Time for a new "Mass Shootings" thread

tu vois ce que c'est que les y'a bon awards ?
c'est un genre de prix decerné aux meilleurs racistes de l'année. Généralement ils decernent toute une série de prix pour les gens qui ont eu des declaration plus ou moins racistes... (zemmour, hortefeux sonts souvent nominés).

La y a une polémique comme quoi CH aurait été sur la petite liste des ya bon awards. enfin j'ai pas trop compris la polémique. C'est jeanette bougrab qui avait accusé rokaya diallo (la responsable des ya bon awards) mais rokaya diallo s'en été defendue...

 

That doesn't make it a moral law.

Consensus? I recall that both our countries are republics. I know that the United States is set up to avoid suppression of minority opinions by "consensus" or mob rule. It doesn't always work, but it's part of the Enlightenment from which both our countries take their ideals. I would think that the Republic of France would also have protections for minorities, but maybe not - or maybe it's highly selective.

 

Ah non je ne savais pas. Bon pour cette année je vote Zemmour.

 

Zemmour le Cristiano Ronaldo du montage de communautés les unes contre les autres.

 

What do you call a "moral law" ? Laws rely on moral principles but they are made within a societal and historical context.
If you call minorities neo-nazis or extremists of any kind then no, they have no protection. Otherwise, you're protected by the law.
The concept of freedom speech comes from the Enlightments but you can conceive it in various ways. The men of the Enlightments themselves conceived it themselves in various ways. The articles X and XI of the Human Rights Declaration (1789) clearly put limits to this for example whereas its American counterpart (1791) don't. The French Declaration was clearly inspired by Montesquieu and Rousseau who insisted on putting limits to liberties thanks to the laws. But it's also due to the context : it was perhaps easier to allow a total freedom of speech is a new-born, few populated and homogene country (I'm talking about the late 18th US) than in an agitated and revolutionary France.

 

554360326029062144 is not a valid tweet id

FWIW

IMHO, none of that changes that the "they cannot be bigoted since they make fun of everyone" defense ignores the fact that this is a false equivalence.

 

It's not only pragmatic : as I said just above, putting limits to freedom through laws comes from Rousseau and Montesquieu ideas. As for offensive speeches, it's hard to say from what moment they become offensive. And since it's not possible we have in fact two solutions remaining : prohibiting them totally and in this case we're no longer in a democracy or allowing them totally. And above all we're talking about speeches that take opinions as their subjects here (being political or religious in CH's case) : discussing opinions is the essence of democracy.

I'll check what Voltaire would say about that

 

Might be a little too immature for P&CE. IOW Cascarino's will like this

 

Das Kapital is compatible with democracy. Mein Kampf is anti-democratic since it is calling for democracy(the Weimar Republic) to be replaced by a germanic leader state. That alone is reason enough therefore it is not compatible with democracy. The rights are currently held by the free state of Bavaria until 2015(!) and it wasnt willing to publish them(for obvious reasons) until recently. Because of those rights soon ending they prepared to publish such a commented, "exposing" and "not anti-democratic anymore" version but then stopped the process. They did cause currently the German federal states are suing the NPD in a party ban trial infront of the federal constitutional court in Karlsruhe. The argument is the state cant publish historical nazi propaganda while at the same time it is trying to ban the party that stands for all of what is written in that book.

So, restrictions on freedom of expression are only legitimate if they are designed to preserve democracy. E.g. opinions that are anti-democratic(nazi etc.) fall under those restrictions.

 

No problem, we're having a nice discussion here (and I love Borges as much as you love Voltaire ). As I said I don't think one option is better than the other. I can't say that the Americans or others have it wrong to allow the exposure of all the opinions, even the most degusting ones, as long as their society is resilient enough to accept them. Both choices are all relative and depend on the historical and societal context in which they take place.

From my (very French orientated I admit) point of view, the difference between Mein Kampf and Das Kapital is that you can debate about the latter but not about the former. In one case you got a book that denies the Human Rights whereas in the second case you have a intellectual work that can be as such subject of debate. In both cases you have a opinion indeed but only one of them can be subject of discussion. The draw line is what is exposed in the Human and Citizen Rights Declaration of 1789 that is still today the most fundamental law in France. Again, that works in the specific context of France and it's not in absolute terms a better option than the other one.

 

1. You've gone to great pains to explain that you have to know ALL the context to really GET these cartoons. If that's indeed the case, then isn't it doing a disservice to both the cartoons and the audience to publish them without any context? If one must be fluent in French and have lived in France to fully understand what these images mean, then an American audience for the most part isn't going to understand them. Yet Americans are publishing them and posting them, using them in their social media avatars, declaring that they identify with this publication, and even calling anyone who doesn't do so a coward.

Could it, maybe, be a Bad Thing for Americans to publish apparently racist imagery, when other Americans don't have the context to understand what the image "really" means?

I'm not asking anyone to burn copies of Charlie Hebdo. I'm suggesting that they not be so quick to reprint racial caricatures when they don't fully understand what they mean and neither do their audiences.

Also, when you put these cartoons into an American context, new meanings become attached. That cannot be ignored. When right xenophobic, Islamophobic right wingers publish the cartoons, getting all high and mighty about free speech, you have to wonder whether it's the free speech they like or the gross caricatures of Muslims they like better.

2. You don't own the meaning of any piece of content. No utterance or expression of any kind has a fixed meaning. You can shed light on your interpretation of what something means, or what you believe the author intended, but that is not the end of the story and it doesn't stop the conversation. Well-intended jokes can fail. They can fall flat; they can miss their targets. They can cause harm. Non-racist people can say and write and draw things that are racist. Attempts to satirize can wind up only reinforcing the ideologies they're trying to mock. It happens all the time. Just reiterating "You don't understand the meaning of this joke" isn't actually helpful.

You can make fun of racism without using racist caricatures. You can also make fun of religion without racist caricatures.

Parody =/= satire. Mockery =/= satire.

3. Are you Muslim? Do you speak for all Muslims? Because you seem pretty certain that the way you understand these cartoons is the THE ONLY way they can be understood. You seem pretty certain that Muslims are not harmed by these cartoons. I personally don't think white people should tell black people what does and doesn't harm black people; that's for black folks to decide. I don't think men should tell women what is and isn't sexist. And I don't think non-Muslims should tell Muslims what is and isn't harmful to Muslims.

4. This isn't about religions being sacred or not. This is about racist caricatures. It is in fact possible to draw Muhammed and Muslims without using physical characteristics associated with ugly Arab stereotypes.

5. This isn't about accusing people of being racist, and it has nothing to do with being offended.

I don't know how many times I have to say that.

This has nothing to do with cartoons being offensive or anyone being offended.

This is a question of what harmful ideas a cartoon or any attempt at satire can promote and perpetuate (whether intentionally or not). Don't dismiss criticisms and questions by saying people are on a "high horse" and not able to tolerate having their sensibilities offended. If only that were the problem here! Instead, assure me that it's entirely unlikely that an American, looking at a caricature of Muhammed with exaggerated racial characteristics, will have his already negative view of Muslims and Islam reinforced. Ensure to me that those who find Muslims threatening and want to oppress them won't be emboldened by looking at these images. Can you promise me that?

 

It's a theoric work that is subject to a variety of interpretations. That's also the case with Rousseau : when you read his Contrat social you can all at once consider he's the father of democracy and the conceptor of totalitarism.

 

Last chance to apply the death penalty...

 

It's funny... expressions of racism are illegal, and that's good.

But some people think some cartoons are racist, and some people don't. Who decides?

 

Wait, so people with "distasteful" opinions are not protected by law?

I think you overestimate the homogeneity of the US even in the late 18th century. The homogeneity of the Founders is not in dispute, though.

 

Yeah, I was never a fan of that argument, because it's basically a non sequitur. There much, much more convincing arguments that can be used to demonstrate they are not bigoted (or rather that their work was not - they personally almost assuredly are in some way).

 

I didn't know that there was such a thing as what hurts black people, what hurts Muslims, only women being subject to sexism. Your message is pretty scary as a whole.

 

So, if National Socialist opinions are forbidden because they "undermine democracy", what about soviet socialist opinions? What about Juche opinions? Tsarist? Monarchist? Arab nationalist?

 

The American branch of the Enlightenment explicitly set out to avoid democracy qua democracy.