Charlie Hebdo

[BaggyTrousers]

Snipe, only because of your last sentence do I feel constrained to post once more on this.

My feelings about anyone's beliefs has absolutely nothing to do with what I asked you to explain.

Chubby Chu commented "When the only thing you’re reverent of is irreverence, you eventually get chan culture", you suggested that this is spot on.

My question, based on a very limited understanding of Chan Culture has nothing whatsoever to do with religion, its is simply how Chubby's assertion relating to Chan Culture could possibly be applied to Charlie Hebdo. You said spot on, I'm simply asking you why. It make absolutely no sense to me.

Now its possible that you are as ignorant of Chan Culture as I am and that you simply agree with the first part of the sentence and made an assumption on what Chan Culture actually is. That is the only way I can understand your support for his assertion, hence I asked you.

I'm still baffled if you wish to explain.

I have no comments to make on any of the people you mention, nor the merits or otherwise of cartoons on any subject, Mohammed included. I will only say that I do believe satire has an honourable role past and present and has exposed some appalling bullshit. Finally, as you know, I believe any religion that cannot stand any sort of scrutiny hasn't much to commend it.

These last things however are a sideshow, I am only interested on how you accept as "spot on" his talk of Chan Culture which is impossible from his article not to seen as being related by him to Charlie Hebdo. It makes no sense whatsoever.

Though you express surprise at me not understanding your point was general, I must take you up on that, it was you who quoted that sentence in question & added "spot on". To put it in a nutshell, he related that sentence to Charlie Hebdo, that is beyond doubt, you said "spot on", were you mistaken I wonder?

[pythagoras]

http://www.theguardian.com/world/ng-int ... he-attacks

[Ampersand]

As someone with zero qualms about offending any people for any reason whatsoever, frankly I'd like to shoot Arthur Chu in his fat little face.

Why? Because I take leave to consider him someone I need no lectures from to decide whether I think Charlie Hebdo.

You want to silence him?

Whatever happened to freedom of speech?

freedom to offend?

I share Baggy's disapproval of this article. How dare this man use this week's events to write an entirely subjective attack on Charlie Hebdo, presumably in pursuit largely of self-aggrandisement. In so doing, he largely misses the point. Charlie's publication and it's cartoons are often offensive, to say the least (I wasn't too taken with the Boko Haram captives one, I have to say) and I suspect there are lots of others I would consider in bad taste. But the point is exactly that - to shock, to shake out of a non-thinking complacency, to point the finger at all things establishment. by doing what it does, it may be the most important non-news publication there is.

You may assume self-aggrandisement - you may even be correct. Perhaps he does this to shock, to shake some out of a non-thinking conformity (NOUS SOMMES Charlie) - to point the finger at things establishment AND anti-establishment. It would seem that his article is taken by some as being in bad taste ...... Charlie Hebdo wouldn't condemn for that, shirley?

For the record, I did not say I agreed with this piece in its entirety - I said there was a lot of truth in it, and I stand by that. A large part of his article is spent in denouncing this terrorist act and the supposed justification behind it and similar.

If nothing else, this article has prompted some thought by some people. Unfortunately (and I am not pointing any fingers here), there will be some who cherry pick which parts of the WHOLE they agree with or look only at the parts that offend them and ignore the rest.

People would never do that with Charie Hebdo, would they ........?

Je suis Charlie

[BaggyTrousers]

As someone with zero qualms about offending any people for any reason whatsoever, frankly I'd like to shoot Arthur Chu in his fat little face.

Why? Because I take leave to consider him someone I need no lectures from to decide whether I think Charlie Hebdo.

You want to silence him?

Whatever happened to freedom of speech?

freedom to offend?

Unless you are stupid enough to believe that I have actually wanted to shoot Agen le tete & his likes in the face you will know that I don't actually wish to kill Chubby Chu, neither have I mentioned silencing him. You don't normally display signs of stupidity as well I know, therefore I can only assert that you wrongly saw an opportunity to tweek my substantial nose.

I have merely expressed that I believe Chubby Chu has exercised his right to offend and I mine to be offended and furthermore to express that I believe some of his assertions to be both bullshit and invalid, in my opinion.

&, you've been helped.

I believe I'm finished here .......but sure you never know whats around the corner, hopefully not a malodorous dusky chap with a kalashnikov. Oh dear, that last bit might cause offence.

[rocky]

As someone with zero qualms about offending any people for any reason whatsoever, frankly I'd like to shoot Arthur Chu in his fat little face.

Why? Because I take leave to consider him someone I need no lectures from to decide whether I think Charlie Hebdo.

You want to silence him?

Whatever happened to freedom of speech?

freedom to offend?

I share Baggy's disapproval of this article. How dare this man use this week's events to write an entirely subjective attack on Charlie Hebdo, presumably in pursuit largely of self-aggrandisement. In so doing, he largely misses the point. Charlie's publication and it's cartoons are often offensive, to say the least (I wasn't too taken with the Boko Haram captives one, I have to say) and I suspect there are lots of others I would consider in bad taste. But the point is exactly that - to shock, to shake out of a non-thinking complacency, to point the finger at all things establishment. by doing what it does, it may be the most important non-news publication there is.

You may assume self-aggrandisement - you may even be correct. Perhaps he does this to shock, to shake some out of a non-thinking conformity (NOUS SOMMES Charlie) - to point the finger at things establishment AND anti-establishment. It would seem that his article is taken by some as being in bad taste ...... Charlie Hebdo wouldn't condemn for that, shirley?

For the record, I did not say I agreed with this piece in its entirety - I said there was a lot of truth in it, and I stand by that. A large part of his article is spent in denouncing this terrorist act and the supposed justification behind it and similar.

If nothing else, this article has prompted some thought by some people. Unfortunately (and I am not pointing any fingers here), there will be some who cherry pick which parts of the WHOLE they agree with or look only at the parts that offend them and ignore the rest.

People would never do that with Charie Hebdo, would they ........?

Je suis Charlie

Ampers, you make some good points, which I accept, although I did not say that I disagreed with the whole article - far from it - and I did not say he had no right to pen it. Nor did I consider executing him, either in fact or in jest, a la Baggy (also provocative but acceptable, IMO). I strongly support his right to put pen to paper as he did although I do not have to agree with him and I reserve the right to criticise his writing.
You do appear to suggest that those who said or thought "Nous sommes Charlie" were/are guilty of unthinking conformity. I hope you do not really believe that to be true.
There are many who argue that the pictorial excesses of Charlie Hobdo are gratuitous, deeply offensive to the vast majority of peaceful Muslims and thus unnecessary. However, I believe that for them simply to say that they disagree, detest, disapprove of the actions of their co-religionists last Tuesday is an inadequate response. Indeed, sadly, I have heard a number of them seek to find ways of justifying the atrocity. In my view, one of the greatest threats to the world is that of fundamentalists, especially Islamists and, if they are to be stopped, it will not be by force and it will not be by the West. It will only be by this huge cohort of moderate Muslims and, to do so, they must find a way to change their medieval and militaristic beliefs in a collective way and move their religion to join the rest of the world in the current century.
If Charlie Hebdo's cartoons and writings in some way make them start to think about this, that's good. But the argument that the cartoons, etc, make them favour the Islamist violence only tends to demonstrate (to me, anyway) that perhaps they are not as moderate as they claim to be, which is deeply worrying, if true.
I support (and Snipe alluded to this in a recent post) the right of anyone to have (and to cherish) their own beliefs. I prefer that people should think about them and challenge themselves about them rather than just accepting them in an unthinking way (see what I did there?) and I am certain that you and Snipe do just that. What I do not accept in any way is for them to believe that their dogma gives them a right to inflict material harm on those who do not share their beliefs. I can only think, offhand, of three groups that fit this particular bill at present - Islamists, Israelis, due to their treatment of Palestinians, and anti-abortionists in the USA.
Sorry to be so long winded but I think that this has been a most significant event in the world in recent times and it behoves us all to have a lot of thought about it.

[Ampersand]

Cheers Baggy & Rocky

You know that I know that Baggy never meant to literally silence the Chu person, but the point I was trying to make is that they are little different from Charlie Hebdo in trying to provoke thought on these matters. Freedom of speech (and freedom to offend, if you agree with that), must include all sides, and presumably Charlie would stand up for Mr Chu's right to do just that, mais non?

I agree entirely that satire is a very useful weapon in provoking thought and change - I just don't agree that all that Charlie or some others has done has been particularly satirical. I won't pretend to be an expert or to know all about the works of these publications (plural), but it strikes me that some (note - SOME, not all) appear to be provocation for provocation's sake, and not particularly satirical or in response to a particular issue. I include Monsiour Chu in some of that, albeit his modus operandi seems to be quite different.

Rocky, I wasn't saying that all the people who took to the streets claiming "nous sommes Charlie" were unthinking conformists, but I suspect that some were, but more to the point I was suggesting that Chu might think that and if articles like his make them think about that, well, maybe it has served a purpose. The other main point I was making is that if Charlie Hebdo is allowed/encouraged to offend in the name of freedom of speech, why not Mr Chu? - but I think you got that.

We are all different, we all like different things, we all believe different things and we are all offended by different things. Messrs Hebdo and Chu are quite different things, but in some ways they are quite similar - they both provoke thought, debate and outrage amongst other emotions. They could be seen in some ways as opposites sides of the same coin. Personally i don't think either are particularly great (in my very limited reading of both, I have yet to be impressed) - there are better publications out there, but so long as some people want to read either, I have no problem about that, that's up to them. If it prompts people to think (as satirists aspire), so much the better - I just don't want people coming to blows over it.

As stated at the outset, I am happy to stand up for the victims of these atrocities, but perhaps in the name of free speech on ALL sides, I will go a teensie weensie bit further by saying, "Je suis Charlie Chu."

[Snipe Watson]

Snipe, only because of your last sentence do I feel constrained to post once more on this.

My feelings about anyone's beliefs has absolutely nothing to do with what I asked you to explain.

Chubby Chu commented "When the only thing you’re reverent of is irreverence, you eventually get chan culture", you suggested that this is spot on.

My question, based on a very limited understanding of Chan Culture has nothing whatsoever to do with religion, its is simply how Chubby's assertion relating to Chan Culture could possibly be applied to Charlie Hebdo. You said spot on, I'm simply asking you why. It make absolutely no sense to me.

Now its possible that you are as ignorant of Chan Culture as I am and that you simply agree with the first part of the sentence and made an assumption on what Chan Culture actually is. That is the only way I can understand your support for his assertion, hence I asked you.

I'm still baffled if you wish to explain.

I have no comments to make on any of the people you mention, nor the merits or otherwise of cartoons on any subject, Mohammed included. I will only say that I do believe satire has an honourable role past and present and has exposed some appalling bullshit. Finally, as you know, I believe any religion that cannot stand any sort of scrutiny hasn't much to commend it.

These last things however are a sideshow, I am only interested on how you accept as "spot on" his talk of Chan Culture which is impossible from his article not to seen as being related by him to Charlie Hebdo. It makes no sense whatsoever.

Though you express surprise at me not understanding your point was general, I must take you up on that, it was you who quoted that sentence in question & added "spot on". To put it in a nutshell, he related that sentence to Charlie Hebdo, that is beyond doubt, you said "spot on", were you mistaken I wonder?

I have explained my understanding of chan culture and why I disapprove of it. I have also explained that I have no opinion on Charlie Hebdo, The Daily Beast or Arthur Chu. I am a big fan of satire though. Now maybe we can move on.

[ElmoIsDead]

It is only when a mosquito lands on a testicle that we try to work out non-violent solutions to the problem in hand.

[Shan]

Sughra Ahmed, president of the Islamic Society of Britain, said freedom needs to be defended "at all costs".

"We need to de-escalate the tension around all this. Those Muslims who feel offended may have a right, but in the scheme of things we should be far more offended by injustice, economic exploitation, anti-Semitism, homophobia, murder, etc," she said.

"We are not defending the new cartoon per se, but the 'all is forgiven' sentiment is important and gracious and if many of my work colleagues were shot dead, I would feel defiant and want to fight back, so I understand where this is coming from.

"The people that committed the murders in the name of Mohammed did anything but help his teachings and his cause."

She is almost correct. She would have been 100% correct if she left out the reference to "anti-semitism". She could have used racism or ultra nationalism instead. Anti-Semitism is too narrow.

[Ampersand]

Sughra Ahmed, president of the Islamic Society of Britain, said freedom needs to be defended "at all costs".

"We need to de-escalate the tension around all this. Those Muslims who feel offended may have a right, but in the scheme of things we should be far more offended by injustice, economic exploitation, anti-Semitism, homophobia, murder, etc," she said.

"We are not defending the new cartoon per se, but the 'all is forgiven' sentiment is important and gracious and if many of my work colleagues were shot dead, I would feel defiant and want to fight back, so I understand where this is coming from.

"The people that committed the murders in the name of Mohammed did anything but help his teachings and his cause."

She is almost correct. She would have been 100% correct if she left out the reference to "anti-semitism". She could have used racism or ultra nationalism instead. Anti-Semitism is too narrow.

Perhaps the "etc" covered racism and ultra-nationalism .... etc" Shan?

For a Muslem to speak out against anti-semitism is significant and to be welcomed in my view, not criticised for omission.

[Shan]

Perhaps the "etc" covered racism and ultra-nationalism .... etc" Shan?

For a Muslem to speak out against anti-semitism is significant and to be welcomed in my view, not criticised for omission.

Who's criticising?

I'd prefer to comment on what is actually said rather than attempting to read her mind as well so I am not particularly interested in what "etc" may mean.

[Ampersand]

Perhaps the "etc" covered racism and ultra-nationalism .... etc" Shan?

For a Muslem to speak out against anti-semitism is significant and to be welcomed in my view, not criticised for omission.

Who's criticising?

Saying that she was almost correct and then suggesting how to be 100% correct seemed like criticism to me.

I'd prefer to comment on what is actually said rather than attempting to read her mind as well so I am not particularly interested in what "etc" may mean.

Even if it means what you wanted her to have said?

I don't know where you quoted this from, or the context, but was it intended as an "all inclusive" condemnation?

The use of "etc" would suggest not.

But hey, let's not come to blows over this, ya big turnip!

[Shan]

No. I don't expect anybody to be 100% so I don't criticise folk when they are not. But that does not mean I cannot comment on ways I think someone could improve.

Kind of like when I'm in a yearly review and I hear the old "you've done such a fantastic, almost unbelievably brilliant, job this year I cannot but bow to your supreme talent and dedication, but I think you can achieve even more next year. Not criticism but still suggesting there's room for improvement.

But hey, let's not come to blows over this, ya big turnip!

Oh absolutely. Cyber violence or even extreme verbals is not really in my line. If one cannot have slight disagreements, debates or clarification sessions in a civil manner one should probably not expose oneself to society, even of the anonymous online variety.

Gwan.

[Shan]

Oh and I came across it while perusing my favourite newspaper.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... azine.html

[Ampersand]

Your favourite newspaper had a link to the Daily Telegraph?