Re: Paris Attack
Posted: Fri Jan 09, 2015 9:33 am
oh well they got exactly what they wanted now...at least some hostages were saved
I believe in the flying spaghetti monster and JR Dobbs. As well as the few humans who are in-human. To be "human" is to be a child or a beast. We must learn ton beat that crap out of us. You see a child steal a toy, that is human. To be kind and share and learn and grow is to be non-human. And better. Humans are shit. I hope we all die.Bandit72 wrote:Is the idea that Christians go and meet 'God' when they die and Muslims go and meet Allah? What about those who believed in Zeus? Or Thor? Or Jupiter? or Ben Kenobi? etc.. etc... I think everyone will be disappointed...
For most traditional religions virgin women are like "the only" choice, all the rest are impure sluts.SR wrote:But they're are no virgins left. Fuck, how insane is that reward per se? The best woman for a man is a virgin? Archaic, insecure, misogynistic, degrading....just completely insane.
Because this was an attack on the West, and it makes a much better story. LA, Chicago, or NY can stand in for Paris. We can picture that happening in our cities maybe.creep wrote:so what is is 16 or so dead in france by islamic extremists???
i wonder how much coverage the over 2000 just killed in nigeria by islamic extremists will get? probably not much.
I suppose that the unbalanced coverage is due to an unbalanced value ascribed to the lives of those in Africa v. the west, at worst. At best, the coverage is coming from the west and as such has both the resources and the vested interests that allow it to cover it in more detail.creep wrote:so what is is 16 or so dead in france by islamic extremists???
i wonder how much coverage the over 2000 just killed in nigeria by islamic extremists will get? probably not much.
I've read this post a couple of times and I don't understand why you call the work at Charlie xenophobic. Nor how it is fanning the flames of intolerance, unless you mean that it is illuminating the parochialism of Islam and therefore condemning it? I do understand that France and other European countries are one race countries with intense ethnic nationalism, but where in that does one allow oneself to be a target from others?blackcoffee wrote:Because this was an attack on the West, and it makes a much better story. LA, Chicago, or NY can stand in for Paris. We can picture that happening in our cities maybe.creep wrote:so what is is 16 or so dead in france by islamic extremists???
i wonder how much coverage the over 2000 just killed in nigeria by islamic extremists will get? probably not much.
I find it deplorable that men (and women) can be convinced to kill for for their version of the religion that they believe in.
I also find it deplorable that a satirical magazine had a running gag that at its heart was xenophobic and racist and aimed at an already marginalized population. I'm not convinced they were equal opportunity offenders, and I'm trying to understand the particular line of thinking at the magazine that apparently has a rich history/tradition.
No doubt its complex and the cartoonists didn't deserve to die for what they did, but everyone marching out on Facebook saying that they're Charlie Hebdo is ludicrous. I know its symbolic, but I think its just silly. I also disagree that the cartoons should be reprinted all over the world--is it illustrative of free speech? Do we want to fan the flames of hate and intolerance, or do we want to practice humility and attempt to foster understanding with each other?
There are a lot of forces at work that would have us believe there are others, and other that we should fear. It really doesn't have to be that way. It's happening right now in this country and it also has a rich history. Hate the Irish immigrants, hate the brown immigrants. Hate the other. Fuck that.
Prophet Muhammad cartoon in Quebec papers after Charlie Hebdo shooting
English-language Montreal Gazette opts against publishing image, Radio-Canada runs it sparingly
Quebec's major French-language newspapers have jointly published a Charlie Hebdo editorial cartoon featuring the Prophet Muhammad, in a show of solidarity with the satirical Paris newspaper where 12 people were killed on Wednesday.
The cartoon shows the half-hidden, grimacing face of the Prophet Muhammad, saying, "It's tough to be loved by idiots."
The French-language newspapers that published the cartoon are:
Le Devoir.
Le Journal de Montréal.
Le Journal de Québec.
24 Heures.
La Presse.
Le Soleil.
Le Quotidien.
Le Droit.
La Tribune.
La Voix de l’Est.
Le Nouveliste and Métro.
In a joint statement published alongside the cartoon, the newspapers explained they wanted to honour the victims of the Paris shootings, some workers at the satirical newspaper Charlie Hebdo, and show their support for the “fundamental principle of freedom of expression.”
“Attacking someone simply for their ideas and opinions is an unacceptable impediment to democracy,” the statement said.
Philosophy of respect
The Montreal Gazette, the English-language daily, decided not to run the same image, which was originally published in 2006.
Lucinda Chodan, editor in chief of the Gazette, said her newspaper’s parent company, Postmedia, has a long-standing policy against publishing depictions of the Prophet Muhammad.
“It isn’t political correctness or cowardice. It’s based on a philosophy of respect towards the Muslim faith,” she told Mike Finnerty, host of the CBC morning show Daybreak, on Thursday.
Chodan added, however, that she supports her “colleagues in the francophone press who published the cartoon.”
“Of course, we also support Charlie Hebdo,” she said.
The Gazette showed that support with a rare banner headline in French, "Nous sommes tous Charlie," which translates into, "We are all Charlie."
Denise Bombardier, a columnist for Journal de Montréal, said she’s proud of the province’s French-language newspapers.
“It says something about political correctness and about courage,” she told Daybreak.
“I’m sad that the Gazette refused to do this, because I think that this is the war of the 21st century, and if we don’t react the way we did in our newspapers this morning, and in many newspapers around the world and in Europe, then this war is lost.”
Another columnist, Patrick Lagacé, who writes for La Presse, said concern for political correctness is much stronger in English-speaking countries, such as Canada and the United States, compared to French-language media in Quebec or France.
"I think the anglo world, English Canadians, are prisoners to political correctness when they make some judgment calls like that in the media," he said.
'It isn't censorship,' says CBC's David Studer
CBC News has decided not to publish cartoons from Charlie Hebdo that feature the Prophet Muhammad.
“This is not a ban, and it isn't censorship,” David Studer, CBC's director of Journalistic Standards and Practices, said in an email on Wednesday, reminding news staff of CBC's long-established policy.
“We are being consistent with our historic journalistic practices around this story, not because of fear, but out of respect for the beliefs and sensibilities of the mass of Muslim believers about images of the Prophet. Similarly, we wouldn't publish cartoons likely to dismay or outrage mainstream followers of other religions.”
CBC's French service, Radio-Canada, took a different approach and chose to run the cartoon on TV and its website.
Michel Cormier, Radio-Canada's executive director of news and current affairs, said the image was used sparingly, and with the intention of providing context to the events unfolding in Paris.
"We're trying to explain to people what's happening," he said.
creep wrote:so what is is 16 or so dead in france by islamic extremists???
i wonder how much coverage the over 2000 just killed in nigeria by islamic extremists will get? probably not much.
Well, a group of older white men drew crude, stereotypical, racist caricature of Arab men in a country where those Arab men are a marginalized minority.SR wrote:I've read this post a couple of times and I don't understand why you call the work at Charlie xenophobic. Nor how it is fanning the flames of intolerance, unless you mean that it is illuminating the parochialism of Islam and therefore condemning it? I do understand that France and other European countries are one race countries with intense ethnic nationalism, but where in that does one allow oneself to be a target from others?
The notion that white men can't comment on folly wherever it might be, crudely or elegantly, elevates political correctness to a level that defies reason. If I understand correctly, older white men can't comment on anything, right or wrong, as a penance for the sins of their white ancestors (with the assumption these artists are not xenophobic or racist, as I do when considering their body of work as a whole).blackcoffee wrote:Well, a group of older white men drew crude, stereotypical, racist caricature of Arab men in a country where those Arab men are a marginalized minority.SR wrote:I've read this post a couple of times and I don't understand why you call the work at Charlie xenophobic. Nor how it is fanning the flames of intolerance, unless you mean that it is illuminating the parochialism of Islam and therefore condemning it? I do understand that France and other European countries are one race countries with intense ethnic nationalism, but where in that does one allow oneself to be a target from others?
I wouldn't want to suggest anything like they had it coming, or it was their fault, or that they allowed themselves to be targets from others, but satirizing a marginalized group and satirizing the government, or those in power are two very different things. The former strikes me as hateful and xenophobic.
I'm honestly trying to wrap my head around this. This is one case where I feel there is a lot more grey (for me) than in other recent news items such as Ferguson, etc.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/j ... mad-imagesThe reality is that for as long as there have been liberal ideals staking their claim to the various freedoms western societies have come to sacralise, there have also been societies suffering from exploitation and subjugation at the hands of those professing these lofty principles.
Even as they were establishing the very foundations of modern liberal societies, from the tenets of freedom of speech and the free exercise of religion to the basis for democratic forms of governance, Enlightenment thinkers were nearly universal in their expression of support for a world built on racial hierarchies and the expansion of new European empires that depended largely on the use of violence to control colonial subjects. That these philosophers developed their racist outlooks towards Jews, Muslims, and blacks on the basis of "reason" and "rationality" makes such views more abhorrent than those derived from pre-modern modes of thought.
Whether it is the racist expressions of Enlightenment philosophers or the cartoons of Charlie Hebdo, these provocative views cannot be separated from the broader political projects at work. At the same time that western liberalism gave rise to modern states committed to freedom, democracy, and the rule of law, it also saw to the continuation of slavery, the colonisation and subjugation of large segments of Asia, Africa, Australia, and the Americas, and global economic exploitation and environmental degradation.
"They are, all of them, born with raging fanaticism in their hearts, just as the Bretons and the Germans are born with blond hair. I would not be in the least bit surprised if these people would not some day become deadly to the human race."
Writing on European Jews, this quote comes not from a propagandist in Nazi Germany, but rather from Voltaire, the 18th century French philosopher whose name has been invoked frequently in recent days as a historic champion of the freedom of expression.
Voltaire's views on Islam were no more tempered, as he authored an entire play dedicated to mocking its Prophet Muhammad as "the founder of a false and barbarous sect" and "a sublime and hearty charlatan".
While one can defend the right of satirists, government officials, and philosophers to espouse such beliefs - the hashtag #JeSuisCharlie became a popular means of expressing solidarity with the magazine in the hours after the attack - in the face of this history, it should become clear that in the case of cultural production, context always matters. Destructive policies cannot be pursued successfully without the vocabulary and imagery of racism and hatred of the other.
I don't mean to come across as suggesting a PC stance at all, or that white men should be held to a different standard than other groups. I think that when the dominant culture uses its position of power i.e a group of establishment cartoonists writing in a national press to lampoon (and that's putting it mildly) a marginalized group I find it questionable, and even reprehensible.SR wrote:[]The notion that white men can't comment on folly wherever it might be, crudely or elegantly, elevates political correctness to a level that defies reason. If I understand correctly, older white men can't comment on anything, right or wrong, as a penance for the sins of their white ancestors (with the assumption these artists are not xenophobic or racist, as I do when considering their body of work as a whole).
As for the nature of their medium, they are but snippets...not essays, dissertations, or books that require a more diligent level of research and thought.
In any event your post got me thinking more about this as I respect your thinking. I too am trying to wrap my head around this.
So to be clear, in this case the dominant culture are white men...correct? Too, I don't see them being held to a different standard as any group, set in particular ideologies, may lampoon anyone else under the auspices of free speech. I don't see how majority or minority status makes any difference, nor do I see how being reasonable or unreasonable, logical or illogical, moral or immoral has any bearing on free speech either.blackcoffee wrote:I don't mean to come across as suggesting a PC stance at all, or that white men should be held to a different standard than other groups. I think that when the dominant culture uses its position of power i.e a group of establishment cartoonists writing in a national press to lampoon (and that's putting it mildly) a marginalized group I find it questionable, and even reprehensible.SR wrote:[]The notion that white men can't comment on folly wherever it might be, crudely or elegantly, elevates political correctness to a level that defies reason. If I understand correctly, older white men can't comment on anything, right or wrong, as a penance for the sins of their white ancestors (with the assumption these artists are not xenophobic or racist, as I do when considering their body of work as a whole).
As for the nature of their medium, they are but snippets...not essays, dissertations, or books that require a more diligent level of research and thought.
In any event your post got me thinking more about this as I respect your thinking. I too am trying to wrap my head around this.