both "inherently flawed).

I was responding to someone who said it was inherently bad. I agree with that, although I'm not thinking about bad in the moral sense of the word.

Latest issue to have print run of 5 million, a small increase from the sales of 30,000-60,000 before the attack.

But if we're talking about Communism, it is by no means inherently evil, it just requires a class of unelected, unaccountable politicians to run the country, which tends not to produce good results and is very contradictory. So, not evil, just impracticable.

Mike Pesca had a great point on his podcast. Some publisher should announce English translations of select issues of Charlie Hebdo.

Perhaps with a page of annotations to explain some of the references.

Like comedians some of the offenders have brands and schticks. If overall everyone gets mocked it could only be a healthy thing.



Besides Howard Dean i never saw a recent democrat standing up for ''white trash''. Poor whites are an easy target in Hollywood and i don't see the left whining about that.

Jim Webb has been arguing about the problems of the Scots Irish. His passion on the topic is likely one reason he's running for President.

[LoneNecromancer]

I see a lot of praise for Charlie Hedbo for spreading its attacks in all directions, but that just seems unfocused to me. When you punch in all directions you end up punching down a lot, making fun of people who are already oppressed or troubled. I don't think good satire punches down, it's easy to pick on the weak. I think it challenges the privileged and the powerful.

Again, I've seen a lot of people say this without explaining how this applies to them. They've targeted Islamic extremists and French racists and xenophobes, whilst being supportive of immigrants, illegal aliens and doing their bit to highlight the problems minorities undergo. How is this punching down or picking on the weak?

[Attila Kiss]

Growing up as a Catholic and attending Church, (Sunday Mass), I was looking forward to every first Sunday of the month, because at the door, leaving the Church there was always a new issue of a pamphlet called "Faith". Didn't care much of it's serious content, but first thing I checked out was the back page dedicated to cartoons, caricatures and strips. The page title was "Even God has to laugh... sometimes (or; From Time To Time)" It made equally fun of Catholic priests, nuns and even God. Never in a rude fashion, nor would it ridicule any other religion. As mild as it was, few times even my consciousness of a child was curious if the particular joke passed the border of acceptable? When I asked the priest if it was OK to laugh at some of those jokes, he replied: God gave us free will to live our life within the commandments, but he also wants us to be happy... and you can't be happy without laughing. However, those who can't laugh at themselves have no right to laugh at the others.

I can't say that I find all the Charlie Hebdo caricatures and attempts at humor; success, since some of them make no sense to me or cross the line of good taste, but no one should go on a killing spree because of that.

That being said, nice to see the satirical Magazine (or comic book as it was labeled in few reports), outsold Star Wars #1.
Just shows you that there is God.

[Shawn Hopkins]

Clearly comedy should have strict rules with 0 spontaniety. Also wouldn't the punching down help muslims take their religion less seriously long term, therefore help women? Would you have a problem making fun of a sect based in rural Kentucky who incorporates the burqa into Chritianity. The majority of the members are very poor.

I am in fact from rural Kentucky, so I can tell you I'm quite familiar with cruel jokes and stereotypes aimed at the poor, weak and ignorant. In rural Kentucky we do have sects similar to your hypothetical, Old Regular Baptists and Mennonites who have strict dress codes for men and women. Yeah, I'd think making fun of the women who grew up with those dress codes as a normal part of their experience and don't know any other way would be a low blow.

[Arundel Armor Hunter]

I am in fact from rural Kentucky, so I can tell you I'm quite familiar with cruel jokes and stereotypes aimed at the poor, weak and ignorant. In rural Kentucky we do have sects similar to your hypothetical, Old Regular Baptists and Mennonites who have strict dress codes for men and women. Yeah, I'd think making fun of the women who grew up with those dress codes as a normal part of their experience and don't know any other way would be a low blow.

Low blow taht results in what? What negative consequences?

There's a difference between mocking a religion, and mocking its followers.

You are trying to defend assholic behavior without a clear understanding why people are against it in the first place.

You have a problem with Christians being mocked for not believing in evolution?

[Shawn Hopkins]

Low blow taht results in what? What negative consequences?

Perpetuating a culture of xenophobia, where people with differences are seen as "the other" or even the enemy. That's exactly how Muslims and immigrants are seen by many in France, and Hebdo's negative depictions only stirred that pot. I get that at times, like with the Boko Haram sex slaves/welfare queens cover, they were saying "this is the way bigots see them," but the "ironic" racism is still harmful if it's a constant and overwhelmingly negative presence.

Basically, attacking everyone equally would be great if everyone was equal. But of course if people are in more vulnerable positions, they're harmed more than people in positions of power.

And also, attacking the weak isn't going to effect any kind of change, so it's a waste of energy that could be spent on the powerful. As a reporter, I always held to that old saw that my business was to "comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable."

[Jeff Brady]

You have a problem with Christians being mocked for not believing in evolution?

It's not their religion that prevents them from believing it. It's their unsupportable interpretation of the scripture.

[George Caltsoudas]

It's not a tough call, individuals are individuals. If they're strictly taking on individuals- fine go for it but often the comedy I see and commentary I see is about Muslims in general not terrorists specifically, or how women are, or how those blacks are. Which is different than "Cosby's a rapist" and "OJ did it".

Yes they have the right to free speech no matter what they say and as I understand it, Charlie Hebdo's cartoons in context are different than they seem out of context.

I'm just pointing out comedy is not always equal in all targets if it's too broad and yes "comedy" or "just jokes" can be hurtful.

Except it's not simply comedy or just jokes, it's satire. In other words it's a review (αναθεώρηση) of events or actions in the news. If an individual has done something bad, you mock that individual's actions. If a group, small or large, have done something bad, you mock the group's actions. Whereas hate speech is to mock or inject disdain for an individual or group of individuals for simply being who they genetically are and for any customs they have that do not HARM others or themselves. I think good ideas that don't cause any harm to anyone don't deserve to be ridiculed but bad ideas deserve to be challenged whether in a serious or comedic way.

[George Caltsoudas]

Basically, attacking everyone equally would be great if everyone was equal. But of course if people are in more vulnerable positions, they're harmed more than people in positions of power.

And also, attacking the weak isn't going to effect any kind of change, so it's a waste of energy that could be spent on the powerful. As a reporter, I always held to that old saw that my business was to "comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable."

True, but one must acknowledge that it's also ignorant and racially insensitive to insinuate that all people who aren't white are poor, helpless, vulnerable, afflicted, and oppressed.
It's no coincidence that even the President of the United States has stories about how he gets mistaken for 'the help'. In a way, to refrain from any commentary or satire of the nuances of how jihadi terrorists use the prophet's name in vein can also be perceived as not acknowledging any distinction between those terrorists and the rest of the entire Muslim community.

[7thangel]

this was trending

[Arundel Armor Hunter]

Perpetuating a culture of xenophobia, where people with differences are seen as "the other" or even the enemy. That's exactly how Muslims and immigrants are seen by many in France, and Hebdo's negative depictions only stirred that pot. I get that at times, like with the Boko Haram sex slaves/welfare queens cover, they were saying "this is the way bigots see them," but the "ironic" racism is still harmful if it's a constant and overwhelmingly negative presence.

Basically, attacking everyone equally would be great if everyone was equal. But of course if people are in more vulnerable positions, they're harmed more than people in positions of power.

where people with differences are seen as "the other" or even the enemy. That's exactly how Muslims and immigrants are seen by many in France

They have different values and attitudes in a lot of cases. Are they supposed to see them the same as native french?

And also, attacking the weak isn't going to effect any kind of change, so it's a waste of energy that could be spent on the powerful. As a reporter, I always held to that old saw that my business was to "comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable."

People will moch the other no matter what, it even happens in some small fanbases.

It's not their religion that prevents them from believing it. It's their unsupportable interpretation of the scripture.

And religion as an organisation says some things cannot be questioned, so in a way it does prevent it.

this was trending

Ahmed could not mock wahabites in Saudi Arabia, besides, if you have to carry a gun for your job you know the risks.

[Jeff Brady]

And religion as an organisation says some things cannot be questioned, so in a way it does prevent it.

All organizations can be questioned. People change faiths all the time.

Notice how Christianity is the dominant religion in America. Notice how much power those organizations wield. Notice how many elected officials are Christian.

The straight white male Christian, even if he's economically disadvantaged, has far more power over what happens in this country than anyone else.

Ahmed could not mock wahabites in Saudi Arabia, besides, if you have to carry a gun for your job you know the risks.

You've missed the point ENTIRELY.