Support NeoGAF

[Tiberius]

Why do you say it is 'misrepresenting' their cartoon? Why can't I say they simply have produced a racist cartoon and Media is reporting it just as it is?

My whole participation in this thread started by saying that defending Charlie Hebdo's cartoon is similar to defending Trumps comments. Each time one of his comments causes controversy, he says that it is media which is twisting his messages.

You can say the earth is flat 1000 times, at the end of the day it's still round

 

[Whom_Gods_Annoy]

People...




Use



Your



Brains

 

[Golden_Pigeon]

Never knew about this. And I wouldn't call the Ottomans sophisticated and open when they genocided the Armenians and Turkey denies it to this day.

The responsible was the Young Turk movement which aim to get rid of the Sultanat (they got rid of Abdul Hamid II and place their own puppet) and to install a jacobin type secular republic. Ataturk came from this same movement.

Anyways, the Ottoman Empire condemned the genocide and order the three main responsible to be hanged. The fact that the armenian minority was well integrated during the 500 years of the Ottoman history and were exterminated and exiled in the end by a movement with a totally different headset of idea is telling.

The issue occurs when the Turk Republic was founded and it was a little complicated to accept that the funding fathers movement was implicated in a genocide. The Ottoman Empire had no ethnic content unlike the Turkish Republic which was, and is, really heavy on ethnic nationalism.

 

[Lashley]

Hopefully they're empty threats

 

[walking fiend]

Well, it is not.

You may accuse them of attacking religions, all of them, but "promoting racism" is a stupid accusation.

I'm personally not fan of their work, but I think we should defend the right of satyre, as long it's not racism (and no, I'm convinced it's not, and justice too)

Why is it stupid to claim so when that is exactly what it is doing?

You can say the earth is flat 1000 times, at the end of the day it's still round

So you can scientifically prove their satire is not racist? Stop grasping at the straws.

 

[remist]

Refer to my previous comment. Basically, you are saying Charlie Hebdo has said 'day', and media is hearing it saying 'night'.

Well, what kind of amateurish cartoonist is working in Charlie Hebdo that has produced something that so many people are getting wrong? Well, maybe they are not really racist or irresponsible, but simply stupid and incompetent?

That's exactly what I am saying and furthermore their satire is not particularly obscure or hard to understand. Particularly in this case. It's an embarrassing incompetence on the media's part not Hebdo's. All it takes is a couple of minutes of googling.

Why is it stupid to claim so when that is exactly what it is doing?

Because it is not and you haven't logically defended your position besides appealing media accounts that have done a bare minimum research of the situation.

 

[ClosingADoor]

Why is it stupid to claim so when that is exactly what it is doing?


So you can scientifically prove their satire is not racist? Stop grasping at the straws.

Can you scientifically proof that it is? You are making no sense.

People in this thread explained the cartoon already. Go look it up. Taking things out of context is not the fault of the cartoonist.

Could you still answer about the justice system question from earlier?

 

[Golden_Pigeon]

Because it is not and you haven't logically defended your position besides appealing media accounts that have done a bare minimum research of the situation.

If you want a deep analysis of the racism of Charlie Hebdo from a french actual leftist and anti racist, you can get it here:

“Charlie Hebdo”, not racist? If you say so…
by Olivier Cyran

 

[Whom_Gods_Annoy]

Walking fiends's entire argument seems to be hinging on people taking the cover out of context, and that that is somehow CH's fault.

I don't get it.

 

[walking fiend]

Can you scientifically proof that it is? You are making no sense.

People in this thread explained the cartoon already. Go look it up. Taking things out of context is not the fault of the cartoonist.

No, because it is not even a scientific matter. I have been arguing this from a political point of view and have provided evidence which shows that their satire indeed has been perceived as a mockery of Muslims.

My argument since my 1st post has been very simple and has three elements:

1. As a political entity, you are responsible for the political consequences of your actions or words; for what your audience 'perceive' and what actions they take based on that.
2. Judging from the past reportage of the official and social media, it is quite clear that a satire such as this will be used out of its context by the Media in a way that will promote racism [and a promotion of racism inevitably promotes extremism].
3. Charle Hebdo either knew this and still published this satire, which is very irresponsible of them; or they didn't expect this to happen, which just shows they are incompetent and clueless

Could you still answer about the justice system question from earlier?

I didn't understand your question; could you elaborate?

Walking fiends's entire argument seems to be hinging on people taking the cover out of context, and that that is somehow CH's fault.

I don't get it.

Yes, that is what my argument revolves around. It presupposes that a magazine as famous as Charlie Hebdo is a political entity which should be taken responsible for the consequences of their political actions [I should add that I am really not sure if they really didn't mean to produce a Satire that would mock Muslims; I don't think anyone knows that but the cartoonist who drew that and the editor who put it on the front page].

 

[Koren]

Why is it stupid to claim so when that is exactly what it is doing?

Well, you're talking about medias, but they're not even claiming that's racist.

You say yourself that you have to proof that satire is not racist. You accept yourself that satire can be non-racist. So which "majority" in the media exactly called them racist?

 

[Whom_Gods_Annoy]

Yes, that is what my argument revolves around. It presupposes that a magazine as famous as Charlie Hebdo is a political entity which should be taken responsible for the consequences of their political actions [I should add that I am really not sure if they really didn't mean to produce a Satire that would mock Muslims; I don't think anyone knows that but the cartoonist who drew that and the editor who put it on the front page].

Black Lives Matter is a political entity. The goal of the organization is ultimately to say Black Lives Matter too. They block off entrance to an airport to get their message across. A lot of people don't like it. Some media take this and remove or misconstrue the context. Now some see the group as an organization that wants for only black lives to matter.

Is this BLM's fault? Should they have known better since this type of response happened to the group when blocking traffic before?

 

[remist]

If you want a deep analysis of the racism of Charlie Hebdo from a french actual leftist and anti racist, you can get it here:

“Charlie Hebdo”, not racist? If you say so…
by Olivier Cyran

This is a stream of invective from a disgruntled former employee. At the most he is making a case for some amount of religious bigotry, which I might buy if it was confirmed by someone who is not so obviously biased against the magazine.The connection he tries to make to racism is pretty tenuous.
As to the particular cartoon at hand, It's clearly not racist.

 

[| Praxis |]

Well shit, I applaud the huge balls it takes to print something like this in a country with so many problems. Can't really see the problem with it, let alone why it should drive somebody to threaten and indeed carry out murder.

 

[walking fiend]

Well, you're talking about medias, but they're not even claiming that's racist.

You say yourself that you have to proof that satire is not racist. You accept yourself that satire can be non-racist. So which "majority" in the media exactly called them racist?

Media has reported their cartoon as 'Mockery of Muslims'. When you mock an entire religion, you are being racist against them. Even more, when you add a photo of two naked Muslims and then write a witty comment about 'Muslims', you are suggesting that is how Muslims are [even if you are trying to say it is stupid to believe a ban on Burkini will make the Muslim act like that]. Because many Muslims don't even wear Hijab, let alone Burkini, and I know many of them who do actually go to nude beaches.

Black Lives Matter is a political entity. The goal of the organization is ultimately to say Black Lives Matter too. They block off entrance to an airport to get their message across. Some media take this and remove the context. Now some see the group as an organization that wants for only black lives to matter.

Is this BLM's fault? Should they have known better since this type of response happened to the group when blocking traffic before?

Charlie Hebdo is not a Muslim magazine. The Media is not using their satire to mock Charlie Hebdo, but is reporting it as a mockery of Muslims. The events aren't similar.

Note that my argument for Charlie Hebdo being responsible for this is that they promote racism, and that racism promotes extremism. Similarly, Muslim extremists are responsible for the racism against Muslims.

 

[Golden_Pigeon]

This is a stream of invective from a disgruntled former employee. At the most he is making a case for some amount of religious bigotry, which I might buy if it was confirmed by someone who is not so obviously biased against the magazine.The connection he tries to make to racism is pretty tenuous.
As to the particular cartoon at hand, It's clearly not racist.

Olivier Cyran is a well known critical journalist, he don't exist only because of this.
There is many more article about this issue in french.

 

[ClosingADoor]

No, because it is not even a scientific matter. I have been arguing this from a political point of view and have provided evidence which shows that their satire indeed has been perceived as a mockery of Muslims.

My argument since my 1st post has been very simple and has three elements:

1. As a political entity, you are responsible for the political consequences of your actions or words; for what your audience 'perceive' and what actions they take based on that.
2. Judging from the past reportage of the official and social media, it is quite clear that a satire such as this will be used out of its context by the Media in a way that will promote racism [and a promotion of racism inevitably promotes extremism].
3. Charle Hebdo either knew this and still published this satire, which is very irresponsible of them; or they didn't expect this to happen, which just shows they are incompetent and clueless


I didn't understand your question; could you elaborate?].

And that all isn't on Charlie Hebdo, but on the people using that as an excuse to perform terrorist acts. They are not responsible for someone taking their stuff out of context.

I was referring to this part, which makes it seem you think the media should be held responsible by the justice system after an attack:

To be perfectly honest with you, I find the whole criminal system flawed; they [the judiciary system] only implicate the final agent of the action. However, numerous scientific studies have shown that people have much less freedom of will that what was believed we posses at the time that those criminal codes were solidified.

 

[Mael]

I haven't read the thread but am I wrong to assume that it is the usual CH thread here?
Like "SATIRE 101 explained to english speaking people"?

 

[orioto]

I'll just say one thing. Charlie can't endlessly pretend to be a light and irresponsible (what they are initially) satirical journal, when now, each thing they draw about muslims is used in foreign countries to escalate a certain feeling that Mulsims are against the world (a feeling that helps terrorism obviously).

They can't just be the irresponsible child anymore, and act like 30,000 french people read them in all understanding and fun. It's not the case. CH can't exist in this world now, cause it's more important than it should be, and it's not done for other countries.

It's a sad thing, but they are responsible for pretending they ignore that they are now a worldwide media with responsibilities. They were never meant to be, but they can't ignore it now. Daesh killed CH a long time ago by giving it a worldwide exposure.

 

[walking fiend]

And that all isn't on Charlie Hebdo, but on the people using that as an excuse to perform terrorist acts. They are not responsible for someone taking their stuff out of context.

Let me ask you this: Should extremists be held responsible for a rise in racism or not?

I was referring to this part, which makes it seem you think the media should be held responsible by the justice system after an attack:

Yes, I believe it should be possible to prosecute media for promotion of racism, sexism, hateful crimes, etc.

 

[Opto]

I think CH is a rag that lacks wit and deserves no attention as well as thinking the death threats and the actual attacks they've suffered through are monstrous.

 

[Mael]

orioto, that's BS and we all know it.
They're the usual targets of islamist terrorist for the best part of a decade now.
They could be posting pictures of sealion they would still be the targets of lunatics.

 

[Whom_Gods_Annoy]

Media has reported their cartoon as 'Mockery of Muslims'. When you mock an entire religion, you are being racist against them. Even more, when you add a photo of two naked Muslims and then write a witty comment about 'Muslims', you are suggesting that is how Muslims are [even if you are trying to say it is stupid to believe a ban on Burkini will make the Muslim act like that]. Because many Muslims don't even wear Hijab, let alone Burkini, and I know many of them who do actually go to nude beaches.


Charlie Hebdo is not a Muslim magazine. The Media is not using their satire to mock Charlie Hebdo, but is reporting it as a mockery of Muslims. The events aren't similar.

Note that my argument for Charlie Hebdo being responsible for this is that they promote racism, and that racism promotes extremism. Similarly, Muslim extremists are responsible for the racism against Muslims.

Hnnnnng this makes zero sense. You seem so entrenched on the idea people are unable to on their own actually discover what's going on in the cover its crazy.

 

[Tiberius]

Olivier Cyran is a well known critical journalist, he don't exist only because of this.
There is many more article about this issue in french.

He left charlie in bad term so the objectivity of the article is questionnable.

 

[Mael]

Reading Oliver Cyan right now (the original text btw).
1 thing I can say, at least it's relatively well written that at least makes you think the guy actually knows how to write.
Believe me it's rarer than you would expect.

e: no offense to the translator but the english translation is really not on the level of the original text.

 

[ClosingADoor]

Let me ask you this: Should extremists be held responsible for a rise in racism or not?


Yes, I believe it should be possible to prosecute media for promotion of racism, sexism, hateful crimes, etc.

Extremists should be held accountable for the crimes they commit. Those crimes sadly lead to racism from some people towards other groups, and that is on the people being racist.

And what would you prosecute here for? What is the racism or hateful crime being commited? How does a media outlet even commit a hateful crime?

Media should be held accountable by the public and their professional organisations. But that is a different thing from prosecution. That is a very dangerous path you are going down.

 

[remist]

Here is a response to the Olivier Cyran editorial from a muslim woman who worked at CH at the time.

If Charlie Hebdo is racist, then so am I

 

[walking fiend]

Hnnnnng this makes zero sense. You seem so entrenched on the idea people are unable to on their own actually discover what's going on in the cover its crazy.

Let me be more precise: Charlie Hebdo recasts the whole event of ban of Burkini into a new frame, and this new frame gives it a new racist meaning by representing it as a ban that will affect 'Muslims'; while in reality a large portion of Muslims do not wear Burkini in the beaches.

Extremists should be held accountable for the crimes they commit. Those crimes sadly lead to racism from some people towards other groups, and that is on the people being racist.

Yes, unfortunately the poor taste of Charlie Hebdo's cartoons lead to racism too, which leads to extremism. So it is quite possible for someone to do something which through proxy works exactly against them.

And what would you prosecute here for? What is the racism or hateful crime being commited? How does a media outlet even commit a hateful crime?

Media should be held accountable. But that is a different thing from prosecution. That is a very dangerous path you are going down.

They promote such crimes. Just how an Imam who preaches extremism should be held accountable, even if he doesn't directly advocate terrorism, the media should be held responsible.

 

[orioto]

orioto, that's BS and we all know it.
They're the usual targets of islamist terrorist for the best part of a decade now.
They could be posting pictures of sealion they would still be the targets of lunatics.

It's not even that they are the target. It's that the illusion of their "anti-muslim" is pretty strong in foreign countries (even in USA it seems, just look at how many people here are convinced they are basically far right.), and what they do is used as a political weapon. They can't just say "we don't care, we do our thing for the small community that reads us". They can't just do that. I'm not saying it's fair to them, but it's the case now.

We are in our little knowledge first world were we things like that can be appreciated and defended. But we are faaaar from appreciating how messy it is everywhere else. What do you think people think in African countries when CH makes that crying prophet and they are burning french flags ? What do you tell them ? Nothing, and in many many countries this is basically "western world doesn't respect our religion", bottom line. And it adds a little more to the tension, and that"s a real long term work.

CH is not meant to have those fallouts. It was never meant to be this. It can exists like that.

 

[Koren]

When you mock an entire religion, you are being racist against them.

That's probably the point on which we don't agree (maybe it's a language issue, though... but I don't think so). You can mock people without hate or ill-thought.

The people I know that mocks the more the judes are... judes. You can't call them antisemits?

Even more, when you add a photo of two naked Muslims and then write a witty comment about 'Muslims', you are suggesting that is how Muslims are

I disagree. And since they're doing this with all kind of people/religions...


Also, I trust justice. If some people think it's racist, they can be convicted for this, you just have to bring the matter to a judge. Judges can do mistakes, but if it's really the racist publication some people say, they're bound to loose a lot of such trials...

If you can't get judgements against them, I don't see how you could call them racists.


That being said, I don't like their humor. But that's not the matter here.


I'm also convinced that humor is not universal, and I think UK/US culture will always see this a bit differently...

 

[ClosingADoor]

Yes, unfortunately the poor taste of Charlie Hebdo's cartoons lead to racism too.


They promote such crimes. Just how an Imam who preaches extremism should be held accountable, even if he doesn't directly advocate terrorism, the media should be held responsible.

But they don't promote it! An extremist Imam is someone who says what his followers should believe and do. A cartoon doesn't do that. You can't compare things like that.

 

[Whom_Gods_Annoy]

Let me be more precise: Charlie Hebdo recasts the whole event of ban of Burkini into a new frame, and this new frame gives it a new racist meaning by representing it as a ban that will affect 'Muslims'; while in reality a large portion of Muslims do not wear Burkini in the beaches.

But... That's the satire. That's the point! Or at least one part of the sarcasm happening on the cover.

You can't be racist against a religion.

This too.

 

[heliosRAzi]

When you mock an entire religion, you are being racist against them..

You can't be racist against a religion.

 

[Mael]

It's not even that they are the target. It's that the illusion of their "anti-muslim" is pretty strong in foreign countries (even in USA it seems, just look at how many people here are convinced they are basically far right.), and what they do is used as a political weapon. They can't just say "we don't care, we do our thing for the small community that reads us". They can't just do that. I'm not saying it's fair to them, but it's the case now.

We are in our little knowledge first world were we things like that can be appreciated and defended. But we are faaaar from appreciating how messy it is everywhere else. What do you think people think in African countries when CH makes that crying prophet and they are burning french flags ? What do you tell them ? Nothing, and in many many countries this is basically "western world doesn't respect our religion", bottom line. And it adds a little more to the tension, and that"s a real long term work.

CH is not meant to have those fallouts. It was never meant to be this. It can exists like that.

They don't even read the thing to claim that they're offended by it.
It doesn't slavishly paint them in the most adoring light so of course they're offended by it.
In another time such media would have them shot without a question by the state run police but we're above that now.
We don't have to censor ourselves because some shitty backward looking idiot doesn't understand what they didn't care to read.
If it was really meant to be a mean spirited joke magazine, it's doing it job better now than it ever did.

 

[freethoughtbubble]

Just want to highlight two things that Walking Fiend has side, without comment:

When you mock an entire religion, you are being racist against them.

Yes, I believe it should be possible to prosecute media for promotion of racism, sexism, hateful crimes, etc.

 

[thelastcrusader]

This reminds me of that Onion image that no one was killed over.

 

[Mael]

That's probably the point on which we don't agree (maybe it's a language issue, though... but I don't think so). You can mock people without hate or ill-thought.

The people I know that mocks the more the judes are... judes. You can't call them antisemits?

Antisemitism is special, Judaism is considered a race in Europe culturally.
That's why you can be racist to jews.

 

[XOMTOR]

Walking fiends's entire argument seems to be hinging on people taking the cover out of context, and that that is somehow CH's fault.

I don't get it.

Whether or not it's being taken out of context, it (and most of CH's stuff) shows a severe lack of tact; it's low-brow trash geared to sell as many rags as possible.

The fact is, we live in a world where insulting a religion (in this case apparently not the intent) could get you killed. Shouldn't happen but here we are. It's not Charlie Hebdo's fault but the death threats are of no surprise. Glad it's them; there's no way I'd work there. I believe in standing up against the insanity of situations like this, but I'm not taking a bullet over a shitty cartoon. Religious insanity won't be solved by mocking and alienating.

Spoiler

Oh right, it's satire so nobody should be offended.

 

[Whom_Gods_Annoy]

They don't even read the thing to claim that they're offended by it.
It doesn't slavishly paint them in the most adoring light so of course they're offended by it.
In another time such media would have them shot without a question by the state run police but we're above that now.
We don't have to censor ourselves because some shitty backward looking idiot doesn't understand what they didn't care to read.
If it was really meant to be a mean spirited joke magazine, it's doing it job better now than it ever did.

Exactly this. On point.

 

[walking fiend]

That's probably the point on which we don't agree (maybe it's a language issue, though... but I don't think so). You can mock people without hate or ill-thought.

The people I know that mocks the more the judes are... judes. You can't call them antisemits?


I disagree. And since they're doing this with all kind of people/religions...

I'll quote two of my previous posts in which I explained why the situation of Muslims is very different than that of Christians or Jews. I will also add another point: Muslims have very little social capital to express and defend themselves through cultural means, if only because their cultural and literal background has little in common with the rest of western people.

Those countries [Muslim countries] are being bombarded by western countries.
Those countries were ripped apart 100 years ago.
The immigrants from those countries have to deal with racist shit and stupidity in the western countries.

These cartoons are merely psychological excuses [for extremist attacks].

But put that in the context that every other Muslim country in the middle-east has been invaded in the past couple of decades, that the media and political discourse is filled with anti-Muslim rhetoric, etc. and you will find a very compelling argument to believe there is an anti-Muslim crusade going on.

Just because Charle Hebdo doesn't want to do anything with this anti-Muslim campaign doesn't mean they won't become an unwilling participant.

However, it still doesn't explain why they decided to generalize all the Muslims as subjects in a caricature. Not that I do not do this myself [for example, here I generalized Muslims against Jews and Christians], but I would try to be much more careful [at least try to be] if I knew my words would be put on the front page of a very famous magazine.

 

[harriet the spy]

Just want to highlight two things that Walking Fiend has side, without comment:

'The regressive left doesn't exist! It's an invention of the alt-right!'

 

[orioto]

They don't even read the thing to claim that they're offended by it.
It doesn't slavishly paint them in the most adoring light so of course they're offended by it.
In another time such media would have them shot without a question by the state run police but we're above that now.
We don't have to censor ourselves because some shitty backward looking idiot doesn't understand what they didn't care to read.
If it was really meant to be a mean spirited joke magazine, it's doing it job better now than it ever did.

We agree on all that, but they were never meant to be international. Now, there is a problem. It's easy as fuck and they'll lose all the time. You just have to scan their mulsims cartoon and show it to the good people... There is no solution to that. it will only escalate.

 

[Tiberius]

You can't be racist against a religion.

Yeah that's blasphemy and blasphemy is not a crime in france


Another thing charlie got sued more than 50 times by people and association and only lose 9 times for insult

You can see it here in french https://charliehebdo.fr/proces/

 

[tuxfool]

Oh right, it's satire so nobody should be offended.

No. People can be offended. What they shouldn't do is go out to kill the offender.

This once again is victim blaming. A woman shouldn't go out at night in a dress, rapes are a thing that happen, stay inside and the problem is solved.

Religious insanity won't be fixed by being cowards either.

 

[Mael]

We agree on all that, but they were never meant to be international. Now, there is a problem. It's easy as fuck and they'll lose all the time. You just have to scan their mulsims cartoon and show it to the good people... There is no solution to that. it will only escalate.

I have no answer to make sure that CH is not targetted in the future.
All I can say is that for the same reason you don't make policy based on stupid people's reaction you shouldn't censor yourself because someone is too stupid to understand the point.
We shouldn't stop making light of shitty 2nd amendmant open carry people because they have weapons too.

 

[walking fiend]

You can't be racist against a religion.

Religious people. Muslims. I was too lazy to change religion to religious people. I do not believe a fixed thing as Muslims or a religion as Islam exist; when you try to pretend otherwise, you are being racist.

 

[heliosRAzi]

Religious people. Muslims. I was too lazy to change religion to religious people. I do not believe a fixed thing as Muslims or a religion as Islam exist; when you try to pretend otherwise, you are being racist.

People are genetically predisposed to be Muslim or Jewish or Christian or Jedi?

 

[ClosingADoor]

However, it still doesn't explain why they decided to generalize all the Muslims as subjects in a caricature.

Because it is a damn cartoon. Do you also get upset about a Fawlty Towers joke about the Germans, or the earlier posted cartoon about the Catholic priests?

And even if you are offended, that doesn't excuse the death threats. Being offended is all nice, but that doesn't mean the world should change for you.

Religious people. Muslims. I was too lazy to change religion to religious people. I do not believe a fixed thing as Muslims or a religion as Islam exist; when you try to pretend otherwise, you are being racist.

What are you even trying to say here. Religious people are not a race.

 

[remist]

Religious people. Muslims. I was too lazy to change religion to religious people. I do not believe a fixed thing as Muslims or a religion as Islam exist; when you try to pretend otherwise, you are being racist.

It may just be a language barrier, but no you can't. Religion is an ideology, you can be a religious bigot if you have prejudice based on ignorance, but it's not racism.

 

[Mael]

Religious people. Muslims. I was too lazy to change religion to religious people. I do not believe a fixed thing as Muslims or a religion as Islam exist; when you try to pretend otherwise, you are being racist.

You can't really be racist against muslism, you can however be racist against arabs or "brown people" as they call them.
Btw everyone understood your point, it's just me being anal about it.