Pope Frances' response to satirism and criticism: those people deserve a punch

[Spy Car]

 

 

Exactly. They were free by the standards of their law to publish what they published.

 

Yes they were free to act like provocative asshats, just like the Westboro are free to do the same. 

 

 

The terrorists decided that there should be a limit on criticism, on mockery and ridicule to religion, specifically their own.

 

Human beings, individuals and groups, have proven that there are times when they are sufficiently provoked they will respond with anger, rage, and sometimes violence. This is human nature, for better or worse. When one deliberately chooses to provoke people, especially disempowered minorities that already have anger brewing, one ought not be surprised when one gets the predictable reaction. None of this happened "out of the blue." It was a deliberate attempt to create "heat" without creating any "light."

 

One doesn't need to be Spiderman to know that with power (including freedom of speech) comes responsibility. 

 

 

The pope not only agreed with this sentiment1, but encouraged others to adopt and embrace it as well.

 

The Pope is wise in his understanding of human nature. He understands that there is some speech (such as insults to peoples mothers in Latin American societies) that is likely to provoke a punch. The Charlie Hebdo people knew this too. Unfortunately they exploited peoples weakest points (in a cruel fashion) and got a reaction they they had a hand in provoking. They seem to delight in their irresponsibility (and frankly racist offering) and now are attempting to wrap themselves in the flag of martyrdom of "free speech," when they are really asshats. Just like Fred Phelps was an asshat. 

 

 

You keep talking about the quality of the periodical, as if one's speech should merit freedom or not. I'm wondering how you would draw the line. I don't mean just with regards to CH, but in general. Where would you like to see this line drawn between what opinions people have, and what opinions people ought to be allowed to share in public, or with each other. Specifically, I'm curious about this line as it pertains to criticism of religion.

What is the point of this comment? In what way does it contribute to the conversation regarding whether or not excusing the action of terrorists because one can sympathize with their frustration is more noble and practical than advocating freedom of speech?

 

I don't believe in prior restraint of free speech. And certainly don't believe religion (or anti-religion, for that matter) is off limits to serious (and even scathing) criticism. But there is a big difference between someone taking a stand I might disagree with (say they argue homosexuality is unnatural, a sin, and that homosexuals to not merit civil right) and standing on a corner screaming "God hates fags." The latter behavior, while legal. is not good, kind, or exemplary behavior.

 

Bill

[hornblower]

No one provokes terrorism?  I think that's a pretty ridiculous statement. Terrorism is a political act, and it's retribution by its very nature.

 

No one at Charlie Hedbo deserved to die, that's for sure.  But that is a truth we all agree on, including the pope.  His statement on the killings:

“The Holy Father expresses his firmest condemnation of the horrible attack. Whatever its motivation might be, homicidal violence is abominable [and] is never justified.†   http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jan/7/pope-francis-charlie-hebdo-paris-terror-abominable/

 

yes, so let's sum up

 

1. Terrorists are motivated by something - US foreign policy, an injustice, a dictator, a desire for freedom  - reminds me of the old poli sci & ir jokes about your terrorist is my freedom fighter -. desire to implement a new world order, spread their religion, appease their God - whatever, it is, it's something. It's very rarely just random.  Even people with extreme mental illnesses and delusions do things which make sense to them & they have reasons for their actions.

 

2. Victims of terrorism 'don't deserve to die'  -  I'm not finding too many people who will publicly disagree with this, though I'm sure they exist... but let's take that as a given too.

 

I think people on this thread have been in agreement on the above points.

 

Where the disagreement lies is, given points 1 & 2, should people whose actions might motivate someone to undertake a terrorist act, modify their behavior?

 

And especially if those actions are central tenets of a western, liberal, society, should we nevertheless willingly de facto abridge them to avoid a terrorist attack? 

 

 

 

And I was just thinking that we've btdt, because after 9/11 many leftist analysts laid the attack directly on the US's actions and blamed US foreign policy for in effect causing this attack. It was essentially the same argument - "you push people too far, they push back, what do you expect?"

 

 

[albeto.]

  And the idea that no one (let's even say no publication) should self-censor for the sake of compassion is crazy to me. 

 

Good catch. Off to edit...

 

[Spy Car]

yes, so let's sum up

 

1. Terrorists are motivated by something - US foreign policy, an injustice, a dictator, a desire for freedom  - reminds me of the old poli sci & ir jokes about your terrorist is my freedom fighter -. desire to implement a new world order, spread their religion, appease their God - whatever, it is, it's something. It's very rarely just random.  Even people with extreme mental illnesses and delusions do things which make sense to them & they have reasons for their actions.

 

2. Victims of terrorism 'don't deserve to die'  -  I'm not finding too many people who will publicly disagree with this, though I'm sure they exist... but let's take that as a given too.

 

I think people on this thread have been in agreement on the above points.

 

Where the disagreement lies is, given points 1 & 2, should people whose actions might motivate someone to undertake a terrorist act, modify their behavior?

 

And especially if those actions are central tenets of a western, liberal, society, should we nevertheless willingly de facto abridge them to avoid a terrorist attack? 

 

 

 

And I was just thinking that we've btdt, because after 9/11 many leftist analysts laid the attack directly on the US's actions and blamed US foreign policy for in effect causing this attack. It was essentially the same argument - "you push people too far, they push back, what do you expect?"

 

 

 

Off the top of my head I think a reasonable test a person might ask themselves is if their speech has a purpose beyond inciting an angry response. If the answer is in the negative it might be advisable to rethink before talking.

Bill

[albeto.]

Summed up on page one.

:thumbup1:

 

Aw, you caught me. Usually I would have waited for 500 posts discussing the various points of freedom of speech, what might be considered valuable enough to protect, whether or not the concept should be based on meritorious qualifications, ideas, articulation of those ideas, the propagation of ideas through certain obstacles, which ideas are valued or prized, which ones are supported with reason and logic before throwing down the towel and starting to rant about how much I hate the pope, and his little pope car. But now that you've exposed my plot, I may have to keep this up for 1000 posts before attempting my real agenda. I do hope everyone forgets by then.

[albeto.]

Off the top of my head I think a reasonable test a person might ask themselves is if their speech has a purpose beyond inciting an angry response. If the answer is in the negative it might be advisable to rethink before talking.

Bill

 

Well behaved people rarely make history. You know that.

 

;)

[Spy Car]

Well, duh, of course the cartoons in question were meant to do more than merely offend. They also provided commentary. Even though they are not to my tastes, a few also provided humour to me...( no, not Mohammed - the Virgin Mary giving birth to Jesus - offensive ? Maybe. Funny ? To me. Thought provoking ? Yep.)

 

And in answer to Ms Snippy above aka Poppy my personal pooh-pooher - no, individuals do not 'provoke' acts of terror committed upon them. Governments and countries and societies may indeed be responsible for factors feeding into terror - but victims of terror do not 'provoke'.

 

Is it really so hard for people to simply say 'Those men did not deserve to die' ? And 'No-one should expect to be murdered' ? Without the nasty little 'but'....

'

Personally, I think the Virgin Mary cartoon is puerile, not funny (not even remotely "clever"), and has no value as "commentary." What's the comment???

 

Bill

[Spy Car]

Well behaved people rarely make history. You know that.

 

;)

 

Those who don't conform can either be forces for positive change, or hate-mongers who spread ugliness. I know where I'd categorize Charlie Hebdo.

 

Bill

[albeto.]

Those who don't conform can either be forces for positive change, or hate-mongers who spread ugliness. I know where I'd categorize Charlie Hebdo.

 

Bill

 

Without a doubt. Interestingly, they said that about women voting as well.

 

And the Beatles.

 

And Andrew "Dice" Clay.

 

All envelope pushing can't be noble, nor should it be expected. But it shouldn't be suppressed because people with itchy trigger fingers can't be bothered to reign in their impulses any more than people should be encouraged to develop itchy trigger fingers.

[albeto.]

You'd seriously like me to justify my sense of humour ? Maybe it's only funny to a Catholic girl who's given birth.

 

It's full of life, for one thing. Compare it to the usual representations of mother and child. It has zero sentimentality, and for a birth of Jesus cartoon, I like that. Birth is not sentimental, it's vigorous - like the style of the cartoon.

 

The style and liveliness prompts in me musings on the nature of Jesus' supposed miraculous conception. It is saying, to me, very clearly - nope, ladies and gentlemen, he was a real life boy, the same as you and me. No miracle here, just the 'vulgar' process of conception, birth, life and death we all go through.

 

But you know, feel free to suggest all that is puerile and without any value....perhaps I'm just a racist anti-theist with no taste...

 

Is this the cartoon you guys are talking about?

 

[hornblower]

Those who don't conform can either be forces for positive change, or hate-mongers who spread ugliness. I know where I'd categorize Charlie Hebdo.

 

Bill

 

I'd characterize CH as a satirical agent of positive change, holding up a mirror to institutions and ideas which are absurd, extreme, bigoted, violent, hypocritical, corrupt...

 

 

The hate is not CH.

 

CH made people look at the hate. They didn't create it. They showed it.

 

Many people would prefer to just ignore it.

 

They also work hard to show alternatives such as the Love is greater than hate cover from 2011 or the Jan cover after the attack "All is forgiven."

 

The fact that they target politicians, the Catholic church & other groups with equal zeal is also important. I think some people have the idea that this is a big Islamaphobia thing  for them. It's not.

 

 

[poppy]

Well, duh, of course the cartoons in question were meant to do more than merely offend. They also provided commentary. Even though they are not to my tastes, a few also provided humour to me...( no, not Mohammed - the Virgin Mary giving birth to Jesus - offensive ? Maybe. Funny ? To me. Thought provoking ? Yep.)

 

And in answer to Ms Snippy above aka Poppy my personal pooh-pooher - no, individuals do not 'provoke' acts of terror committed upon them. Governments and countries and societies may indeed be responsible for factors feeding into terror - but victims of terror do not 'provoke'.

 

Is it really so hard for people to simply say 'Those men did not deserve to die' ? And 'No-one should expect to be murdered' ? Without the nasty little 'but'....

 

Hey, that is exactly  what I said!  Remember? I will now quote me:

 

No one at Charlie Hedbo deserved to die, that's for sure.  But that is a truth we all agree on, including the pope.  His statement on the killings:

“The Holy Father expresses his firmest condemnation of the horrible attack. Whatever its motivation might be, homicidal violence is abominable [and] is never justified.†   http://www.washingto...ror-abominable/

 

But to say Charlie Hedbo's cartoonists didn't provoke the attacks that killed them is ..... well, that's crazy.  Of course they did.  Does that make them responsible for their own deaths? No.  Did they deserve to die? Of course not.  They were assassinated.  That's terrible.

 

As for the quality of the cartoons or relative merit, I honestly haven't looked at them.  I don't think the content of the speech is relevant.   I have always assumed, based on what I know about France and its treatment of and attitude about minorities, that it was probably unsavory. Not unlike some of the things I've read and seen about Obama that are shocking nasty to me.  Doesn't matter.   

[hornblower]

And bottom line is - doesn't matter whether I like what they're saying or not.

The protester, the pamphleteer, the cartoonist, the essayist, the novelist, the ranting streetcorner preacher  -  doesn't matter what they say, I'll support their rights to say it.   I don't have to agree with them. I just support them in principle.

I friendly honk & wave at protestors and picketers all the time because OMG, this is an AMAZING thing. I grew up in a country where there was no right to protest, where people ended up in jail. My family lived through tanks on the street & martial law. I just don't take this stuff for granted.

Speak. assemble. talk. argue. discuss, debate, write letters to the editor, draw pictures, write books, write blogs, argue online....  do it all & participate in this world. Those are all good things.
 

[Spy Car]

Hate to invoke Godwin's Law, but when Hitler started out as an angry street protestor those who gave him a wave and a thumbs up made a big mistake. Same with the Bolsheviks.

 

It's not all good.

 

Bill 

[albeto.]

It's not all good.

 

On this I think we all agree.

No one is saying it is.

 

But...

 

It should be free.

It should be safe.

 

The first is accomplished through inspiring a culture that values and appreciates freedom of speech, for all speech.

The second is accomplished in the same way.

Encouraging people to bite their tongues for the sake of avoiding violent retribution from tyrants undermines this.

[hornblower]

Hate to invoke Godwin's Law, but when Hitler started out as an angry street protestor those who gave him a wave and a thumbs up made a big mistake. Same with the Bolsheviks.

 

It's not all good.

 

Bill 

 

I think we all know that.

 

I grew up under communism & my grandfather died in a WW2 concentration camp. 

 

Doesn't change my views on this.

 

It's not perfect but it's the best imperfect. Making certain subjects taboo is not a solution at all.

 

[poppy]

Hate to invoke Godwin's Law, but when Hitler started out as an angry street protestor those who gave him a wave and a thumbs up made a big mistake. Same with the Bolsheviks.

 

It's not all good.

 

Bill 

 

You wouldn't like the alternative either.

[Spy Car]

On this I think we all agree.

No one is saying it is.

 

But...

 

It should be free.

It should be safe.

 

The first is accomplished through inspiring a culture that values and appreciates freedom of speech, for all speech.

The second is accomplished in the same way.

Encouraging people to bite their tongues for the sake of avoiding violent retribution from tyrants undermines this.

 

Engaging in hate speech is never going to be safe. This case did not represent retribution by "tyrants," they were just a couple of pissed-off dudes.

 

Bill

[albeto.]

Engaging in hate speech is never going to be safe.

Sure it is.

 

This case did not represent retribution by "tyrants," they were just a couple of pissed-off dudes....

 

Bill

Terrorists attempting to tyrannize those who don't obey their demands, then.