To all the "yes but" folks

[DonCoquixote]

Let me go ahead and acknowledge some points that some of you have tried to express:

1) Yes, to many muslims, the idea of "free speech" and "cartoons" may seem hypocritical when the publisher used cartoons were used to demonize Muslims. This same publisher censored an anti-semitic ad, so it is not like Charlie did not have compromises. Given the fact that there is a huge underclass of Muslims in France, it is understandbale they can be bitter. Hell, in the previous world cup Zidane got skewered in the French press for losing the championiship. The Italian rivals called him a "terrorist savage", he losy his cool, but of course, the papers read "Bravo Italia" the next day. "Freedom" is a cheap idea to people that are cast as the underclass.

2) Yes, there is a lot of crudeness and rudeness that is being sold as political humor. I can understand those who WANT a softer, more intellectual; discourse, even those who think that if people were forced to act nice that it would make a kinder world (though it will not)

The fact is, when you go ahead and curb offensive speech, you are arming the people who will censor you, because without fail, any speech that challenges the majority is labeled offensive. Just look here how many sides of the Israel/Palestine argument label each other as bigots, as if the bodies of children killed by both sides are just something to be kept under the rug. The same happens in every political argument, especially once the phrase "those people are just like the Nazis" line comes in. All attempts to censor offensive speech will do is drive the offensive underground, where it cannot be exposed to the sunlight.

So if you join the "Charlie kinda got what they had coming" crowd, you join those of all creeds that favor dishonesty and tyranny. This is exactly then sentiment that shows up when a woman is raped, and then people chime in "well, it was awful, but did you see that dress she wore, and you know she does drugs."

[NYC_SKP]

1. Deeper than that, they were all puppets, unwitting tools, Hebdo and the shooters.

The most acceptable, comprehensible storyline, brave journalists killed by religion crazed extremist, belies the truths of the matter.

This wasn't about being insulted and then reacting with violence.

The killers were doing the bidding of powers not representative of Islam, and the journalists were unwitting victims in a global war of ideology and politics, with religion a side note, though elevated to a perceived central role by the media and a gullible public.

The killers and the killed were all puppets, really, and in that sense they were victims in a brutal global pissing match.

The evil folks in all of this remain nameless with the exception of those shown in the photograph below, who have found a way to exploit this tragedy.

Funny how that happens.

[KMOD]

3. Politics 101

Never let a tragedy go to waste.

[Fumesucker]

13. Puppets indeed, the existence of an omnipotent and omniscient deity precludes free will

We were all programmed from the first Planck moment of creation.

[KMOD]

2. There are so many factors playing into this situation

You have purists, anti-muslim, anti-socialists, anti-religion, I can keep typing here, but I think you can get the gist.

Many will not look outside of our decided beliefs, to view this as a whole. This happens in every tragic situation.

Until people can let down their no-holds barred guard, and debate this openly and honestly, we will never find peace. People need very much to work together, the problem is people don't want to work together.

[KittyWampus]

4. "when you go ahead and curb offensive speech". So you gonna say 'nigger' here on DU?

And I haven't seen anyone on DU even remotely indicate "Charlie kinda got what they had coming".

I personally point out that satire is about provocation though.

Sometimes it's about challenging the power structure. Sometimes it's about doing it just because you can.

Frankly I think there's some serious hypocrisy going on.

In one breath you tacitly acknowledge risky behavior and then in the next try to pretend it isn't risky behavior.

You want another example? People going to protest in Washington or anywheres. You know you might get arrested, gassed or beaten. You know it before hand and do it anyway. Cause you believe in what you are doing and decide it's worth the risk. Maybe, in an ideal world, it shouldn't be risky. But it is. And you do it anyway. And the fact you are willing to put your neck on the line gives it even more weight and value.

[KMOD]

5. "So you gonna say "n" here on DU?

Love you Kitty, but I want to make a point about this.

Freedom of speech does not grant you the right to have your speech published everywhere.

Message boards, newspapers, radio stations, etc. have always had the right to choose what they print/air.

If someone wants to go ahead and use that word, they need to do it by their own means and accord.

You have every right to take to the streets, or publish/air your thoughts on your own, but you have no right to force others to do so. It's always been that way.

Pet peeve of mine, sorry.

[DonCoquixote]

6. thank you

I know people that can draw circles aroudn any of the people at Charlie. Hell Deviant Art has people that can do that. But the point is, if anybody tried to use that word you mentuioned, or any of it's brothers , they would be TOMBSTONED. Then again, DU is not the world. Sadly, a site that rhymes with "disrputionist" would probably LOVE it. The point being made is that the munite you ban speech because it offends, you give cover to the priests pundits and elites that use it to kill all criticism.

[JDPriestly]

9. There is a big difference between not reading Charlie Hebdo because you find the language

offensive and KILLING members of the staff of Charlie Hebdo because their cartoons offend you or your religious beliefs.

This is not about censorship of words on a private website. This is about murder. There is a huge difference.

DU would just degenerate into a place where the use of offensive language passed for discussion if we didn't try to limit the language that is used here. We aren't that limiting. It's a way of increasing the level of intelligence of our discussion.

There are plenty of websites where you can swear all you want. DU is just not for that purpose. We are for serious discussion.

[sabrina 1]

10. It would be hidden on Discussionist too. Kitty is right, there is lot of hypocrisy going on.

If Charlie's cartoons had been posted here, definitely some of them, they would have been hidden too.

We are prosecuting Whistle Blowers and threatening to throw Journalists in jail, HAVE thrown bloggers in jail in this country, and that IS the government censoring people.

Same thing in Europe among our allies. And in Saudi Arabia, one of our closest allies, they just sentenced a blogger to 1000 lashes but the Government there condemned the murders in France as an egregious 'Terrorist Attack'.

The truth is, some language does hurt people. We can either decide to ignore it and everyone gets to hurt everyone or we can stick to the way things are here where 'hate speech' can get you arrested.

What bothers people is the all out support for 'absolute free speech' without acknowledging that we do not allow that, our government doesn't allow it.

If we are going to join in and say 'Je suis Charlie' then Imus should not have been fired, and we should be able to say anything we want, any word no matter how offensive.

Do we really want that? Apparently not, so let's stop claiming we do, that's all.

Murdering people for cartoons that are offensive is a heinous act. But should it force us to practice what many are now preaching and have a free for all where offensive language is concerned?

[Warren DeMontague]

12. "Hate speech" such as it is, will NOT "get you arrested" in the US.

Assuming you are in the US, and protected by the 1st Amendment, a number of misconceptions crop up in your post. Offensive speech IS protected in the US, and whether our government wants to "allow" it or not, the constitution says they cant prohibit it.

Imus got fired from his job, he wasnt censored by the government. Private entities like MSNBC or this website can determine what sorts of speech they want to allow on their channel or site, that too is not the same thing as government limits on free speech.

the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists were killed, not fired from a job or banned from a website. Big difference there, too.

[sabrina 1]

19. Good to know, I thought that verbal abuse, especially in domestic abuse cases, was

against the law. But I have looked up the issue and it appears you are right. However, being fired for speech IF it is not against the law, should make it possible for the person to sue. Seems like a run around the Constitution imo. If we really believe in the free for all that many seem to be now advocating, there should be no serious consequences for hate speech.

I wonder if they are they thinking this through, or just knee jerk reacting.

Anyhow, it is the hypocrisy people are pointing out.

And the question, should murderous fanatics influence us in ANY way? I don't think so. Going to one extreme or the other is giving them power.

[Warren DeMontague]

20. There is no contradiction.

If your job involves saying things, in particular, your employer is probably well within their rights to fire you for saying things they dont want you to, on the job.

I think you are conflating a few very different things, here. One is the government, two is the right of private entites to determine what speech they want on their property or under their roof, three is people killing other people over saying something they don't like.

Those are very different animals, all.

[sabrina 1]

24. I think you have totally missed my point. Probably my fault for not expressing it more clearly.

I am not conflating anything, I am pointing out that many people who support severe consequences for speech, are now chanting 'Je suis Charlie'.

If they support any restrictions on speech then they are not Charlie. Private or Government.

I am fine with not changing anything because of a few murderous fanatics.

I would like to know though if those chanting are now going to advocate that we do change some things about the way we handle speech in this country.

Just recently a Journalist was threatened with jail here. Others have gone to jail for refusing to reveal sources. That should NOT be allowed imo. IF journalists cannot protect their sources we have no free press.

So, I will say it again, there is a lot of hypocrisy going on since this tragedy happened.

[Warren DeMontague]

25. I do agree with some of the points you are making, here.

As I said elsewhere in the thread, I'm not usually one of the ones cheering the prosecution of whistleblowers. I am old enough to remember The Pentagon Papers. Furthermore, if I'm am absolutist about anything, it's stuff like the 1st amendment.

However, again, MSNBC firing Don Imus is totally different than the government putting a journalist in jail.

[Fumesucker]

15. Charlie Hebdo's surviving cartoonist was not impressed with all his new friends

He mentioned "vomiting" on them.

I agree with you quite often but not this time, yes the incident is being used cynically by the leaders but that's not good reason to advocate further restrictions on what people can say.

I've said things here the last couple of days that I'm pretty sure have hurt people, I'm disappointed in myself that I couldn't find a less divisive and hurtful way to put what I think needed to be said.

[sabrina 1]

18. I am not advocating further restrictions on what people say. I am pointing out that many of those

now joining the cry 'je suis Charlie' would and have supported the restriction of speech. Eg, Whistle Blowers who are supposedly protected under law in this country, have been persecuted and prosecuted for what they have said. See Drake and Binney eg, who went through all the proper steps required to access that protection. People now advocating a free for all were not rushing to defend their right to use speech to inform the public of government corruption. On the contrary, many of those cheering now for free speech, also cheered for the prosecutions of Whistle Blowers.

It's not the issue of free speech I'm addressing, it's the hypocrisy of those who do not support it when it suits them.

[Warren DeMontague]

21. For the record there havn't been too many whistle blowers that I've "cheered" for the prosecution of

Personally.

Cant speak for anyone else, of course.

[JI7]

22. Hidden Posts on a Fucking Message Board is not the same as Killing someone over it

[DonCoquixote]

7. In one breath you tacitly acknowledge risky behavior and then in the next try to pretend it isn't ri

actually, you are wrong. Al speech is risky behavior, but censoring it in the hopes that the offensive reality that makes the offensive speech will be curbed is even riskier, because we know that trick NEVER works. To paraphrase JFK, those who make offensive speech impossible make offensive behaviour inevitable.

[JDPriestly]

8. There was an interview from the Real News Network posted on DU of an apologist for the

shooters. I could not believe my ears when I heard the interview.

The OP must be referring to that. There is no excuse for the killing of the Charlie Hebdo staff. Ne excuse at all. Even if someone thinks they were unfair in not publishing this or that, that cannot under any circumstances justify KILLING.

You don't kill someone over a cartoon or over an insult. No way.

And even if the heads of state of some countries do not respect freedom of the press as they should, most of them are not killing people over silly cartoons.

If you don't like a cartoon, don't look at it.

[Fumesucker]

14. You just did use the word and are still here

So it's not completely banned in all uses even on DU.

It's funny you could do that while simultaneously not getting Charlie Hebdo.

I don't "get" "modern art" but I know smart and sophisticated people who do so I don't assume it's the visual noise it appears to be to me.

[JI7]

23. the Risk should be in Criticism, Protests, Boycott etc, not in being killed over it

[Warren DeMontague]

11. agree.

You make some excellent ponts.

[KingCharlemagne]

16. No one -- not even the Devil himself -- deserves to be raped, tortured or

extra-judicially executed. That includes the 17 workers who were murdered in Paris but also Osama bin Laden.

Alas, Kant's Categorical Imperative has fallen out of favor of late, gone the way of other such quaint and obsolete artifacts as the Geneva Conventions and the Bill of Rights.

A categorical imperative, on the other hand, denotes an absolute, unconditional requirement that must be obeyed in all circumstances and is justified as an end in itself. It is best known in its first formulation:

Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative

[ucrdem]

17. I don't think it's satire and I don't think it's particularly French.

France has a fine tradition of satire going back to Rabelais and currently represented in the kiosks by Le Canard, which is widely distributed and more or less beloved or at least accommodated. The CH covers I've seen are grossly provocative and absolutely out of line in 21st century France. Yes, free speech laws apparently permit them, but somebody revived a DeGaule-era broadsheet long past its sell-by date for what looks like the purpose of instigating violence. That's my perception, and yes I think the marches on Sunday were xenophobically motivated. Who profits? I can only speculate but I don't think this grotesque outcome was an accident. I also think Obama and Holder were wise to keep a wide berth. Hollande didn't look happy either. Bad news all around and deeply disturbing. JMHO.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

26. There is no 'But'. There are two things that are true at the same time.

The people who point out the sexism, racism, Islamaphobia, and xenophobia on display in many of Charlie Hebdo's cartoons are not saying 'they got what they had coming' as you seem to think. They're simply pointing out way they are 'not' Charlie Hebdo. They can embrace free speech, without endorsing hate speech, and decry murder at the same time.

[seabeyond]

27. disagree. can easily call out the racist and sexist and homophobic, without ANY

"Charlie kinda got what they had coming"

what people are doing here is insisting that the racist, sexist, homophobic be acceptable in our society. our laws allow all of that. it is society, and calling them out that says no.

and no, having it out in the open does not shed light, but draws in weak and like minds. expanding the hate. not lessening it. only society can condemn the hatred.

[DonCoquixote]

28. seabeyond,I have to disagree

and as I admire you, I will try to do so in a way that is respectful of the subject matter.

Before Rape was not discussed in "polite company" much less news, much less news boards. Now, back in those days, were women actually protected from Rape? No, it flourished because it was not discussed for fear of offending people. Not that we have gotten very far, but now we can actually call out people that defend rape, be they the Gamergate twits or Bill Cosby. If society is not made aware of the hatred,it will not be forced to condemn it. Satire is a tool, and many of the woman who make sature about racism or sexism or other isms get called the (censored, but you know what word) and sadly, they also get slammed by their sisters as being too crude.

I myself "called it out" by saying the Charlie was not even as good as Mad magazine. However, the safety does not need to be open, because the same people who love it when you slam someone will those those same precedents to shut a feminist up, because what she says is "offensive." Granted people still do that at this point, but they know if they do that now, they will be pelted with ridiculue, be they on TV, newpapers or right here on DU. If you ban the offensive types, instead of running out on gmergate and right wing forums where a female reporter can say "sir, can you clarify these remarks you were recorded making?" They will just go back to the Church office and smoke-filled rooms.

Yes, Satire offends, it is supposed to offend. And Feminist satire, be it Roseanne to Amanda Palmer to Kathy Griffin, is BRUTAL, whioch is exactly why it is powerful, and a threat to the power structure. I am not calling for the racist, sexist, etc to be acceptable, I would hope you know me better than that. What I AM saying is that I realize that if I disarm the tools of one, I also disarm the people whos eneed top use those tools, like the women I mentioned, and also, all I will do is drive the bastards underground.

In a Dennis the Menace cartoon, Dennis was told in Sunday School about "Get thee behind me Satan" His response "I woudl rather have him in front, so i can see what he is up to." As far as the worst, the folks whose art will have NO redeeming value, I would rather see what these folks are up to, rather than have them stab me in the back. It is unpleasant, but I would rather have the Gamergaters et al in the open where they can be picked apart and ridiculed (and ridicule is worse than death for these folks) then have them walk behind me with a knife.

[seabeyond]

29. how do you think the gamers, mra'ers, pua's have become so prolific?

how do you think DI effects DU?

the acceptance of the hate is what allows it to grow. society challenging and condemning is what gets the more normal people to not become part of the crowd.

i listen to these right wingers gather the courage to be racists and support white police murdering the black. no one challenges what they say, and it grows.

the more and more trash we have in our media and entertainment is teaching our young, this is a norm. no challenging of it requires no thinking of what we create.

the discussion should more be, frances own bigotry, and the safe bigotries allowed that effect their laws.

like the bigotry in the u.s. that effects the performance of the police or the laws on womens health. these mere words grow in power that literally affect individual lives.

i have men on du telling me, i have to accept without judgment certain behaviors that are harmful to women. they restrict my freedom of speech to challenge, saying that i do not have the right to even question.

your post, and other posts are doing the same. i get the hide for challenging, even in civility while the offensive stands.

some comedian wants to tell a sexist joke, reinforcing the conditioning of our society hurting women so. because he is an artist, i am not allowed to challenge it. ALL i have is challenging it, hoping those around me will think and learn, see the conditioning we are doing that hurts our girls.

i have not participated in this much, nor read many of the threads that are resulting in two longtime duers starting these OP's of "buts". yes, i respect you too. but, .... and here is the but, when told i am not allowed to go beyond in thinking, that i must stop at a point you and others tell me to, i will challenge it. because murder and violence is wrong. there is no but to that. i still will not be an arm in what france's bigotry and the magazines bigotry represents. that makes me an hypocrite.

too often i am finding the same thing happening in real life, with consequences.

[DonCoquixote]

30. Your but, and my rebut

Last edited Mon Jan 12, 2015, 09:24 PM - Edit history (2)

"when told i am not allowed to go beyond in thinking, that i must stop at a point you and others tell me to, i will challenge it. because murder and violence is wrong."

If there is one thing I do nto want, it is to tell you what to think. Part of what DU is is an exchange where if I am convinced of something, I test it, and if it survives, I know it can take scrutiny. Frankly, there are few here who can serve that purpose anymore, and you are one. The last thing I woudl want is for people to stay so polite that they cannot admit they disagree. I remember way back, I used the analogy of sparring partners. Sparring is agressive, but there is respect and safety, and it is done so that the fighters can be conditionied and trained, so what when the GOP idiots come trying to knock our heads off, we can take and give the punch

"how do you think DI effects DU? "

If you read my journal, you know this is one of my favortie subjects: here is the condensed rant: Skinner thought he could harness and control the idiots by giving them their own shiny toy. of course, that FAILED, because all it did was allow the bigots to gather strength, and plan to sew sock puppets and outright game the jury system. That leads right into why I think banning offensive speech is futile; do you remember hearing how people said "well, they will go other there and leave us alone." You and I know how that failed. They did not stop being offensive here, if anything, they pulled out all the stops so much that they actually changed the culture of this site. Anytime we agree to soften speech for the thugs and clerics, they do not see that as comnpromise, but of weakness.

Yes, this does relate to gamergate, because what happened was these dudes started to attack the wallets of the game companies, saying "you fire these women and bring back our big (censored) bimbos or else we will not buy your stuff!" The companies CAVED, and when they showed fear, that is what made these gamergate types get swagger, until of course female satrists like Felicia Day used language that , thank the Goddess, wasoffensive enough to make people remeber that these were just lonley keyboard commandos behind the curtain.

"i have men on du telling me, i have to accept without judgment certain behaviors that are harmful to women. they restrict my freedom of speech to challenge, saying that i do not have the right to even question. your post, and other posts are doing the same."

Let me clarify, yes you and I have a right to question, but if you do not expect an answer, it is not a question. Let's say I made a point offensive to women, while pretending it was a question. I need not provide an example (not like the usual suspects have not provided examples) as that would be used by some to say "see, DQ said that" as a means of onscuring a point. If I asked this "question" you and your comrades would answer, sometimes polite, sometimes rude, depending on how stupid the "question" was. Now,if I started to say "why are all you ladies saying this?" then I would be the fool, becuase part of what happens when you speak on a forum is that you get a response. If we get so thin skinned that we cannot take and give responses, culture is finished, and both of us will be at the mercy of the people who simply are too damned stupid to give a damn.

"some comedian wants to tell a sexist joke, reinforcing the conditioning of our society hurting women so. because he is an artist, i am not allowed to challenge it. ALL i have is challenging it, hoping those around me will think and learn, see the conditioning we are doing that hurts our girls."

Now here I agree, but also, I will add that anyone who is an artist, especially a comedian, should be able to take the hit. However, there is a difference between a hit, and anythign involving guns. What many of the "Je suis Charlie" types are afraid of is that all someone will have to do is threaten violence, and then the censors come out. Now, I am not denying a lot of the "je Suis Charlie" types are bsing. One of the articles I worte pointed out that Charlie sure as hell backed down when someone wrote stuff that was considered "anti-semite", and that Muslims were easy targets in France. However, that does nto change the fact that if all you have to do is get a bunch of people together with guns to scare a paper, then you open up the gates of hell, because everyone from a bunch of disgruntled types to billionaires backing people's actiosn will get in on the act.

Suppose for example, Charlie made fun of the Burqa, or female circumcision, or made fun of clerics supporting spouse abuse. Sadly, Islam is not alone in being used by clerics to suppoert spouse abuse, it is a trait the faiths of Abraham enocurage. But some self-appointed (as in Mohammed,PBUH, would slap them) Muslim authorites have said stuff about women that are VILE. Now, you know, after the gunfire, after the one female terrorist ran away to become a folk heroine, the same folks would come out and say "Charlie should not have offended religious sensibilities." Yes, as you pointed out, there are ways to say things that might be less cartoonish, but the bottom line is, even if you said it sweet, certain people would still say you were offensive. Now, I use this example because at some point,especially in Hijab-banning France, the subject of how religion opresses women will come out, and if we do not tell the would be censors that we will not be cowed, there will be more GUNS, more Blood, until people sheepishly say "Ok, you can do whatever ya wanna to yer wimmin."

I am not the Charlie that hides the fact that France has had a shitty, nasty relationship with the Muslim world. I am the Charlie who knows that if Gunfire is listened to, there will be more gunfire, because we will have told them it works.

PS: and here is an exact example of why I do not want to join in the "charlie deserved it" chorus, because all of us, gays, women, et al, know that even under the guise of liberal censorship, the conservatives will gladly use this to get their old power back:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014983618