Islam and the West

[dimejinky99]

someone reckons theres a cock and balls on the face..

[Rangi Guy]

someone reckons theres a cock and balls on the face..

I thought it might have been something like that, but I kinda think that's a bit of a stretch

[dimejinky99]

also, doing themselves no favours...(you couldnt make it up)
http://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/We-tol ... ess-387690

'We told you so' - Israeli embassy in Ireland posts photo of Mona Lisa in Muslim headdress
4 dead at Paris kosher market after raid; one hostage...

Ankara mayor: Mossad behind Paris terror attack
The post seems to be a common sentiment among Israelis who are angry over criticism of its response to Palestinian terrorism.


“We told you so, France.”

That appears to be the message implied in a provocative tweet courtesy of the Israeli embassy in Ireland, which posted a photograph on its Twitter account on Wednesday featuring Mona Lisa decked out in Islamic garb while holding what appears to be a rocket.

The post seems to be a common sentiment among Israelis who are angry over what they perceive as the international community’s inability to empathize with its precarious security situation.

Don't say we didn't warn.... pic.twitter.com/YOzdOURnjf
— Israel in Ireland (@IsraelinIreland) January 12, 2015


Sensitive to criticism over its response to Hamas rocket fire, Israel has often sought to conflate its struggle against Palestinian terrorism with the jihadist violence that reared its ugly head in France last week, claiming the lives of 20 people.

[simple schoolboy]

If any of you have been so lucky as to avoid this piece, I present to you, the author of Doonsebury:

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/04/the-abuse-of-satire/390312/

Did Charlie Hebdo not punch down with enough force?

[BurtReynolds]

expert level:

Real life GTA: ISIS Suicide Bomber's Vehicle Goes Airborne And Explodes In Mid-air .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=22&v=aFxfWupuxbE

[simple schoolboy]

Who won in the Phoenix protest: Islam or the West?

[LoathedVermin72]

If any of you have been so lucky as to avoid this piece, I present to you, the author of Doonsebury:

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/04/the-abuse-of-satire/390312/

Did Charlie Hebdo not punch down with enough force?

Christ, I just saw this. Fuck that guy. Ugh. These apologists just DO NOT FUCKING GET IT.

[Birds in Hell]

Yeah, that's a terrible, not good, very bad piece.

[Green Habit]

Who won in the Phoenix protest: Islam or the West?

I haven't read any details about this, but I'm going to take a wild guess and say that everyone lost.

[E.H. Ruddock]

Who won in the Phoenix protest: Islam or the West?

I haven't read any details about this, but I'm going to take a wild guess and say that everyone lost.

Apparently the organizer of the original rally (the one who said "bring your guns") is now in hiding because he has received multiple threats on his life.

[Stickman]

[stip]

If any of you have been so lucky as to avoid this piece, I present to you, the author of Doonsebury:

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/04/the-abuse-of-satire/390312/

Did Charlie Hebdo not punch down with enough force?

Christ, I just saw this. Fuck that guy. Ugh. These apologists just DO NOT FUCKING GET IT.

To the surprise of absolutely no one, I'm pretty sympathetic to this piece. For starters, free speech, like any right, is never absolute, and while we use that language in defense of the people, institutions, and ideas that we support, we're generally comfortable, in practice, with limiting it's application.

The French tradition of free expression is too full of contradictions to fully embrace. Even Charlie Hebdo once fired a writer for not retracting an anti-Semitic column. Apparently he crossed some red line that was in place for one minority but not another.

I have no idea when that firing happened, or what that piece refers to. There may be some good reason that this writer was fired That's partly my point. All rights are contextualized to a greater or lesser degree.

Traditionally, satire has comforted the afflicted while afflicting the comfortable. Satire punches up, against authority of all kinds, the little guy against the powerful. Great French satirists like Molière and Daumier always punched up, holding up the self-satisfied and hypocritical to ridicule. Ridiculing the non-privileged is almost never funny—it’s just mean.

This punching downward point is important, and something that acontextual supporters of free speech see as an absolute value, and who hide behind the phrase political correctness to avoid any meaningful discussion of the idea that there are limitations, often miss. I am not saying that you can't write obnoxious things about weaker people, but he's right. Satire is a means for people without power to contest the strength of those who have it. From the top down it can be hard to distinguish from bullying.

It's another reason why the stuff with ISIS is confusing. Islam is by and large a religion practiced by people that have spent the last hundred years dominated by Christian nations. And so there is a tricky balancing act between using satire to attack particular power dynamics within parts of the religion (say the way women are treated) and kicking the religion itself, which does become a form of bullying. It's why there may be a tricky distinction between using satire to attack Israel for its occupation of the west bank and gaza (more appropriate) and less appropriate to use it to promote harmful stereotypes with a vicious history behind them.

And of course power is not the only thing to consider with satire. Basic moral positions may justify the use of satire against minority populations that believe and invoke hideous things (think the Westboro Baptist Church).

But all of this speaks to why there is a difference between using satire as a weapon against ISIS (which is important and probably a useful strategy given how much of ISIS's recruiting strength is based on slick public imaging), and deciding to go after the entire religion. Again, which is not to say people CAN'T do it. But it doesn't make you a hero, it may make you irresponsible, and at times it just makes you an asshole.

What free speech absolutists have failed to acknowledge is that because one has the right to offend a group does not mean that one must. Or that that group gives up the right to be outraged. They’re allowed to feel pain. Freedom should always be discussed within the context of responsibility. At some point free expression absolutism becomes childish and unserious. It becomes its own kind of fanaticism.

Yeah, what a stupid column...

[LoathedVermin72]

RAGE

[stip]

Who won in the Phoenix protest: Islam or the West?

I haven't read any details about this, but I'm going to take a wild guess and say that everyone lost.

what was the phoenix protest?

[LoathedVermin72]

If any of you have been so lucky as to avoid this piece, I present to you, the author of Doonsebury:

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/04/the-abuse-of-satire/390312/

Did Charlie Hebdo not punch down with enough force?

Christ, I just saw this. Fuck that guy. Ugh. These apologists just DO NOT FUCKING GET IT.

To the surprise of absolutely no one, I'm pretty sympathetic to this piece. For starters, free speech, like any right, is never absolute, and while we use that language in defense of the people, institutions, and ideas that we support, we're generally comfortable, in practice, with limiting it's application.

We are? How so? I guess libel, slander, and revealing people's confidential information are off-limits. What else are you talking about?

Traditionally, satire has comforted the afflicted while afflicting the comfortable. Satire punches up, against authority of all kinds, the little guy against the powerful. Great French satirists like Molière and Daumier always punched up, holding up the self-satisfied and hypocritical to ridicule. Ridiculing the non-privileged is almost never funny—it’s just mean.

This punching downward point is important, and something that acontextual supporters of free speech see as an absolute value, and who hide behind the phrase political correctness to avoid any meaningful discussion of the idea that there are limitations, often miss. I am not saying that you can't write obnoxious things about weaker people, but he's right. Satire is a means for people without power to contest the strength of those who have it. From the top down it can be hard to distinguish from bullying. ... And so there is a tricky balancing act between using satire to attack particular power dynamics within parts of the religion (say the way women are treated) and kicking the religion itself, which does become a form of bullying.

I really, really do not understand this persistent refusal to separate individual from ideology. It's a maddening conflation.

It is not "bullying" to ridicule Islam, because Islam is not a person. An ideology cannot be "bullied." Since when was Charlie Hebdo, or anyone criticizing/mocking Islam, writing "obnoxious things about weak people?"

This kind of response is clueless and insensitive at best and victim-blaming and despicable at worst.

But it doesn't make you a hero, it may make you irresponsible, and at times it just makes you an asshole.

Criticizing a religion is "irresponsible?" Seriously?!

What free speech absolutists have failed to acknowledge is that because one has the right to offend a group does not mean that one must. Or that that group gives up the right to be outraged. They’re allowed to feel pain. Freedom should always be discussed within the context of responsibility. At some point free expression absolutism becomes childish and unserious. It becomes its own kind of fanaticism.

Yeah, what a stupid column...

Yeah, it is a really fucking stupid column. "Free speech absolutist" is such an idiotic term (either it's absolute or it ain't free). Who is he even arguing with? Of course they have the right to be outraged! Of course they have the right to feel pain! No one is saying otherwise! What they don't have the right to do is fucking murder people because of it, which is all this is, and should be, about.

UGH!

[Green Habit]

Who won in the Phoenix protest: Islam or the West?

I haven't read any details about this, but I'm going to take a wild guess and say that everyone lost.

what was the phoenix protest?

It was basically hate attacking hate.

http://www.vox.com/2015/5/4/8542313/tex ... s-shooting

[stip]

Who won in the Phoenix protest: Islam or the West?

I haven't read any details about this, but I'm going to take a wild guess and say that everyone lost.

what was the phoenix protest?

It was basically hate attacking hate.

http://www.vox.com/2015/5/4/8542313/tex ... s-shooting

I'm glad that security guard is okay. Seems like the only innocent bystander at the event.

[stip]

If any of you have been so lucky as to avoid this piece, I present to you, the author of Doonsebury:

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/04/the-abuse-of-satire/390312/

Did Charlie Hebdo not punch down with enough force?

Christ, I just saw this. Fuck that guy. Ugh. These apologists just DO NOT FUCKING GET IT.

To the surprise of absolutely no one, I'm pretty sympathetic to this piece. For starters, free speech, like any right, is never absolute, and while we use that language in defense of the people, institutions, and ideas that we support, we're generally comfortable, in practice, with limiting it's application.

We are? How so? I guess libel, slander, and revealing people's confidential information are off-limits. What else are you talking about?

Well you've already picked three huge areas, but we limit free speech when we believe there are threats to public safety and, in some cases, community norms.

Traditionally, satire has comforted the afflicted while afflicting the comfortable. Satire punches up, against authority of all kinds, the little guy against the powerful. Great French satirists like Molière and Daumier always punched up, holding up the self-satisfied and hypocritical to ridicule. Ridiculing the non-privileged is almost never funny—it’s just mean.

This punching downward point is important, and something that acontextual supporters of free speech see as an absolute value, and who hide behind the phrase political correctness to avoid any meaningful discussion of the idea that there are limitations, often miss. I am not saying that you can't write obnoxious things about weaker people, but he's right. Satire is a means for people without power to contest the strength of those who have it. From the top down it can be hard to distinguish from bullying. ... And so there is a tricky balancing act between using satire to attack particular power dynamics within parts of the religion (say the way women are treated) and kicking the religion itself, which does become a form of bullying.

I really, really do not understand this persistent refusal to separate individual from ideology. It's a maddening conflation.

It is not "bullying" to ridicule Islam, because Islam is not a person. An ideology cannot be "bullied." Since when was Charlie Hebdo, or anyone criticizing/mocking Islam, writing "obnoxious things about weak people?"

This kind of response is clueless and insensitive at best and victim-blaming and despicable at worst.

LV, you insist on drawing a distinction between the most existentially important things about a person's identity, and that person itself. That distinction does not exist in practice, and is difficult to defend philosophically. In any case we live in that world of practice. But I'm sure the next time an American muslim is harassed on the street or in the workplace they can just tell their harrassers 'you're not pissed at me, you're pissed at my religion, which is somehow totally separate from me' and everyone will just shake hands and go on about their merry way.

But it doesn't make you a hero, it may make you irresponsible, and at times it just makes you an asshole.

Criticizing a religion is "irresponsible?" Seriously?!

Sometimes. Sometimes it is useful, and sometimes it is quite important. My whole post is that context matters. What are you saying, when are you saying, who is doing the saying, who is the audience, what is the goal. This is the case for any satire (which is a type of criticism that is embedded in power relations in a way that a thoughtful philosophic criticism may not be), at any case. Not all criticism is satire, as you well know.

What free speech absolutists have failed to acknowledge is that because one has the right to offend a group does not mean that one must. Or that that group gives up the right to be outraged. They’re allowed to feel pain. Freedom should always be discussed within the context of responsibility. At some point free expression absolutism becomes childish and unserious. It becomes its own kind of fanaticism.

Yeah, what a stupid column...

Yeah, it is a really fucking stupid column. "Free speech absolutist" is such an idiotic term (either it's absolute or it ain't free). Who is he even arguing with? Of course they have the right to be outraged! Of course they have the right to feel pain! No one is saying otherwise! [/quote]

Then nothing's free, LV, since nothing is absolute. And rather than just remove the word free from our vocabulary (it has it's uses) it is worth being thoughtful about its applications.

What they don't have the right to do is fucking murder people because of it, which is all this is, and should be, about.

UGH!

I don't think anyone disputed that, LV. This was a thoughtful commentary about the context of satire and an attempt to provide a more sophisticated understanding of how the actions of one person or group can influence the actions of someone else. If all you took from this was a defense of murder (and I have no idea how you got there) then I suspect you missed the point.

[LoathedVermin72]

[stip]

I know. I missed up the quoting in that one section and can't seem to figure out how to fix it.