This one is particularly painful for me because I write satire myself, quite a bit of it is about religion including Islam. I have done some of it online which offers some anonymity (for example the annotated Koran on rationalwiki) and uncyclopedia (a website that is a parody of wikipedia). However not all of my satire is anonymous and it has my name on it.

First and foremost, those who produce satire are people who want to make others laugh. The message is secondary. One can very easily drive home a message without the parody and the humour. More people take you seriously when you write in a formal way and it is much easier to express your ideas. Making people laugh in a well written piece of satire is hard work. Yes you get people to see things from a fresh and often ironic perspective and tell people how foolish some ideas are...but the goal is to get people to truly enjoy reading what you write and in a sense try not to take things so seriously.

This is why it is so painful to see this newspaper office blown apart by Jihadists (not that it isn't always painful to see innocent people shot through the head by Allah's bullets). These journalists spend their day making people laugh, putting a lot of hard work into de-constructing irrational arguments (and not just about religion but about politics, ethics and culture), usually drive home a compassionate humanist message and at the very least produce something that millions of readers have enjoyed.

It's scary. I'm 300km away from where this took place and my name is next to much Islamic satire which has made just as many crude and not so crude jokes about Islam and Allah.

Fuck those fucking Jihadists. This won't stop me for a second. It only wants to make me de-anonymise myself and step up my satire even more.

Views: 1537

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Here is how Al Jazeera wants us to think about the attack on Charlie HEBDO.

I don't normally reference The National Review, but they seem to have stumbled on something worth knowing.

Did Charlie bring this on themselves?

Were their cartoons a kind of hate speech against Muslims?

Did they abuse free speech? Is free speech, in fact, abusable?

All this babble shows is that some people show little sympathy for these deaths or even tacitly condone it because the newspaper was rude and mean to what they personally care about.

If the newspaper said neo-pagans are donkey fuckers and their god Thor sucks donkey dick once a week for ten years, I doubt they would notice or care. If a radical pagan shot the office up they would be horrified by it and see it (at least more than now) as free speech. Because I mean, hey, paganism isn't really a religion and you are only offended a few hundred people who don't even really believe in it that much.

If the newspaper published scathing reviews about one movie director always saying that every movie they made was an abomination and those who like those movies are retarded idiots at some point that would become very offensive. If a Spielberg fanatic then blew up that newspaper office would that be an attack on free speech? I guess so because who cares about movies...they aren't sacred and they aren't 1.5 billion people.

I've read some articles that say this isn't about free speech at all. I rarely debate on Facebook but I challenged every friend who posted that article. To claim that having a newspaper bombed, then told to stop publishing or saying something or they would die, to continue those threats and then kill them for publishing something...has nothing to do with free speech is beyond imbecilic. The claim is "that wasn't free speech it was hate". That is a matter of interpretation and it is up to us to decide this through democratic means, NOT GUNMEN. Threatening anyone with violence if they don't shut up is an attack against free speech even if it's Fred Phelps saying God hates fags at an army funeral. The consequences of the abuse of free speech are dealt with by society through law, the police and the courts. Any violent attack on anyone for anything they say is an attack on free speech.

I am not sure it's as cut-and-dried as you seem to be saying, so I'll play devils'advocate because I'm not sure anyone else will.

Suppose it wasn't a rude cartoon of Mohammed, but instead a really scurrilous cartoon depicting Martin Luther King as a monkey. I think we'd instantly see the disrespectful nature of such a cartoon, and many (perhaps not you) would have no trouble seeing it as not satire but hate speech. 

So, then, how is the sort of cartoons we know Charlie published not hate speech?

(Note that I'm not saying such a cartoon would justify a slaughter such as happened in Paris.)

I'm not saying that any of the cartoons were not hate speech (thats subjective). I'm saying that a violent attack even against hate speech is an assault on free speech. It's up to society to decide what true hate speech is, it's up to us to decide what the consequences are and it's up to us to meet out the punishment. Any agent working on their own, or the government working against the rules punishing or attacking someone no matter how vile what they say an attack on free speech.

As per what IS hate speech. Perhaps we would need an entire new discussion for that.

There is no such thing as hate speech...hate is an emotion.  Emotion is generated internally and entirely within the control of the individual.

The bottom line is people have lost the concept of "rights" coming with responsibilities. Having a right to do something does not mean you can exercise it without assuming responsibility for your actions or words. 

Freedom of Speech is incompatible with Islam not only because their flawed and brutal ideology is so easily assaulted by reason and satire but also because for 14 centuries their cultures have been deprived of the unrestricted flow of ideas.  All information, and perceptions of the world are first filtered through Imams and mullahs who reconcile reality to fit within the context of the teachings of the prophet Mohammed (Phaeces Be Upon Him) < lame satire.

Satire and mockery under Islam.   First you must understand that true Muslims follow -- without question -- the accepted words and acts of Mohammed (real or fictional)  Mohammed gives a wonderful example of how to deal with people who mock or satirize him. 

Asma Bint Marwan was a Jewish woman, a mother and a poet.  She wrote a poem critical of men who were being obedient to Mohammed after he'd killed their chiefs and leaders...

...................."I despise B. Malik and al-Nabit 

and `Auf and B. al-Khazraj. 

You obey a stranger who is none of yours, 

One not of Murad or Madhhij. 

Do you expect good from him after the killing of your chiefs 

Like a hungry man waiting for a cook's broth? 

Is there no man of pride who would attack him by surprise 

And cut off the hopes of those who expect aught from him?"

When the poem was read to Big Mo he asked his followers,

"Who will rid me of Marwan's daughter?"

Umayr Ibn Adi crept into her house at night, found her sleeping in bed with her 5 children... then He thrust his sword in her chest till it pierced up to her back. Then he offered the morning prayers with the prophet at al-Medina. The apostle of Allah said to him:

"Have you slain the daughter of Marwan?"

He said: "Yes. Is there something more for me to do?"

Big Mo said: "No. Two goats will not butt heads over her death."

Here's an irony:

On the week that Islamists murder over ‘offensive’ cartoon, Obama’s...

The name of a football team may not qualify as protected speech in the United States. The Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave (or should I say "Braves"?).

Charlie HEBDO will come out with their next issue this week.

In order to show that the terrorists have not deterred them, should they be sure to put a really insulting cartoon of Mohammed on the cover. I'd suggest showing the Prophet buggering a beheaded child while munching on its head.

Makes me wish I was an artist.

It's all very well saying 'Je Suis Charlie' but the reality is more complex.  Charlie Hebdo cartoons are not to my taste - to be honest, I think them crass and, crucially, unfunny, unpersuasive and without much intelligence wit, style or humour.  It is of course a tragedy for *all* those killed. But I would far rather win hearts and minds by reason and argument - and understand how to prevent disaffected youth obtaining Kalashnikovs - than blame populations who purely due to the bad luck of birth and history have been brainwashed to believe in a religion that gives identity and meaning - perhaps for them, an island within an alienating capitalist society.

This whole subject is an ethical briar patch. On the one hand, it's outrageous that some Islamic dildos massacred a dozen or so people over a perceived slighting and insulting of their religion. On the other hand, "I am Charlie" is essentially saying "I'm a magazine that makes money by insulting people." And many would look at their cartoons and call it graphic hate speech, like a visual that makes a Jew look like a shylock.

I still think that the spectacle of masses assembling in support of the magazine will just feed the Muslim hate machine. It's carrying out the final part of the terrorists' plan on auto pilot.


© 2022   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service