2
   

The media is misreporting this. This misogynist man deserves to go to jail.

 
 
Olivier5
 
  1  
Sat 8 Aug, 2015 03:16 pm
@hawkeye10,
I don't think that's what's happening here. What Izzy is doing here is judging another culture by his own particular foreign standards, as if they were universal standards. They are not.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Sat 8 Aug, 2015 03:18 pm
@Olivier5,
Olivier5 wrote:

CH never labelled all black people as monkeys, nor even Christiane Taubira. That's another lie from a serial liar.


THe ends justify the means for most of these people who support moral authoritarianism. It is all about winning, all about getting other people to do and believe as we are told we should, and anything that gets us to act "properly" is in defense of humanity according to these abusive assholes. Abusers almost always are sure that they are right, and are sure that their acts are justified.
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Sat 8 Aug, 2015 03:21 pm
@Olivier5,
Olivier5 wrote:

I don't think that's what's happening here. What Izzy is doing here is judging another culture by his own particular foreign standards.


We I think have in the past agreed that we see this is the way that the UK feminists are a lot more like American feminists than European feminists. For cultural reasons alone the UK probably should not integrate further into the EU.

izzythepush
 
  1  
Sat 8 Aug, 2015 03:37 pm
@Olivier5,
You're starting to sound very much like a Southerner defending the Confederate flag.


hawkeye10
 
  1  
Sat 8 Aug, 2015 03:47 pm
@izzythepush,
izzythepush wrote:

You're starting to sound very much like a Southerner defending the Confederate flag.

Quote:
The poll shows that 57% of Americans see the flag more as a symbol of Southern pride than as a symbol of racism, about the same as in 2000 when 59% said they viewed it as a symbol of pride.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/02/politics/confederate-flag-poll-racism-southern-pride/

IZZYTHE IDIOT does not know that the consensus is that the government should not fly the flag, it is not that it should not be flown.
0 Replies
 
Olivier5
 
  1  
Sat 8 Aug, 2015 04:05 pm
@izzythepush,
You look like a timid and tepid reformist who's criticizing a far more modern, radical, progressive, atheist and leftist bunch of people than yourself. You are trying to smear a bunch of cartoonists far more anti-racist than you are. Because you are something of a racist, izzy: your contempt of the French is the proof of that. You're capable of loathing an entire people.

You are criticizing a bunch of cartoonists who risked and ultimately gave their lives for the defense of freedom of expression. Even if i personally think they layered the Mohammad thing a tad too thick, for their own sake, I must reckon they were more courageous public, cultural and political fighters than you are, and I would guess more effective agents of change than you will ever be.
izzythepush
 
  1  
Sat 8 Aug, 2015 04:49 pm
@Olivier5,
We're going round in circles now. You can continue your pissoir of platitudes without any encouragement from me. You seem to have found a friend in Hawkeye, you can mop each other's foreheads and say, "There there, poor thing," whilst admiring your respective crosses.

https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/3576480562/06b81cc03fb1a5c765c5b55b9ab23b75.jpeg
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Sat 8 Aug, 2015 05:02 pm
@izzythepush,
Quote:
You seem to have found a friend in Hawkeye,

without a doubt intended as in insult...
bobsal u1553115
 
  2  
Sun 9 Aug, 2015 12:02 am
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
without a doubt intended as in insult...


More correctly, adding insult to the injury of a friendship with you.
0 Replies
 
bobsal u1553115
 
  2  
Sun 9 Aug, 2015 12:09 am
@hawkeye10,
You did not coin the term "moral authoritarianism".

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080115080702AAzwv2V
0 Replies
 
izzythepush
 
  0  
Sun 9 Aug, 2015 01:00 am
@hawkeye10,
Can it be used in any other way?
0 Replies
 
Olivier5
 
  1  
Sun 9 Aug, 2015 09:18 am
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:

Olivier5 wrote:

I don't think that's what's happening here. What Izzy is doing here is judging another culture by his own particular foreign standards.

We I think have in the past agreed that we see this is the way that the UK feminists are a lot more like American feminists than European feminists. For cultural reasons alone the UK probably should not integrate further into the EU.

We I think have disagreed in the past about many core (to me at least) issues, such as racism, case in point. I called it "baseless hatred" and asserted that you, like anybody else, should be able to express your ideas without spreading baseless hatred for entire peoples. You went into a spectacularly intestinal rant, as I recall.

If you can keep your cool, you and I could possibly agree on a few things. We seem to share some suspicion of some official truth, though behind this common dislike for others telling us what to think, our perspectives on the issues at hand are often at odd with one another.

Eg on racism: my beef with Izzy is not that he tries to defend his mechanistic, context-blind criteria for racism (eg a depiction of a black person as a monkey, or the use of the word "nigger"). I find PC ridiculous but in the end what do I care? No, my real beef with him is that he propagates a lie originally designed by no other than members of the French extreme right, a lie designed to make the anti-racist Charlie Hebdo look just as racist as the racist.

Not to mention that misunderstanding satire at first degree is a grave literary faux pas...

So you see, i am not defending yhe right to express racist messages. On ge contrary, i defend the anti-racists in their fight against racism, whike Izzy plays the loose cannon, blinded as he is by his hatred for the French.
0 Replies
 
Olivier5
 
  1  
Sun 9 Aug, 2015 10:06 am
@izzythepush,
izzythepush wrote:

We're going round in circles now. You can continue your pissoir of platitudes without any encouragement from me.

No, i'm going straight into the issue as I see it, which is that you apply mechanistic, context-blind and intent-blind criteria for telling what is racist and what is not...
Olivier5
 
  0  
Sun 9 Aug, 2015 10:11 am
Quote:
If you don’t speak French, how can you judge if Charlie Hebdo is racist?

Prominent writers have chosen to boycott a PEN gala in honour of Charlie Hebdo. But are they in any position to pass judgement?

BY ROBERT MCLIAM WILSON
PUBLISHED 29 APRIL, 2015 - 09:16

I’m the Irish guy who writes for Charlie Hebdo. I’m conscious that this sounds like the beginning of a joke. Frankly, it’s beginning to feel a little like that too. As the only English-speaking columnist, I feel uncomfortably exotic. And you should see the things they write about me on the toilet walls.

I have no remit. I can write about anything I fancy. This is a hellish liberty. Nothing asked, nothing expected. It makes me dizzy. No matter how random or foolish, they’ll run it. I can’t even begin to describe how tempted I am to write about cricket. Just to see.

So it is, in itself, strange to be there. But stranger still it is to turn my eyes to the doings of the English-speaking world since I joined Charlie. Last week, Queen’s University Belfast (my hometown, no less) cancelled a conference about the events around January’s attack upon the magazine’s staff*. They were worried about their reputation, apparently. Huh? Then this week, a fistful of writers decide to boycott a PEN event in New York which is to honour Charlie. Really?

I read the papers and the blogs and the general runes. The growing consensus seems to be that Charlie Hebdo is, at the very least, deeply dodgy, if not overtly racist. Well, that’s a blow, I must say. Who knew I’d end up writing for some cartoon version of Mein Kampf?

Much of this anti-Charlie prissiness comes from how the magazine has been typified in the Anglo press. ie, idiotically for the most part. An infinity of pundits have made blithe diagnoses of general knavishness while not speaking any French at all.

This bears repeating. No. French. At. All. The point about language is absolutely crucial. Indeed, it may well be the only real point. It is so preposterous that it makes my head spin. How can you make any sensible judgement about Charlie if you cannot read it? Is it enough to look at the pictures? Didn't we used to hesitate before doing something so confidently asinine? Can you imagine how enraged we would be if monolingual French people judged Private Eye or Spitting Image with the same blind assurance.

Do the writers boycotting Charlie in New York all speak French? If they don’t, then, seriously, how informed can their opinions be? You might as well ask your budgie for comment. So, Feathers, what’s your view?

Am I wrong about this? Am I missing something really obvious?

It would be wrong to single out a particular newspaper or website for opprobrium. It’s almost everywhere and it’s almost everyone. I cringe with embarrassment every time a French person asks me what is going on. I’ve started pretending I’m Swedish.

A lot of this is centred around a cartoon that depicted Christiane Taubira, the French justice minister, as an ape. It is much-reproduced without its line of text Rassemblement Bleu Raciste (Racist Blue Rally). A crucial detail since it lampoons the Front National slogan Rassemblement Bleu Marine (Navy Blue Rally), a pun on the name of the FN leader Marine Le Pen. And the image itself was a mocking attack on a series of right-wing publications and websites bunged to the brim with disgraceful imagery of the minister. Without the snipped-off text underneath, and the knowledge of the lamentable tosh it was lampooning, of course Charlie would seem racist. It would seem racist to me too. But to strip the image of its fundamental components like this is akin to saying the incomparable Jonathan Swift was a baby-eating Nazi and that A Modest Proposal was actually a cookbook.

I will not weary your eyes and ears with a full disquisition on this Taubira cartoon. Both the truth and the lie are very easily found on the internet, and complete – like all modern lies and truths – with their very contemporary equal billing.

Charlie is often vulgar, puerile and slightly nauseating. But everyone endures the brunt of this approach: right, left and in-between. They are not always funny (they are French, after all). But sometimes, that is because they are doing 4-page spreads on the reality of Roma camps in France or doggedly chronicling the gross extremes of France's lurch to the right.

They have a weekly space for animal rights stories, for Chrissakes!!! Run by a woman who calls herself Luce Lapin. With the best will in the world, even if Lucy Rabbit wanted to be a racist or a fascist, how good at it would she be with a name like that? What would all the other racists and fascists think? The truth about the Charlie people is that they're ...well...just a little bit geeky.

Yes, Charlie is tasteless and discomfiting. Have I somehow missed all the gentle, polite satire? That amiable, convenient satire that everybody likes.

If you speak French and you tell me you think Charlie is racist, I can respect that. If you don’t speak French and you tell me the same, well (how to put this politely?)...sorry, I can’t actually put it politely.

I am limitlessly proud to write for Charlie.

*Queen’s has, courageously, announced that it will revisit this decision.


On the author, from Wikipedia:
Robert McLiam Wilson (born Robert Wilson, 24 February 1966, Andersonstown, Belfast) is a Northern Irish novelist. He attended St Malachy's College and studied English at St Catharine's College, Cambridge; however, he dropped out and, for a short time, was homeless. This period of his life profoundly affected his later life and influenced his works.

McLiam Wilson has written three novels:

Ripley Bogle (1989)
Manfred's Pain (1992)
Eureka Street (1996)

Ripley Bogle is a novel about a homeless man in London. It won the Rooney Prize and the Hughes Prize in 1989, and a Betty Trask Award and the Irish Book Awards in 1990.
izzythepush
 
  0  
Sun 9 Aug, 2015 10:45 am
@Olivier5,
Going to the issue that you still think it's alright, in the 21st Century, to portray a black woman as a monkey.

I don't. That's not being super PC, or culturally different, that's called not being racist, end of.

Now **** off.

bobsal u1553115
 
  1  
Sun 9 Aug, 2015 12:24 pm
@Olivier5,
So how does your five year old like cartoons? We'll see how quickly this gets a deserved NSFW..................

https://images.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fcsglobe.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2015%2F01%2FCharlie-Hebdo-Fired.jpg&f=1
Olivier5
 
  2  
Sun 9 Aug, 2015 02:20 pm
@bobsal u1553115,
I don't have a five year old, and some cartoon, just like some books or some movies, are meant for adults. You'll be able to read them when you grow some pubic hair... I can't promisse you'll get the jokes though. Evidently your mentor Izzy doesn't.
izzythepush
 
  0  
Sun 9 Aug, 2015 02:28 pm
@Olivier5,
Nobody has ever had a problem getting French jokes. That's not why nobody laughs at them.
0 Replies
 
Olivier5
 
  1  
Sun 9 Aug, 2015 02:41 pm
@izzythepush,
To even consider that a "black" woman should be treated any differently by cartoonists or satirists than a "white" man, that is in itself racist (or sexist, or both). If it's okay to portray George Bush as a monkey AT FIRST DEGREE I.E. TO SAY HE'S A MONKEY, then it should be okay to do the same with anybody. The law is the same for all. A fortiori, such a Bush-as-monkey cartoon is a graver offense to our common humanity than a SECOND DEGREE CARTOON, poking fun at those who compare people to monkeys...
hawkeye10
 
  2  
Sun 9 Aug, 2015 02:49 pm
@Olivier5,
The thing you need to understand is that in America, and to a somewhat less extent the UK, we have fallen far from the ideals of the Enlightenment. We now grant rights based upon group affiliation. This is a predictable expansion from the decision to grant special rights to victims groups under such programs as affirmative action. When you have such power groups as the American feminists demanding special rights for victims, or more often alleged victims, this is the result if the people are not willing to make a stand for equality.

That which was intended to redress past inequalities became the driver of inequality, just as victims usually turn into abusers.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 12/27/2024 at 12:01:54