4 ms·

So, blame the victim?

by bronson 12y ago

gizmo 12y ago
Nobody here is suggesting they deserved getting murdered (or that they had it coming). The pushback is against the voices turning them into heroes or champions of free speech. They're not. They're people with stupid racist opinions who nonetheless had every right to voice those opinions. We must condemn the murderers but we don't need to endorse or ally ourselves with the publication. Most people who repeat the "We are charlie" slogan are probably not aware of the publication's racist history.
- Oletros 12y ago
  I suppose that you will provide proof of that racism don't you?
- bronson 12y ago
  It's not necessary to agree with 100% of a publication to sympathize with one of their positions. It is not necessary to disclaim all their past transgressions (as distasteful as they may be) before supporting them in the wake of this massacre. You might be mischaracterizing what some/many/most people mean when they say, "we are charlie."
- 3am 12y ago
  Thank you for saying this. I agree. I don't agree with violence against the Westboro Baptist Church for the "God Hates F*s" protests at military funerals, but if they were attacked I'm not going to go so far as to say, "I am the WBC". It's a false dichotomy set up by people with an agenda. All one needs to do is enter "Charlie Hebdo" in Google Image Search. It is offensive stuff, and pushes beyond the limits (at least my limits) of parody/common decency. I would be ashamed to publish it or have my name on the masthead. I am against violence. I am for freedom of expression. It does not follow that I am for Charlie Hebdo.
  - bronson 12y ago
    Um, there's a world of difference between Charlie Hebdo and the Westboro Baptist Church. To try to repair your analogy, what if the Westboro Baptist Church were to demonstrate a lot of redeeming qualities like actively opposing right-wing reactionaries, crazy leftist social graft, and (of course) radical religions? What if they were to spend most of their time exposing issues that seriously deserve ridicule, and God Hates F@s was an occasional anomaly, a result of pushing the limits too far? (I never read CH so I don't know how anomalous it is. I do know this though: google image search can be pure selection bias and is definitely not a good way to get a feel for the magazine as a whole) I personally dislike like Charlie Hebdo the same way I dislike like Benny Hill. The occasional mild laugh just isn't worth the tedium and distaste. (and this goes for other BDs like Fluide Glacial, L'Écho, the whole style) So, I'm not for Charlie Hebdo either, but I'm very happy to see the outpouring of support. It's clear what people mean when they say je suis charlie -- no need to parse and overanalyze it. It's a false dichotomy set up by people with an agenda. Who exactly are you talking about?
isaacremuant 12y ago
No. I was trying to approach this in a more, let's say, egalitarian put-myself-in-others-position way, considering why we (the western world) react more strongly to this horrific event and ignore others. But I find it really tough to write about it and usually refrain so (long talks are better because one can moderate the speech and clear misunderstandings right away). Your answer that accuses/asks me if I'm blaming the victim showcases this. I very clearly wrote Orthogonal to that to showcase that I was pointing facts and that they didn't justify violence against them in any way and that everyone should have the right to speak without fear of violence (in all subjects, not just religious satires, which is why I posed the Glenn Greenwald article I felt relevant, did you read it?). They can be racist (not saying they are since, as I said, it's a heavily politicized word that loses meaning easily) and that doesn't make them acceptable targets. The same goes for Neo Nazis, KKK members, people who say we Iran should be bombed, people who say USA should be bombed (funnily enough, these people might get prosecuted and jailed, see article), etc. I might have written more than it's prudent and might have been all over the place. I'm sorry, it's late. If something feels off, give me the benefit of the doubt and ask for clarification.

So, blame the victim?

by bronson 12y ago

So, blame the victim?

gizmo 12y ago

Nobody here is suggesting they deserved getting murdered (or that they had it coming). The pushback is against the voices turning them into heroes or champions of free speech. They're not. They're people with stupid racist opinions who nonetheless had every right to voice those opinions. We must condemn the murderers but we don't need to endorse or ally ourselves with the publication. Most people who repeat the "We are charlie" slogan are probably not aware of the publication's racist history.

Oletros 12y ago
I suppose that you will provide proof of that racism don't you?
bronson 12y ago
It's not necessary to agree with 100% of a publication to sympathize with one of their positions. It is not necessary to disclaim all their past transgressions (as distasteful as they may be) before supporting them in the wake of this massacre. You might be mischaracterizing what some/many/most people mean when they say, "we are charlie."
3am 12y ago
Thank you for saying this. I agree. I don't agree with violence against the Westboro Baptist Church for the "God Hates F*s" protests at military funerals, but if they were attacked I'm not going to go so far as to say, "I am the WBC". It's a false dichotomy set up by people with an agenda. All one needs to do is enter "Charlie Hebdo" in Google Image Search. It is offensive stuff, and pushes beyond the limits (at least my limits) of parody/common decency. I would be ashamed to publish it or have my name on the masthead. I am against violence. I am for freedom of expression. It does not follow that I am for Charlie Hebdo.
- bronson 12y ago
  Um, there's a world of difference between Charlie Hebdo and the Westboro Baptist Church. To try to repair your analogy, what if the Westboro Baptist Church were to demonstrate a lot of redeeming qualities like actively opposing right-wing reactionaries, crazy leftist social graft, and (of course) radical religions? What if they were to spend most of their time exposing issues that seriously deserve ridicule, and God Hates F@s was an occasional anomaly, a result of pushing the limits too far? (I never read CH so I don't know how anomalous it is. I do know this though: google image search can be pure selection bias and is definitely not a good way to get a feel for the magazine as a whole) I personally dislike like Charlie Hebdo the same way I dislike like Benny Hill. The occasional mild laugh just isn't worth the tedium and distaste. (and this goes for other BDs like Fluide Glacial, L'Écho, the whole style) So, I'm not for Charlie Hebdo either, but I'm very happy to see the outpouring of support. It's clear what people mean when they say je suis charlie -- no need to parse and overanalyze it. It's a false dichotomy set up by people with an agenda. Who exactly are you talking about?

isaacremuant 12y ago

No. I was trying to approach this in a more, let's say, egalitarian put-myself-in-others-position way, considering why we (the western world) react more strongly to this horrific event and ignore others. But I find it really tough to write about it and usually refrain so (long talks are better because one can moderate the speech and clear misunderstandings right away). Your answer that accuses/asks me if I'm blaming the victim showcases this. I very clearly wrote Orthogonal to that to showcase that I was pointing facts and that they didn't justify violence against them in any way and that everyone should have the right to speak without fear of violence (in all subjects, not just religious satires, which is why I posed the Glenn Greenwald article I felt relevant, did you read it?). They can be racist (not saying they are since, as I said, it's a heavily politicized word that loses meaning easily) and that doesn't make them acceptable targets. The same goes for Neo Nazis, KKK members, people who say we Iran should be bombed, people who say USA should be bombed (funnily enough, these people might get prosecuted and jailed, see article), etc. I might have written more than it's prudent and might have been all over the place. I'm sorry, it's late. If something feels off, give me the benefit of the doubt and ask for clarification.