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

@bobsal u1553115,

That's another lie. I never insulted you, but I can start if you so want.

0 Replies

Alright, i trust this settles the defamation attempts against Charlie Hebdo victims, at least for now.

You two should learn to study an issue before debating it. Shooting from the hip takes a little more smarts than is at your disposal. Izzy, your factual and cultural ignorance of the issue led you to peddle lies crafted by the French extreme right. That may have been your intention, but more likely you were just behaving as a clueless tool for Le Pen. So I'm ready to forgive if you don't do it again.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

If declaring victory is all that's needed then Napoleon won Waterloo and received St. Helena as a prize.

Depicting black people as monkeys is racist. And you can print as many articles by American politicians, (who aren't exactly lining up to support moderate Moslems right now,) as you want, but it doesn't change anything.

2 Replies

@izzythepush,

Quote:

Depicting black people as monkeys is racist.

Alexandre Dumas must have been racist then... Oh well. Fools will never learn.

2 Replies

@Olivier5,

False analogy. Charlie Hebdo was/is never truly satire in the true sense of the word, but a fetishisation of free speech.

Quote:

The memorial issue of Charlie Hebdo will have a print run of 1,000,000 copies, financed by the French government; so, now the satirists have been co-opted by the state, precisely the institution you might've thought they should never cease from attacking. But the question needs to be asked: were the cartoonists at Charlie Hebdo really satirists, if by satire is meant the deployment of humour, ridicule, sarcasm and irony in order to achieve moral reform? Well, when the issue came up of the Danish cartoons I observed that the test I apply to something to see whether it truly is satire derives from HL Mencken's definition of good journalism: it should "afflict the comfortable and comfort the afflicted". The trouble with a lot of so-called "satire" directed against religiously-motivated extremists is that it's not clear who it's afflicting, or who it's comforting.

The last cartoon drawn by Charb, Charlie Hebdo's editor, featured a crude pictogram of a jihadist wearing a hat called a pakol – this would mark the fighter out as an Afghan, and therefore as unlikely to be involved in terrorist attacks in the West. Charb's caption flies in the face of this: above the Afghan jihadist it reads: "Still no attacks in France", while the speech bubble coming from his mouth reads: "Wait, there's until the end of January to give gifts."

Setting to one side the premonitory character of this cartoon, and the strangeness of a magazine editor who was prepared to die for his convictions (or so Charb said after the Charlie Hebdo offices were firebombed in 2011), yet not to get the basic facts about his targets correct, is it right to think of it as satire? Whatever else we may believe about people so overwhelmed by their evil nature that they're prepared to deprive others of their lives for the sake of a delusory set of ideas, the one thing we can be certain of is that they're not comfortable; moreover, while Charb's cartoon may've provoked a wry smile from Charlie Hebdo's readers, it's not clear to me that these people are the "afflicted" who, in HL Mencken's definition, require "comforting" – unless their "affliction" is the very fact of a substantial Muslim population in France, and their "comfort" consists in inking-in all these fellow citizens with a terroristic brush.

http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/will-self-charlie-hebdo-attack-the-west-satire-france-terror-105

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

If you think free speech is a fetish, you're a slave already.

2 Replies

@Olivier5,

For all your claims of intellectualism, a lot of stuff shoots right over your head. From the very basic Vic and Bob sketches that were a lot of daft fart gags with an object of satire. You missed that part completely.

So when an intellectual like Will Self makes a valid point about the dangers of worshipping free speech as if it were a god I'm not surprised it's lost on you.

A lot of things are.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

As long as Olivier keeps hosting one party debates he'll have to win at least 51% of them.

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

Quote:

Alexandre Dumas must have been racist then...

The immediate problem is, of course, you aren't Dumas. If Dumas jumped of a bridge would you have to jump, too.

Show me the novel you were writing when you compared people of color to monkeys.

https://images.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2F2.bp.blogspot.com%2F-SekrVjD5lRA%2FTewO4S2PfWI%2FAAAAAAAAA1g%2F85mOGfSyuVE%2Fs640%2Fcartoon.gif&f=1

How is this:

https://images.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fthesocietypages.org%2Fsocimages%2Ffiles%2F2009%2F11%2FNazi_poster_Jew_Der_Sturmer_antisemitism_juutalaisvainot-bloodlibel_Wandering_Jew_propaganda_61.jpg&f=1

different than this?:

https://images.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fcdn.inquisitr.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2012%2F09%2Fmohammed-cartoons-charlie-hebdo-muhammed-cartoons-2012.jpg&f=1

2 Replies

@Olivier5,

If you think all speech if free you're delusional. Certainly its been proven any number of times that not all speech is protected.

Charlie Hubdo sowed the winds and reaped the whirlwinds. The murderers are murderers not censors and Charlie Hubdo made intemperate speech and discovered just exactly how unprotected fighting words are.

0 Replies

Here's what the Courts here in the US have to say about hate speech and propaganda cartoons:

Federal Court: Anti-Muslim Group Can't Post Ads on Buses
Source: ASSOCIATED PRESS

SEATTLE (AP) -- An anti-Muslim group cannot post ads on buses in Washington state showing photos of wanted terrorists and wrongly claiming the FBI offers a $25 million reward for their one of their captures, a federal appeals court ruled Wednesday.

A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected a claim by the American Freedom Defense Initiative that King County violated its First Amendment right to free speech by refusing to post the advertisements on buses.

The group - whose leader, Pamela Geller, organized the Prophet Muhammad cartoon contest in Texas that exploded in violence in May - has similar bus ads in other cities and has gone to court with mixed results after some transportation officials rejected them.

David Yerushalmi, the group's lawyer, said the group will appeal Wednesday's ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court.

http://freedomdefense.typepad.com/sioa/

Read more: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_ANTI_MUSLIM_AD_BUSES?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2015-08-12-18-46-45

1 Reply

@bobsal u1553115,

US courts regularly do not support the Constitution, so no shocker there.....

0 Replies

@bobsal u1553115,

A Goodwin award for you, Bobsi.

Also, we should start an award for the most skillfully cropped cartoon. You'd easily beat the Front National and Izzy at that game.

0 Replies

@izzythepush,

Calling free speech a fetish does not an argument make. There are legal limits to free speech in France, notably it does not cover racial hatred. You crossed another limit yourself by lying repeatedly to defame dead cartoonists (defamation is not protected by free speech in France).

1 Reply

@bobsal u1553115,

I mentioned Dumas in reference to this anecdote.

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

You don't get the argument. He's not saying free speech is a fetish, but that it can be, and has been fetishized. You can't see that, like any devout believer you're convinced you're right, and reason be damned.

1 Reply

@izzythepush,

Why don't you try and argue the fetish thing? As you stand, you have zero argument.

2 Replies

@Olivier5,

And your mere opinion of the quality of Izzy's argument a debate does not make.

If you pull Dumas from your little story it means nothing. You were drawing from Dumas a justification for your racist attempt at jest. Dumas can pull it off, you can't. You aren't another Dumas, dumbass.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

I've linked Will Self's article, I thought the point he was making was quite clear. I'm not going to try to simplify it. Why do you think I would want to debate it with you anyway? All you do is insist on being right, miss, or deliberately misinterpret points being made, take offence, get nasty, throw about wild allegations then declare victory.

Why the **** would I would I want to go through all that again?

1 Reply

@bobsal u1553115,

It's not a question of opinion but fact: Izzy could not provide an argument. I repeat: there is NO ARGUMENT TO DISCUSS. As yet... The quote he provided does not mention the word 'fetish', and makes no reference to the issue.

This is not about me, but about Charlie Hebdo. Had you forgotten? If Dumas can "pull it", Charb can "pull it". The law is the same for all. If the reference is to criticize and caricature a racist who just used the same reference, it's a well understood form of turning the table on racists. In short: it's the intention that counts. If the intention is clear, and clearly anti-racist, they're not east of the law.

1 Reply

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know