Meanwhile with Charlie Hebdo

[mr friendly guy]

using Al Jazeera link because its got pictures of the relevant cartoons

Charlie Hebdo plane-crash cartoons anger Russians
French satirical magazine rejects Kremlin's criticism of cartoons that have been widely discussed on social media.
09 Nov 2015 06:49 GMT

The Kremlin has denounced French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo over a set of cartoons about the crash of a Russian passenger plane in Egypt.

On Sunday, VK, one of Russia's largest social media networks, said the magazine's cartoons had been the most discussed topic by its more than 100 million active users over the weekend.

"Insane cynicism and a mockery of the memory of the victims of this terrible tragedy," wrote one Twitter user, Anna Isayeva.

The French magazine published two cartoons after Metrojet Flight 9268 crashed in the Sinai Peninsula on October 31, killing all 224 people on board.

The first drawing showed a passenger's skull, with the caption: "The dangers of Russian low cost" flights.

The second showed the plane's debris falling on a bearded fighter, with the legend: "The Russian air force is intensifying its air strikes."

'Pure blasphemy'

On Friday, Dmitry Peskov, the Russian government spokesman, said he thought the cartoons were "pure blasphemy" and had nothing to do with democracy or freedom of expression.

Russian politicians lined up on state TV over the weekend to echo his criticism.

Maria Zakharova, a spokeswoman for Russia's foreign ministry, used Facebook to ask: "Is anyone still Charlie?"

It was a reference to the catchphrase, "Je Suis Charlie", used to express sympathy with the French magazine after assailants killed 11 people at its Paris headquarters in January.

Her question had attracted almost 4,500 "likes" by Sunday evening, along with an avalanche of comments, many of them expletive-laden.

Ramzan Kadyrov, the Kremlin-backed leader of Chechnya, also weighed in, saying he thought the cartoonists responsible for the two images were not human.

Gerard Biard, Charlie Hebdo's editor-in-chief, was quoted in the French media as saying the accusation of blasphemy was "absurd".

The French foreign ministry said in a statement on its website that journalists in France were free to express their opinions, but that they did not reflect the views of the French government.

"We were among the first to express our condolences to the Russian people and authorities on Saturday, as soon as we learned of this terrible tragedy," the ministry said.

When the Charlie Hebdo thing first came up, I was a bit cautious about criticising their previous cartoons, because I didn't understand French and may have misinterpreted French humour. This however seems callous (at least the second one anyway).

And this post on the Al Jazeera article

Sounds like the Russians and the Muslims have the same belief system -- that one is not allowed the freedom of speech.
The day we as humans shut down this very important freedom
is the day we regress back into our past.
If you don't like the cartoons, don't read them.

I remember Racist Apologists, er I mean Defenders of Free Speech in my own country saying its ok for Racists to say their shit, but when they're criticised its an attack on free speech. Why are there people who seem to think free speech means only they can say what they want?

Lets be fair. Someone should do a cartoon of the Charlie Hebdo journalists being gunned down by Muslim extremists, to a) demonstrate free speech and b) satire Muslim extremists. Fair is fair after all.

[TithonusSyndrome]

Images of Muslim extremists gunning down Charlie Hebdo cartoonists wouldn't offend them, though; it would be validating to them and their wearisome victim complex. An image of them being long-forgotten and ignored as all of France groans at their cookie-cutter edgelord antics and disengages from them in sheer boredom would be far more galling to them.

[mr friendly guy]

Images of Muslim extremists gunning down Charlie Hebdo cartoonists wouldn't offend them, though; it would be validating to them and their wearisome victim complex. An image of them being long-forgotten and ignored as all of France groans at their cookie-cutter edgelord antics and disengages from them in sheer boredom would be far more galling to them.

I am not sure. There is the professional victim where every little thing drives their persecution complex. For example those Christians whining that they can no longer discriminate against Gays. However in the case of the gunning down of the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists, they really were real victims.

[Gaidin]

Images of Muslim extremists gunning down Charlie Hebdo cartoonists wouldn't offend them, though; it would be validating to them and their wearisome victim complex. An image of them being long-forgotten and ignored as all of France groans at their cookie-cutter edgelord antics and disengages from them in sheer boredom would be far more galling to them.

I am not sure. There is the professional victim where every little thing drives their persecution complex. For example those Christians whining that they can no longer discriminate against Gays. However in the case of the gunning down of the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists, they really were real victims.

That's what makes the suggestion so unlaughingly appropriate given what investigations suggest resulted in the plane crash. If they were real victims they should have some appreciation for this.

[Jub]

Speech isn't free unless it's free for anybody and anything. The lightest bit of fluff, the latest science journal, and the vilest rape fantasy all have an equal right to be freely set out among the minds of the world.

[Gaidin]

Speech isn't free unless it's free for anybody and anything. The lightest bit of fluff, the latest science journal, and the vilest rape fantasy all have an equal right to be freely set out among the minds of the world.

Really? You want to say that and expect not to have the same "free speech" principle thrown back at you when people say "bad taste" back at them? Remember, people get to respond. Speech is a two way street, always has been.

[Jub]

Really? You want to say that and expect not to have the same "free speech" principle thrown back at you when people say "bad taste" back at them? Remember, people get to respond. Speech is a two way street, always has been.

Where did I say that people couldn't say anything back to them? I'm pretty sure that Charlie Hebdo can take a little slung mud if bullets didn't stop them.

[Welf]

When the Charlie Hebdo thing first came up, I was a bit cautious about criticising their previous cartoons, because I didn't understand French and may have misinterpreted French humour. This however seems callous (at least the second one anyway).

And this post on the Al Jazeera article

Sounds like the Russians and the Muslims have the same belief system -- that one is not allowed the freedom of speech.
The day we as humans shut down this very important freedom
is the day we regress back into our past.
If you don't like the cartoons, don't read them.

I remember Racist Apologists, er I mean Defenders of Free Speech in my own country saying its ok for Racists to say their shit, but when they're criticised its an attack on free speech. Why are there people who seem to think free speech means only they can say what they want?

Lets be fair. Someone should do a cartoon of the Charlie Hebdo journalists being gunned down by Muslim extremists, to a) demonstrate free speech and b) satire Muslim extremists. Fair is fair after all.

To sum up, someone dared to say something meanie about your side so you want to insult them too.

The first caricature with the skull points out that low standards endanger lives. Meanwhile we know that is was likely a terrorist attack, but at the time the explanation of a malfunction was considered the probable explanation by the egyptian and russian authorities. So a satirist pointed out an important issue that cost human lives and did that at a time where it had the biggest impact. Duh.

The second caricature reminds people that there is a war going on and that russian airstrikes kill people.So a satirist pointed out an important issue that cost human lives and keeps on costing lives and did that at a time where it had the biggest impact. Duh.

When you hear someone after a human tragedy asking for civility and respect for the dead it's 9 out of 10 times someone who fucked up and tries to suffocate criticism and avoid change. The 10th time it's someone who can't bear the slightest slight of his guys.

[mr friendly guy]

To sum up, someone dared to say something meanie about your side so you want to insult them too.

I didn't realise I was on Russia's side. Maybe Putin can treat me to a trip to a Black Sea resort. Apparently asking equal treatment is bit unfair for you, or is it the empathy part that is hard for you to grasp. Because only one side gets to be meanies, and its damn well your side.

Man, free speech is a two way street most of the time. Who would have thought that? Apparently not you.

The first caricature with the skull points out that low standards endanger lives. Meanwhile we know that is was likely a terrorist attack, but at the time the explanation of a malfunction was considered the probable explanation by the egyptian and russian authorities. So a satirist pointed out an important issue that cost human lives and did that at a time where it had the biggest impact. Duh.

Maybe you should have waited for the evidence to come in before casting aspersions. Or is that concept not fair for you?

The second caricature reminds people that there is a war going on and that russian airstrikes kill people.So a satirist pointed out an important issue that cost human lives and keeps on costing lives and did that at a time where it had the biggest impact. Duh.

Fortunately I commented on the other cartoon only. Remember this line "This however seems callous (at least the second one anyway)." The second cartoon was what you mixed up as the first cartoon. Duh.

When you hear someone after a human tragedy asking for civility and respect for the dead it's 9 out of 10 times someone who fucked up and tries to suffocate criticism and avoid change. The 10th time it's someone who can't bear the slightest slight of his guys.

Since you so obviously object to even suggest someone does a cartoon mocking the Charlie Hebdo killings, are you the 9 times out of 10 who believes "someone fucked up" at Charlie Hebdo or the 10th one who can't bear the slightest slight on their guys? Which one is it moron? Do you even think about what you say before you type it?

[The Romulan Republic]

Images of Muslim extremists gunning down Charlie Hebdo cartoonists wouldn't offend them, though; it would be validating to them and their wearisome victim complex. An image of them being long-forgotten and ignored as all of France groans at their cookie-cutter edgelord antics and disengages from them in sheer boredom would be far more galling to them.

I am not sure. There is the professional victim where every little thing drives their persecution complex. For example those Christians whining that they can no longer discriminate against Gays. However in the case of the gunning down of the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists, they really were real victims.

That's what makes the suggestion so unlaughingly appropriate given what investigations suggest resulted in the plane crash. If they were real victims they should have some appreciation for this.

"If they were real victims..."? Is their any doubt in your mind?

Because the only way you could say that the people gunned down at Charlie Hebdo were not victims is if you feel making offensive cartoons makes you fair game for terrorist attacks.

[Gaidin]

"If they were real victims..."? Is their any doubt in your mind?

Because the only way you could say that the people gunned down at Charlie Hebdo were not victims is if you feel making offensive cartoons makes you fair game for terrorist attacks.

Would you prefer the words "insensitive jackasses in spite of what happened to them"? I really couldn't give two shits less. I'll say what I said before, I'll let it be words that make you feel better inside as well. I think they're asshats either way, before, during, and after what happened to them. I've never had any respect for them at all.

[Jub]

Would you prefer the words "insensitive jackasses in spite of what happened to them"? I really couldn't give two shits less. I'll say what I said before, I'll let it be words that make you feel better inside as well. I think they're asshats either way, before, during, and after what happened to them. I've never had any respect for them at all.

They don't need your respect, in fact, your anger is getting them exposure! Good job Gaidin, you fail at your goal of attacking Charlie Hebdo in any meaningful way.

[The Romulan Republic]

"If they were real victims..."? Is their any doubt in your mind?

Because the only way you could say that the people gunned down at Charlie Hebdo were not victims is if you feel making offensive cartoons makes you fair game for terrorist attacks.

Would you prefer the words "insensitive jackasses in spite of what happened to them"? I really couldn't give two shits less. I'll say what I said before, I'll let it be words that make you feel better inside as well. I think they're asshats either way, before, during, and after what happened to them. I've never had any respect for them at all.

Their is a difference between the two things you said, your snide denial notwithstanding. Your previous post suggested that they were not necessarily victims. If you deny that they were victims, it implies, to me anyway, that you think they had it coming to them. Your alternative wording does not.

Its not about how I feel. Its about two very different meanings.

As to the notion that they're assholes despite being victims of terrorism, that's a perfectly valid opinion, and one I don't intend to dispute.

It is perfectly possible to be both offensive and a victim. I don't feel the need to defend everything they do because they were victims of a terrorist attack, any more than I feel the need to downplay the horror of what happened to them because they're offensive.

[mr friendly guy]

Would you prefer the words "insensitive jackasses in spite of what happened to them"? I really couldn't give two shits less. I'll say what I said before, I'll let it be words that make you feel better inside as well. I think they're asshats either way, before, during, and after what happened to them. I've never had any respect for them at all.

They don't need your respect, in fact, your anger is getting them exposure! Good job Gaidin, you fail at your goal of attacking Charlie Hebdo in any meaningful way.

Well that depends on the response. If Charlie Hebdo made some lame arse statement that we respect your right to criticise us even though our employees were gunned down, that's one thing. If they lose their shit start rambling about how insensitive their critics showing their hypocrisy, that's a totally different matter.

[Jub]

Well that depends on the response. If Charlie Hebdo made some lame arse statement that we respect your right to criticise us even though our employees were gunned down, that's one thing. If they lose their shit start rambling about how insensitive their critics showing their hypocrisy, that's a totally different matter.

They ramble because it draws eyes. In today's world of sound bites and short attention spans, they know that being chill won't get them exposure.

[mr friendly guy]

Well that depends on the response. If Charlie Hebdo made some lame arse statement that we respect your right to criticise us even though our employees were gunned down, that's one thing. If they lose their shit start rambling about how insensitive their critics showing their hypocrisy, that's a totally different matter.

They ramble because it draws eyes. In today's world of sound bites and short attention spans, they know that being chill won't get them exposure.

You misunderstand. I meant if they draw attention to themselves in such a way that they appear hypocritical, it will weaken them in terms of attention in the long term. I mean, a vegetarian guru who turns out to eat meat will lose their following. Ted Haggard's rant against gays seem so much weaker when it turned out he himself was gay.

So too would a free speech advocate lose support, if it turns out they want free speech only for themselves. Now, this show of hypocrisy doesn't always turn people away from the hypocrite, but it certainly will not help.

[Jub]

You misunderstand. I meant if they draw attention to themselves in such a way that they appear hypocritical, it will weaken them in terms of attention in the long term. I mean, a vegetarian guru who turns out to eat meat will lose their following. Ted Haggard's rant against gays seem so much weaker when it turned out he himself was gay.

So too would a free speech advocate lose support, if it turns out they want free speech only for themselves. Now, this show of hypocrisy doesn't always turn people away from the hypocrite, but it certainly will not help.

If that were the case Fox would be bleeding viewers as they twist their way from position to position. I'm of the opinion that for a group like Charlie Hebdo any press is good press. I can see your point though, I just disagree.

[Gaidin]

Their is a difference between the two things you said, your snide denial notwithstanding. Your previous post suggested that they were not necessarily victims. If you deny that they were victims, it implies, to me anyway, that you think they had it coming to them. Your alternative wording does not.

Its not about how I feel. Its about two very different meanings.

As to the notion that they're assholes despite being victims of terrorism, that's a perfectly valid opinion, and one I don't intend to dispute.

It is perfectly possible to be both offensive and a victim. I don't feel the need to defend everything they do because they were victims of a terrorist attack, any more than I feel the need to downplay the horror of what happened to them because they're offensive.

I say what I say because after walking out of their gunned down office their functional modus operandi is to pull out their slingshot and, if one of those comics is indication, hit a victim with it. Some understanding of what they went through. Or just utter indifference or sheer lack of understanding or empathy. Two very different things, but I'll stand by them.

[The Romulan Republic]

Their is a difference between the two things you said, your snide denial notwithstanding. Your previous post suggested that they were not necessarily victims. If you deny that they were victims, it implies, to me anyway, that you think they had it coming to them. Your alternative wording does not.

Its not about how I feel. Its about two very different meanings.

As to the notion that they're assholes despite being victims of terrorism, that's a perfectly valid opinion, and one I don't intend to dispute.

It is perfectly possible to be both offensive and a victim. I don't feel the need to defend everything they do because they were victims of a terrorist attack, any more than I feel the need to downplay the horror of what happened to them because they're offensive.

I say what I say because after walking out of their gunned down office their functional modus operandi is to pull out their slingshot and, if one of those comics is indication, hit a victim with it. Some understanding of what they went through. Or just utter indifference or sheer lack of understanding or empathy. Two very different things, but I'll stand by them.

While I'm not terribly familiar with Charlie Hebdo's entire history, I never claimed they were nice people. I'm basically saying that they were nonetheless victims because no amount of dickishness on their part would justify them being gunned down, and that this point needs to be clear. Not sure what you disagree with their that you feel the need to keep arguing the point.

[Gaidin]

No. Never justified actions against them. But then, that's not what I said. End of discussion.