Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
CollegeBaby

They're taking my Freeze Peach!

Recommended Posts

To be fair, it's arguable that the thread title is more in keeping with the philosophy of Charlie Hebdo than treating it with dire respect would be.  I mean, CH traded on being purposefully shitty and offensive, at least sometimes in the face of other people's tragedies. 

 

Second, the issue is in people celebrating or praising a publication that in any other context would be decried as racist.  It's possible to decry the murders without lionizing the content. To mourn the dead without canonizing them. But in a lot of places, that isn't what's been happening.  The content is being heralded as the pinnacle of free speech.

 

 

Tegan and Apple Cider are on point. Here are my thoughts that I put into a Storify, Please bear my horrendous grammar and spelling, I made this at 3 AM.

 

Thoughts on White Liberal Reactions to Charlie Hebdo, Free Speech, Satire, and Criticism by PoC.

 

At the start of this thread, I was skeptical that CH was as bad as one or two posts on the Internet were making it out to be, mostly because I had never even heard of it before this week and I know better than to jump to any conclusions because of what one person on the Internet wrote (thus fitting into the dumb white liberal willing to preach about free speech).  But as the week has gone on, more knowledge has been spread about CH and a bunch of people's reaction to the work has been to praise and propagate it, I've come around.  People's reactions to this have been shitty.  Period.  Atrocities happen to innocent people every fucking day.  In corners of the world most of us don't even know exist.  And yet we have no grief, rage or even care about those people.  But some Europeans who drew shitty cartoons die, and the western world loses its fucking mind.  Like, have people not been paying attention to the awful shit going on around the world for...a long fucking time.  Like how the student activists in Mexico were murdered, by cartels who are mostly funded by Americans.  Where were the signs that read, "We are Mexican students who wanted to make our country better."  I guess that's not the kind of free speech people worry about protecting.  The kind of free speech by young, not-white kids trying to change the world.  No, we need to worry about the racist old fucks and their shitty cartoons. 

 

Point being, thanks for posting that man.  It actually did clarify the thoughts going around my head. 

 

 

 

Edited to add: This post is much angrier sounding than what I usually try to write here.  But the comparison between the massacred students in Mexico versus the massacred satirists in France got stuck in my head earlier today and has been rolling around there building up steam.  If you want to talk about courageous heroes of free speech, just look to the activists and journalists trying to do good work in that country.  Those folks know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that they are risking their lives.  Every single day.  And yet a bunch of them manage to keep pressing on.  And you know the violence there is silencing so many people.  And a bunch of the people worked up about Charlie Hebdo have given little to no thought to people like those students.  Their peers aren't getting hundreds of thousands of dollars to keep pressing their work forward.  No one is holding signs with their names.  And the more I thought about that comparison, the angrier I got at some of the rhetoric that has been going around this week. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To frame it in such a glib way as "my freeze peach" seems remarkably callow. 

 

Even going "yeah, it's bad that this guy was murdered BUT..." strikes me as grotesque. 

 

You know, I think you're right. Probably also rather glib of me to tell a bunch of people on the internet to go fuck themselves. I have to be honest though, in the face of a media circus that has taken this tragedy and turned it into a cheer squad for freedom when free speech is not actually under threat, I think it is a rather small issue. Free speech is a red herring here, this is an attack on white people by Islamic extremists that is tearing apart racial harmony. Right now, my biggest concern has been for the secular Muslims of France and the rest of the world who are in present danger as the media has been given free licence to distribute stupid lazy comics that inflame islamophobia. I am sorry for the people who have died but there is nothing I can do for them right now.

 

EDIT: Sorry Bjorn I was writing the following section before you posted.

 

Look I am not a professional writer like Glenn Greenwald so I must apologise if I am not making self clear enough here...

 

Freedom of speech is an important human right and I don't think comics like this should be banned

 

.. but where are people getting the idea that I think satire should be censored? That racist jokes should not be allowed to exist? Saying "we are not free unless we are free too offend" is nice I guess. I don't think anyone should have the authority to police what is offensive and what isn't. It's not really what I am arguing with though. I don't think there is a problem with it because it might be "too offensive" or because the jokes aren't funny enough. Many of the Muslims I have talked to personally over the last couple of days are not actually that offended by these types of comics. I don't know how that reflects upon the population as a whole, but being offended is not the problem.
 
Islam should not be free from satire, and you can't help that some people will be offended by it. The problem is these Charlie Hebdo comics - and others like it that casually conflate Islam with race - continue to perpetuate racist stereotypes that validate islamophobia in a society dominated by white voices. I am not a satirist, it is not my job to figure out how to mock ideas and save the people. However, calling for social conscience on these issues does not mean I think they should be banned.
 
Does that make sense? Seriously running out of ways to keep rephrasing this. Maybe satire will help?
 
2014
Person A: Some of these video games are a bit sexist.
Person B: What? You want to take away my video games?!
Person A: No, I just think we should acknowledge that they exist in a culture dominated by male voices and might perpetuate sexist stereotypes.
Person B: YOU'RE GOING TO TAKE MY GAMES
Person A: No, that's not...
Person B: BUT FREE SPEECH!!!
 
2015
Person A: Some of these comics are a bit racist.
Person B: What? You want to take away my satire?!
Person A: No, I just think we should acknowledge that they exist in a culture dominated by white voices and might perpetuate racist stereotypes.
Person B: YOU'RE GOING TO TAKE MY SATIRE
Person A: No, that's not...
Person B: BUT FREE SPEECH!!!
 
Saying "We must all post the comics or free speech will die" is a gross false dichotomy. There is a middle ground of letting these comics exist, just don't turn these victims into martyrs in the name of freedom by republishing the worst examples of free speech. Stop reposting the comics, you don't need to do it to save free speech. People can't pretend that satire has the power save us from terrorism by using cute comics with terrorists being impaled by pencils without also understanding it also has the power to inflame islamophobia. Telling Muslims that "you are not free unless you can be offended" is rather cold comfort right now as they become the targets of revenge attacks from islamophobic morons.
 
qqbs3p.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, French guy chiming in mostly to say : funny how I feel like I have nothing to contribute to this conversation.
Most of it feels like a reaction to the English language reaction, and working to frame it according to the politics you are used to. It's all turning into Reddit liberalism vs Tumblr liberalism (sorry for the generalisation, but you get the gist). The worst ennemy of the left always has to be the other left, I guess.
The reaction in France was obviously a lot more aware of who Charlie Hebdo were from the get go, and as such more nuanced. Don't worry, we had all the hashtags : jesuisCharlie, jenesuispasCharlie, jesuisAhmed.
I mean, half of the shock in France stems from the fact that Charlie Hebdo wasn't that relevant anymore, because they were a bunch of people who were good in the 60s-70s and had not really evolved since then. They were criticised by the left before their death (and after), but I feel like most people were aware that the main problem was them being stuck in a mindframe where putting dicks in a newspaper was top-notch anarchism, and the racist slips were straight-up laziness.
The drawing Mohammed business is more complex. The short version is that the left has a very strong anti-religion tradition and has had troubles adapting it to the situation where a minority religion (Islam in France) is becoming a big talking point. The reactions of most of the left has been to drop the anti-religion thing entirely or to reduce it to more consensual options : anti-dogma, anti-extremism etc, and frame discussion of Islam in the context of republican secularism (which can border on don't ask, don't tell). CH stuck to the old ways of bashing religion (and drawing authority figures naked/fucking), which was mostly treated as another example of them being stuck to the past. Most of the left reaction at the time was "plz no dont", really.
I guess the best way to understand the CH attacks is an attack against the progressive politics (and edgy comics) of 40 years ago. They might not fit in today's politics, but they are stil linked to a cherished past. They were "good guys" at some point.

(for context : I lurk on the forums sometimes because I follow the podcast and the GG thread here)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for sharing your thoughts. Having a citizen try to sum up the political landscape in France is always valuable. Trying to understand the subtleties of religious politics and race struggles of another country is a murky set of waters to wade through with all the double-talk from invested parties. It fits interpretations I've been reading that Charlie Hebdo were faux-anarchists who were more interested in shocking minds than challenging them, and were related to an older political class having to deal with a rising Muslim population they were not accustomed to.

 

Found another article that gives some history on the race struggle in France and also suggests that attacks on free speech is a red herring.
 

"The truth is, this awful attack can not be explained in a vacuum, absent of the context around it."
...
"Even if I am wrong, one thing is for sure — to bring an end to this — we got to do something differently, because what we are doing now — isn’t working."

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel like attempts to lionize the work and lives of those killed pushes a narrative that only good victims don't deserve to die, versus a larger narrative that people shouldn't be killed in general, but that they might have not been good people and we need to talk about that still. Which I think is something Busby poked at a little.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's something I don't understand about the whole "Comedy shouldn't punch downward" sentiment: What if the person or sentiment that is "beneath" our level or is held by people that are, is still really dumb and deserving of our scorn/ridicule. For instance, would it be immoral for me to make fun of the "classic", german Nazi-Skinhead-demography because in the 80's and 90's (and even now to some extent) they are mostly people that lost in society, are statistically likely to have a lower grade of education, income and social acceptance than me. Still, they also do believe that the people responsible for their shitty (at least doubtlessly shittier than mine) lot in life are people who have it even shittier than themselves and take it out on them and that is really stupid. Also, much of the stuff they say to justify their behaviour or explain their political platform is really bad and funny (such as explaining their opinion that "people what can't even speak proper german should go back to where they came from" when referring to someone whose family has been living in that town for three generations now.).

Would it be mean for me as a relatively wealthy white guy who is currently at university to draw a cartoon that might end up hurting their feelings?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's an interesting question, but it depends on how you do it. Nuance is a thing! If you pick on them for their lack of education, income, that's just being a dickbag (even if they ARE Nazis.) Making fun of their beliefs is fine because it is a pretty common moral ground to stand on to make jokes. Making fun of their beliefs is not their intrinsic values as humans, which is often what that "punching down" refers to. But (and there's always a but), this doesn't necessarily work if you're attacking people who are not parallel to you in some ways. There's also the fact that if you're attacking Nazis and other white power groups but not looking hard at white supremacy as it benefits you as a white guy, you're just taking an easy, popular tack and not doing the work in yourself. Which wraps back around to why anti-racist jokes fall flat if you're a white guy.

 

Which is why satire is hard to do if you're part of the group that passively benefits!

 

I feel like these comedy arguments come up all the time because people really, really want some hard boundaries so they can say "Well, I didn't step over THIS line" instead of looking how interconnected and nuanced it all is and are trying to abstract it from larger contexts. In short, do whatever comedy you want but absolutely be prepared to take the criticism for it if you don't want to do due diligence as to why it's shitty.

 

Who is "beneath" is often based on a lot more complicated social structures and dynamics that still puts some people very much on top and not questioning why that is is where you get a lot of offensive humor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*snip*

 

Seconded on the thanks, one of the things I know I haven't seen enough of are perspectives from the French (or at least not ones that I could read, since I'm not fluent in French).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's something I don't understand about the whole "Comedy shouldn't punch downward" sentiment: What if the person or sentiment that is "beneath" our level or is held by people that are, is still really dumb and deserving of our scorn/ridicule. For instance, would it be immoral for me to make fun of the "classic", german Nazi-Skinhead-demography because in the 80's and 90's (and even now to some extent) they are mostly people that lost in society, are statistically likely to have a lower grade of education, income and social acceptance than me. Still, they also do believe that the people responsible for their shitty (at least doubtlessly shittier than mine) lot in life are people who have it even shittier than themselves and take it out on them and that is really stupid. Also, much of the stuff they say to justify their behaviour or explain their political platform is really bad and funny (such as explaining their opinion that "people what can't even speak proper german should go back to where they came from" when referring to someone whose family has been living in that town for three generations now.).

Would it be mean for me as a relatively wealthy white guy who is currently at university to draw a cartoon that might end up hurting their feelings?

 

As I mentioned, the issue isn't so much about having hurt feelings. Targets of good satire will almost always have hurt feelings. Not that it was satire, but I told a bunch of people to go fuck themselves after all, which I still take responsibility for. Pretty sure I hurt some feelings. It is about whether or not it challenges or reinforces certain problematic power structures in our society. Nazis are a group defined by their ideology. Even though they are social pariahs and are widely hated for their beliefs, they are not a social underclass in the same way that race minorities are oppressed because of inane bigotry against their intrinsic natures.

 

Conflating Nazism with Germany - while possibly not a strong example of punching down - is still poor taste because it reinforces a meaningless stereotype of Germans being Nazis, or Nazis being German - when the two are not causal and are simply a circumstance of a time and place where Nazism had the right conditions to flourish. Nazis should be mocked for their Nazism, not for being German or for living in poverty.

 

I think if somebody wants to make good satire about Nazism today and the relationship it has with poverty they would do well to understand the conditions in Germany post WW1 where Nationalism became a strong identity among the working class who faced huge levels of unemployment as a result of the Depression.

I feel like attempts to lionize the work and lives of those killed pushes a narrative that only good victims don't deserve to die, versus a larger narrative that people shouldn't be killed in general, but that they might have not been good people and we need to talk about that still. Which I think is something Busby poked at a little.

 

That's part of what has been frustrating me. Because people died and the rest of us were rightly saddened by this, we are wanting to pay some sort of tribute or honor to them for being killed in cold blood. As they should. But I think in our rush to call them heroes as if in death they have been washed of all their sins people have put them beyond all criticism of the fact that these are not the people protecting our freedoms. They did not deserve this, they are not at fault for this, but I am not Charlie Hebdo and they don't represent my idea of freedom.

 

The sorts of illustrations that Bjorn lined to (thank you) I think are all that's necessary to pay tribute to them and honor them. Reposting their work is not necessary.

 

And now for something completely different...

 
5vawrt.jpg
 
"Moslems"
 
"growing jihadist cancer"
 
Uuuuuuhhhhgghgghuuuhghghghfsgsredvdhaerq4238u5 -0WQRH-243 %13 6
 
This is why free speech is a false promise, because this damn guy has more say over the world's media than any anyone targetted by islamophbia. People who need free speech the most are rarely afforded it.
 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that "Let's republish the cartoons" makes sense as a knee-jerk reaction but isn't very useful beyond that. Same thing for the hashtag, it is a coping mechanism I guess but it's also very meaningless. It's a bit unfair to expect people to get into a reflective phase right away though.
Once again, I feel like the national and the international discussion on this is going to be different. The whole freedom of speech issue might be what will remain of it outside of France, and it's fine. There are people saying freedom of speech is important and so forth here as well, but I don't think it will be the legacy of the event. Even the focus on the symbol of the pen/pencil feels more related to the disproportion between stupid drawings and such organized violence.

The long-term true political question here should be along the lines of "Why does a French-born French-raised guy turn into a terrorist and what do we do about it ?". Everyone here already has its answers for the first part of the question. Sometimes that answer itself is part of the problem, for instance when you hear that it is an "integration problem", because a good portion of the integration problem is people being told they are not integrated.

And the annoying thing is, you only have easy answers to the second part of the question if your answer to the first part is simplistic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I mentioned, the issue isn't so much about having hurt feelings. Targets of good satire will almost always have hurt feelings. Not that it was satire, but I told a bunch of people to go fuck themselves after all, which I still take responsibility for. Pretty sure I hurt some feelings. It is about whether or not it challenges or reinforces certain problematic power structures in our society. Nazis are a group defined by their ideology. Even though they are social pariahs and are widely hated for their beliefs, they are not a social underclass in the same way that race minorities are oppressed because of inane bigotry against their intrinsic natures.

 

Conflating Nazism with Germany - while possibly not a strong example of punching down - is still poor taste because it reinforces a meaningless stereotype of Germans being Nazis, or Nazis being German - when the two are not causal and are simply a circumstance of a time and place where Nazism had the right conditions to flourish. Nazis should be mocked for their Nazism, not for being German or for living in poverty.

 

I think if somebody wants to make good satire about Nazism today and the relationship it has with poverty they would do well to understand the conditions in Germany post WW1 where Nationalism became a strong identity among the working class who faced huge levels of unemployment as a result of the Depression.

 

That's part of what has been frustrating me. Because people died and the rest of us were rightly saddened by this, we are wanting to pay some sort of tribute or honor to them for being killed in cold blood. As they should. But I think in our rush to call them heroes as if in death they have been washed of all their sins people have put them beyond all criticism of the fact that these are not the people protecting our freedoms. They did not deserve this, they are not at fault for this, but I am not Charlie Hebdo and they don't represent my idea of freedom.

 

The sorts of illustrations that Bjorn lined to (thank you) I think are all that's necessary to pay tribute to them and honor them. Reposting their work is not necessary.

 

And now for something completely different...

 
5vawrt.jpg
 
"Moslems"
 
"growing jihadist cancer"
 
Uuuuuuhhhhgghgghuuuhghghghfsgsredvdhaerq4238u5 -0WQRH-243 %13 6
 
This is why free speech is a false promise, because this damn guy has more say over the world's media than any anyone targetted by islamophbia. People who need free speech the most are rarely afforded it.
 
 

 

To clarify: In my example, I was talking about Neo-Nazis (although, nowadays I guess Nazi-skinheads would be considered "old Neonazis" since the preferred way for the movement to present itself has somewhat adjusted itself to match the times) and I mentioned them being German, because I am as well and most of the (thankfully brief) encounters I've had with and stuff I read about them has been with German Neo-Nazis, so I don't know if the impression I got of their major demographic ("White trash" projecting the blame for their disadvantaged position on immigrants/some undefined other, instead of acknowledging their own agency and the forces of the system they live in) would be accurate for other countries, although I wouldn't be surprised if it were.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that "Let's republish the cartoons" makes sense as a knee-jerk reaction but isn't very useful beyond that. Same thing for the hashtag, it is a coping mechanism I guess but it's also very meaningless. It's a bit unfair to expect people to get into a reflective phase right away though.

Once again, I feel like the national and the international discussion on this is going to be different. The whole freedom of speech issue might be what will remain of it outside of France, and it's fine. There are people saying freedom of speech is important and so forth here as well, but I don't think it will be the legacy of the event. Even the focus on the symbol of the pen/pencil feels more related to the disproportion between stupid drawings and such organized violence..

 

I've actually been quite impressed with what has been going on, at least in my social circles with regard to Charlie Hebdo.  Sure I've seen some of the anti-Islam type stuff you'd expect, but in large part people seem to be expressing solidarity or asking questions more than anything else.  Many of my more outspoken friends have even backed off the rhetoric, which I'll be honest is quite difficult not to be snarky about after some of the conversations we've had, so overall I'm quite optimistic.  Although the 2016 political races in the US will begin in earnest this year, so we'll see how long that lasts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that "Let's republish the cartoons" makes sense as a knee-jerk reaction but isn't very useful beyond that. Same thing for the hashtag, it is a coping mechanism I guess but it's also very meaningless. It's a bit unfair to expect people to get into a reflective phase right away though.

Once again, I feel like the national and the international discussion on this is going to be different. The whole freedom of speech issue might be what will remain of it outside of France, and it's fine. There are people saying freedom of speech is important and so forth here as well, but I don't think it will be the legacy of the event. Even the focus on the symbol of the pen/pencil feels more related to the disproportion between stupid drawings and such organized violence.

The long-term true political question here should be along the lines of "Why does a French-born French-raised guy turn into a terrorist and what do we do about it ?". Everyone here already has its answers for the first part of the question. Sometimes that answer itself is part of the problem, for instance when you hear that it is an "integration problem", because a good portion of the integration problem is people being told they are not integrated.

And the annoying thing is, you only have easy answers to the second part of the question if your answer to the first part is simplistic.

 

If it were up to me, the biggest takeaway from this tragedy shouldn't be free speech, but unity. Unity in the face of forces that will drive people apart. I don't know what causes anyone to become a terrorist, but I think we first have to ask why a decade long War on Terror has produced no meaningful results, and why we expect Western aggression in the Middle East to solve Terrorism but we don't expect to deal with the refugees and the immense humanitarian aid crisis that results from it.

 

 

To clarify: In my example, I was talking about Neo-Nazis (although, nowadays I guess Nazi-skinheads would be considered "old Neonazis" since the preferred way for the movement to present itself has somewhat adjusted itself to match the times) and I mentioned them being German, because I am as well and most of the (thankfully brief) encounters I've had with and stuff I read about them has been with German Neo-Nazis, so I don't know if the impression I got of their major demographic ("White trash" projecting the blame for their disadvantaged position on immigrants/some undefined other, instead of acknowledging their own agency and the forces of the system they live in) would be accurate for other countries, although I wouldn't be surprised if it were.

 

I see. I can't speak for other countries but that's definitely the relationship with Neo-Nazis in Australia too, and other related White Nationalist shitlickers. Australia has a definite problem with White Nationalism, maybe not so strong in the mainstream politics but it has a sizable count of the voting bloc. This is getting off topic, but I just wanted to say that since I don't want to feel like I'm talking down from an Ivory Tower.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5vawrt.jpg
 
"Moslems"
 
"growing jihadist cancer"
 
Uuuuuuhhhhgghgghuuuhghghghfsgsredvdhaerq4238u5 -0WQRH-243 %13 6
 
This is why free speech is a false promise, because this damn guy has more say over the world's media than any anyone targetted by islamophbia. People who need free speech the most are rarely afforded it.
 
 

 

 

The double standard. Christian extremists like Breivik = "sick person". Muslim extremists like the Hebdo murderers = "jihadist cancer".

 

What about the "crusadist cancer"? Can't we hold Christian people as a whole responsible for any and all atrocities committed in the name of God?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Free speech.

 

Nah Tegan is right, although more accurately it is frozen yogurt. This thread has just been about me projecting my anger for not getting my frozen yogurt, while at the same time trying to convince myself that it is overrated and probably also cursed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be honest, the thread title grates on me the way almost any internet humor that depends on substituting similar sounding words like that. 
 
In other news, France, the bastion of free speech where millions rallied in unity to not be bowed by terrorism.  In this country where people shared and published Charlie Hebdo's work far and wide, so that the terrorists could not win.  The country to which all have looked for leadership in this moment...has been arresting people for shit they be saying and drawing.

 

Among those detained was Dieudonne, a controversial, popular comic with repeated convictions for racism and anti-Semitism.

The attacks that left 17 people dead are prompting France to tighten security measures but none of the 54 people detained have been linked by authorities to the attacks. That is raising questions about whether the government is impinging on the freedom of speech that Charlie Hebdo so vigorously defends.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×