Bjorn Posted January 8, 2015 Also, how do you go about mocking and lampooning extremists and criminals without creating the association in some people's view that you are mocking the entire religion/culture/country/ethnicity that they come from? Because I have no fucking problem mocking extremists, whether they be anti-abortion terrorists, Muslim terrorists, asshole atheists (I can't think of any actual criminal words to apply to atheists), pedophile Catholic priets, etc. I mean, a lot of Catholics have been pissed off about the mockery their church has faced over the decades long abuse, and the coverup of it, by their leaders. But tough shit, mockery and humor is one of the ways we deal with that. If you make fun of terrorists who bomb things, behead people, etc., by doing that are you really indicting an entire religion or culture anymore than the people who made fun of the Catholic church? Meanwhile, news around here had not a word on the attempted NAACP bombing, and when comparing back called this attack the worst since 2004 subway bombings, neglecting that in between those two the right-wing extremist Breivik killed over 70 people in Norway. Racist notions about how terrorism only or disproportionately comes from particular groups (religion of hate, and all that) are forever reinforced by other kinds of violence never being given that label. It's not terrorism when a white guys does it, to be very blunt. The same media that are now making certain connections instantly will later tell you that the motives for one of the many attacks on asylum seekers around here are "yet unknown." This is the thing that's been driving me up a fucking wall, and I had intended to bring it up in this thread anyways, so thanks for broaching it. When I looked at my news feed yesterday, the headlines for CH and the NAACP bombing were right next to eachother, and I knew before reading either that one would use the word terrorist, make assumptions about motives and the other wouldn't.This, to me, is so much worse than CH, from the bits and pieces I've seen. Even assuming the worst about CH, they are literally cartoonish evil, and had a regular readership in the 10s of thousands at most. Whereas the institutional racism of our media that ignores acts of white/European terrorism does more damage than a thousand racist cartoons. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Merus Posted January 9, 2015 I've found recently that a lot of people I encounter online who viciously defend free speech (almost always for purposes of defending gamergate et al) don't usually realize that the reason freedom of speech is so important is because of the immense power that words can have and instead choose to wield them like a kid who found his dad's gun. If you hurt someone and the strongest defense you can make for your actions is to say that they technically weren't illegal, you're probably an asshole. I am not touching this thread with a ten foot pole - most people, when arguing about free speech, argue almost exclusively for how it applies to white, upper-middle class Westerners in countries where free speech is an assumed right - but here's a post that can come around again. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CollegeBaby Posted January 9, 2015 @Bjorn my interpretations are primarily from listening to people smarter and more educated than I on the subject. Links below. I want to clarify where exactly I am directing my criticism. Free speech and satire are a powerful weapon to hold powerful people accountable, but you can't acknowlege this without also acknowledging it can also be used by powerful people to speak over the powerless. Free speech is an empty promise if the powerless have no voice to begin with. Despite what many are fearing, freedom of speech is not actually in danger here. A few extremists were never going to take that away, the only people who can do that are the government of France. But right now alarmist white people are given the chance to feel like they are the underdog as they hide their islamophobia behind a shield of free speech. Meanwhile the people most at risk after this tragedy are not a few privledged cartoonists, they are the secular Muslims of France. Whether or not this was the aim of the attacks, this is the outcome and very few people are actually talking about it. Instead it seems more are content with simplistic black and white scenarios. "The crazy people are attacking the freeze peach! You say that sometimes the freeze peach is used for bad? You condone terrorism!" Zero room for reflection on the complex geopolitical issues that are inseperable from all of this. How can any single person possibly understand the massive cycles of violence, oppression and indoctrination around the world? The tragic desperate acts that lead to more tragic desperate acts? I certainly don't. Unfortunately you can't condense it into 140 characters. So I will now leave to to people much smarter than I. Charlie Hebdo: Understanding is the least we owe the dead Sharpening Contradictions: Why al-Qaeda attacked Satirists in Paris Trolls and Martyrdom: Je Ne Suis Pas Charlie JE NE SUIS PAS CHARLIE: ON THE CHARLIE HEBDO MASSACRE AND DUELLING EXTREMISMS In the Wake of Charlie Hebdo, Free Speech Does Not Mean Freedom From Criticism Let’s not sacralize Charlie Hebdo Charlie Hebdo: Norway's Christians didn't have to apologise for Anders Breivik, and it's the same for Muslims now Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brkl Posted January 9, 2015 I've seen the Catholic church as an institution ridiculed for years, but crucially I've never seen someone apply that to Catholics in general. Because abuse was an institutional problem, that criticism was on point whether the church liked it or not. Blanket insulting all Muslims is a terrible response to an attack and an insult to the notion of free speech. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mangela Lansbury Posted January 9, 2015 Throwing another link on the pile. http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/yes-virginia-cartoons-are-worth-fighting-for-20150108 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CollegeBaby Posted January 9, 2015 It is the sign of an extremely privileged person if they think their way of life is threatened at all by deciding not to republish inflammatory cartoons. They should be thankful to live such a fantastically free life. Meanwhile, attacks fueled by islamophobia are still occurring against people who's lives are at actual risk. Pregnant Muslim woman attacked in Paris loses baby By the way, wearing a religious headscarf is banned in France. Are there any satirists ready to mock this double standard of free expression? Genuinely would like to know. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bjorn Posted January 9, 2015 It is the sign of an extremely privileged person if they think their way of life is threatened at all by deciding not to republish inflammatory cartoons. They should be thankful to live such a fantastically free life. Meanwhile, attacks fueled by islamophobia are still occurring against people who's lives are at actual risk. Pregnant Muslim woman attacked in Paris loses baby By the way, wearing a religious headscarf is banned in France. Are there any satirists ready to mock this double standard of free expression? Genuinely would like to know. The attack on the woman, or anyone over this, is vile. And it shows the silly double standard in regards to things like the hijab law, where women need "educated" on the secular norms of France, while the French do not appear to worried on educating the French amongst them who are violently racist. Sadly, not enough people have opposed France's efforts to ban the face coverings in public, and head scarves in schools. It ought to be the kind of thing where we saw hundreds or thousands of people standing in solidarity, wearing banned clothing. And yet the majority stayed silent at best, or actively supported it at worst. Right before the CH attack, Glenn Greenwald had a piece about the criminalization of online speech, provided that speech originated with a Muslim. He followed up today with thoughts on the re-publishing of CH's most offensive and hateful pieces. He included a number of anti-Semitic cartoons, asking that if the true power of freedom of speech was the power to offend, then people should be supporting the printing of cartoons like those. Is it time for me to be celebrated for my brave and noble defense of free speech rights? Have I struck a potent blow for political liberty and demonstrated solidarity with free journalism by publishing blasphemous cartoons? If, as Salman Rushdie said, it’s vital that all religions be subjected to “fearless disrespect,” have I done my part to uphold western values? .... Indeed, it is self-evident that if a writer who specialized in overtly anti-black or anti-semitic screeds had been murdered for their ideas, there would be no widespread calls to republish their trash in “solidarity” with their free speech rights. In fact, Douthat, Chait and Yglesias all took pains to expressly note that they were only calling for publication of such offensive ideas in the limited case where violence is threatened or perpetrated in response (by which they meant in practice, so far as I can tell: anti-Islam speech). Douthat even used italics to emphasize how limited his defense of blasphemy was: “that kind of blasphemy is precisely the kind that needs to be defended.” Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
itsamoose Posted January 9, 2015 I've listened to a number of comics and satirists related to this attack, and they have all basically said the same thing. Yes satire can be racist or go too far, but that is generally the point of the exercise--taking a problematic line of logic and pushing it to an offensive extreme. Sure this doesn't always work, and the quality of the satire is subject to your own opinion, but I have a hard time saying a joke shouldn't be made because it didn't land with me. Personally I always go back to A Modest Proposal which by today's standards may seem tame but at the time was considered horrific. I remember back in high school my english teacher made us all read it without telling us it was satire, just to see what we thought. Some got it, others thought it was just bigotry. I think the problem is really more one of communication. I've heard George Carlin tell incredibly offensive jokes that I found funny, as well as ones I didn't, but I don't think its right to say the jokes I didn't get or thought went too far shouldn't be made. I generally get the sense that any individual comic or satirical joke is meant to poke fun at a very particular point, but is often conflated with a larger group. Kind of like how a stand up comic will play a character and say something horrible as part of the act, but without that understanding it can be taken to mean the actual horrible thing that was said. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Argobot Posted January 9, 2015 There's a good Joe Sacco piece on the use of satire in comics at the Guardian. http://www.theguardian.com/world/ng-interactive/2015/jan/09/joe-sacco-on-satire-a-response-to-the-attacks Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pkirkner Posted January 9, 2015 It's off-topic, but anyone who hasn't read Sacco's stuff really should. Safe Area Gorazde might be the best piece of war reporting I've ever read. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Apple Cider Posted January 9, 2015 I have to deal with these kinds of conversations a lot in the writing I do, and I always tend to fall back on two things: 1.) Satire, really good satire, is usually in the hands of the oppressed classes, whatever those might be. (People say "punch up, not down" but that's a bit aphorisitic in a way that doesn't elucidate that it's talking about power structures) 2.) Freedom of speech is literally a right in our country, from the government censoring speech. Freedom of speech has nothing to do with critical commentary or protestations from people, particularly those you might aggrieve with your work. A private entity can absolutely censor you from your words if you're trying to do them in their space, etc. I don't believe satire, if racist, is actually satire, because it's upholding the status quo. If you're doing that, then you're not being satirical. Your words have no teeth in a subversive way, but rather in a way that was granted to you by the oppressive systems of society. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bjorn Posted January 9, 2015 I don't believe satire, if racist, is actually satire, because it's upholding the status quo. If you're doing that, then you're not being satirical. Your words have no teeth in a subversive way, but rather in a way that was granted to you by the oppressive systems of society. That's a good way of stating it. In other news, the media fund Google was obligated to create in France (long story) is going to be making a $300,000 payment to CH, and a bunch of other media outlets and companies are also looking to chip in money, both to keep it operating and to fund next week's 1 million copy print run. If it ends up displaying more of the racist caricatures they seem known for (which seems plausible), it will be interesting to see the response to other companies and organizations funding the print run. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
itsamoose Posted January 9, 2015 I don't believe satire, if racist, is actually satire, because it's upholding the status quo. If you're doing that, then you're not being satirical. Your words have no teeth in a subversive way, but rather in a way that was granted to you by the oppressive systems of society. Well isn't the difference here just one's ability to communicate? Aren't you damning them for not being able to articulate themselves effectively? I really don't think it's fair to say that satire is only valid when you like it, or doesn't cross a particular line, or when directed at a particular group. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Apple Cider Posted January 9, 2015 I absolutely think it's fair to say that. I don't think it's fair to be able to get away with racist caricatures as white men, in general, and call it satire. I've run across men who try to attempt satire of sexism, for instance. First of all, it's exceedingly hard to communicate that what you're saying is in jest (when satire should, in some ways, communicate that very clearly) and also, it's very hard to satirically criticize a system that you passively benefit from. Do you see what I mean? You can do it, I can't stop anyone from doing it, but I believe there's an imperative that satire works best when from the people being trampled. If you can't articulate effectively, from a communication standpoint, then yes, you failed on that level too. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
itsamoose Posted January 9, 2015 Yeah that's fair. There are certainly some people who use their free speech rights as an excuse to get away with saying whatever they want under the guise of satire. I would alter that to say satire works best when the core of the joke is empathy, but I get your meaning. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nachimir Posted January 9, 2015 Those are great ways to express it, Apple Cider. I didn't retweet this because I've been struggling to process any of the past few days news and the way twitter continuously reacts to and chews it up. This morning I wanted to retweet this, but didn't because I lacked the energy for any potential conversations that might come out of it: Fundamentalists kill Chubby Brown. Weeping liberals in flying helmets chant "I am Chubby" by candlelight and recite his best P*** jokes. Context: Roy Chubby Brown built a career on dressing goofy and being racist on stage. Seeing people speak about the cartoons and (effectively) say "You're not looking at the racist tropes in context!", while I have black friends who are really offended by them, is tragic. There's a reason most newspaper cartoons telegraph and caption things so heavily, and it's to leave no room for interpretation. If these French cartoons lack the context to stop that, they were shitty work that can't stand or communicate by itself, and no amount of context or intent save them from being racist. Back to that Twitter News Cycle™ though, it seems people can't think about it without projecting a baddies/goodies divide. Some people were brutally murdered. It doesn't sanitise their work. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Codicier Posted January 9, 2015 I feel kinda weird that tweeter went straight to Brown skipping the UK's far more direct equivalent of Charlie in Viz. I guess Brown is just kinda a easier target because he was very much a backward creature of who just offended one end of the spectrum, where as Viz (& from what i understand Charlie) was a far more broad spectrum antagoniser and still enjoys a certain cache for that (i remember for instance Viz parodies of certain right wing celebrities occasionally cropping up in my distinctly lefty twitter feed). Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nachimir Posted January 9, 2015 I feel kinda weird that tweeter went straight to Brown skipping the UK's far more direct equivalent of Charlie in Viz. While he makes serious points and often doesn't joke about them, when he does he always goes for the better joke. While he's not the best parallel, Chubby is an example of racist humour that was widely accepted here in the UK, but that the same people talking to muslims about racist depictions right now would probably never consider defending. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Stuart Posted January 10, 2015 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. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BusbyBerkeley Posted January 10, 2015 (edited) Oof, I disagree with a lot of y'all on this one. Mostly the goofy meme-y tone of the thread title and first post. Like, people died. It's shitty. Don't reach for the meme bucket. Racist anti-muslim reaction is clearly not right, but neither is acting like people are whining about their ~~~~"free speech"~~~~ being taken away. People really ought to be able to think or write or draw or create whatever media they want without fear of being murdered for it. I'll draw a parallel to after Osama Bin Laden was killed and people were cheering in the streets. That was gross, right? This is pretty gross too. Edited January 10, 2015 by BusbyBerkeley Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gaizokubanou Posted January 10, 2015 Oof, I disagree with a lot of y'all on this one. Mostly the goofy meme-y tone of the thread title and first post. Like, people died. It's shitty. Don't reach for the meme bucket. Racist anti-muslim reaction is clearly right, but neither is acting like people are whining about their ~~~~"free speech"~~~~ being taken away. People really ought to be able to think or write or draw or create whatever media they want without fear of being murdered for it. I'll draw a parallel to after Osama Bin Laden was killed and people were cheering in the streets. That was gross, right? This is pretty gross too. Could you clarify that bolded bit? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BusbyBerkeley Posted January 10, 2015 Could you clarify that bolded bit? Doh! In cleaning up my post I deleted a "not." Clearly NOT right. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Twig Posted January 10, 2015 People dying doesn't invalidate discussions that spawn from them dying. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BusbyBerkeley Posted January 10, 2015 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. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Twig Posted January 10, 2015 I mean I understand where you're coming from but do you really think it's okay to ignore these issues that come up just because someone dying was the catalyst? I personally use humor - dumb or clever - all the time to cope with life's horrible shit. It's how I deal. I don't think that invalidates the point he's making in the slightest. I mean, fuck, people die all the time. It's not like he's celebrating their deaths. Do we need to wait a week before talking about this? A month? A year? When does it become appropriate to question the value of what they died for (assuming that even is the real reason they died, of which I'm still skeptical). And! The quote-unquote meme in the title if the thread is not moving these people who died. It's mocking the idea that free speech means it's okay to be shitty to other people. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites