HOME | DD
jollyjack — You can make it bleed, but you can't kill satire.
#charlie #hebdo #charliehebdo
Published: 2015-01-07 21:26:33 +0000 UTC; Views: 42586; Favourites: 1169; Downloads: 429
Redirect to original
Description
……and keep your god damn hands off the French. No one kills them but us!!
www.bbc.co.uk/news/in-pictures…
Related content
Comments: 401
J'éssui. Charle lit.
I'm stalking Charlie.
Je Suis Charlie.
_________________________
(]_________________________>
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
There's a French saying that translates quite well to what has happened at Charlie Hebdo: 'you can laugh about anything, just not with everyone.' Very strong saying and so true with the essence of what's been going on.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Meh. The right to speech is ridiculous. You shouldn't be able to pop in and whisper into little kids ears that you're going to rape them, and then bear no consequences just because of "freedom of speech." All forms of action and expression have inappropriate extremes which should be prohibited.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
You can't shout "FIRE" in a crowded theater (without there being a fire) either.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting…
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Indeed, and I'm pleased they ruled as such. Unfortunately, they didn't do it legally. They just made up a restriction on the bill of rights, and hoped no one called them on their bullshit. That precedent lead us to other, less beneficial limitations today.
My point isn't that freedom of speech IS absolute, but that it shouldn't BE absolute. Voltaire seemed, at least to me, to be claiming he'd die defending absolute freedom of speech.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Uh, you can't do that. That would be threatening behaviour, which will get you arrested.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I know, and I'm glad that you can't. People like Voltaire put too much faith in freedom of speech. It's no better to allow absolute freedom of expression than it is to completely control expression.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I think the point of freedom of speech is, yes, you can say whatever you want. However, you have to be prepared to accept the consequences for your choice.
Because what you say is also a choice, and no choice holds any worth if you are not held responsible for the consequences thereof.
I agree with freedom of speech, only because it is part of free will. And free will in and of itself begets consequence, no matter the choice.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
les anglais sont les seul qui peuvent envahir la France et revenir vivant!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
"No one kills them but us!! "
Exactly !
...
...No wait, what ?!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Wasn't it also Voltaire who said: "I have ever made but one prayer to God, a very short one: 'Oh God, make my enemies ridiculous.' And it was granted."
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I hope to god GIGN (basically the french version of us special forces but better) finds that bitch that turned and went away. forget interrogation, just get her and ask 1 question, she refuse just kill er' like the other 2 they've already captured and detained one of them.
i do know ive though shit about France for years but now ive proved myself wrong.
Vive la France!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I'll be honest. I've said my number of french jokes, making fun of their past military prowess.
Still might make such jokes in the future.
But I'll be damned if I don't give credit where credit is due.
Vive la France.
Vive la Liberty.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
and you should keep in mind french have a WAY more impressive millitary history than usa that lost most of their war ^^
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Very true, but post-Napoleon, things did kind of go down hill... plus, one must keep in mind that the US's military exploits did get... well, I can't say "Better", but more "efficient". I could get into a more in depth discussion about that, but then that would devolve what was meant to be an honest admission of a fault on my part in light of a tragedy into a flame war, and, frankly... I don't want to be the cause of that. I'm sorry if it seemed like I was, but I will say that you did make a very good point.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Well open your eyes. They fail in any war they try to do, or almost. They fail when they try to invade. They fail when they use assassins and crime of war in other contry in their "subtle" attempt to control their politic (south america is a good exemple, iran, a contry that was modern , whit egality beetween man and woman (more than usa at this time ) before usa begin to get involve is an other good one).
They are the only contry that use NUKE, in 2 civil town where the majority of victim was woman, child, and people too old for hold a weapon. But for change, their biggest crime of war give them a succes haha.
Despite the use of technologie,money, terror and crime of war, they usualy still fail.
In most of their attempt, all they succed to do is create hostility against them...i don't call that a millitary history to be proud off.
They are agressive AND incompetent, worst mixt ever : /.
France have fail in many war, done horrible thing too and create problem....but compare the post napoelon to usa history at the same time and think usa should be more proud is ridiculous. We call that a popular culture...but popular culture is usualy far from reality.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Well at least USA have tanks that actually work. Most of ours can't even get started. And our air force is just pathetic.
Who cares about your glorious past when you can't have a decent present?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I am not from france, but i know some soldier that work whit usa soldier in afghanistant. Belive me, if usa do a real war, they will have a huge problem.
Their soldier are dump and pathetic. They have weapon...but no brain to use them. They don't know how to fixt anything, they wait a tech for anything.
(as exemple, in a outpost the unit of my friend build a shower. The usa soldier come for renfoce them, they brooke the shower after ONE days, and fail to fixt it..and when my friends unit comme back, they fixt it in few min...other thing: in a millitary base, one of my friend work as civilian, she did karate whit them..well, at each class, one of them wound himself because they all think they are "tough"..but they are just dump and awkward ..and she beat them when she is not that skilled, and not that big...)
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
And French soldiers have no weapons. No drones, vehicles with insufficient shielding, useless and expensive planes (USA made more or less 400 bombings on the ISIL's positions, France made 1 on an empty training camp)... What is a superior brain good for if you take a headshot because the turret of your tank doesn't provide enough protection?
Our army didn't won a war since 70 years and more. USA may have a huge problem if facing a real war (I'm not defending them, I'm not a specialist of their organisation and it's totally possible they suck), but France will have it even worse.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I think you need to cultivate yourself a little bit ^^.
And usa army are SOOO skilled they lost all their fleet in a war game whit..canada..yeah..the contry whitout real navy.
Because they are dump. You can have the best weapon ect..if you don't know to use it...
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
"Because they are dump." Dump? I think you need to read over what you have written ^^.
And stop arguing about usa army, I'm not defending them, I never said you were wrong about them. I'm just saying France's army sucks. USA army sucks? Okay but what difference does it makes? And I don't think building showers count as a strategic objective.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I'll bet the French would also agree with the reverse: No one kills the british but us!!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
And us Americans >.> but that's in the past. . .
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Okay, I do not approve of the shooting, at all..I'm not on anyone's side, because I think the Islamists could've settled this..a bit more peacefully? But I also don't get why the French had to take the risk and joke about something that was dear to Islam..I'm just stating my sincere opinion here, because I don't really get how the French are saying its freedom of Speech..think of it this way..wouldn't the Christians get real mad if anyone made fun of their Jesus, heck making him as a cartoon? But then the people drawing it, would be like "freedom of speech".. Like I said, I'm on no one's side, as Islamists couldve settled this in a bit of kinder manner, whereas the French shouldve just left them alone...Also, blaming a whole religion for something only a few people did..I don't think that's right :/ I don't really know who's side I should be on, but I just wanted to state my honest opinion on this matter..
Im praying I don't start a flame war here ಠ_ಠ
👍: 0 ⏩: 3
first of: i can show you millions of pictures, comics and so on which mock jesus in any possible manner. intrestingly really few came from the muslims, since they take their religion serious and jesus is a prophet for them as well.
BUT i'm with you, mocking is the totally wrong way to handle a conflict, it's like puting oil on the fire. there is a damn lot of propaganda in this happening now, since anyone wants to take their piece of the advantage you can make out of such a catastrophe. the anti-islamics want to use charlie for themself, the pro-europes want to use this, the anti-globalisations want to, the atheists, the media and so on... it isn't really about charlie at all.
But what the islamists did was wrong in a grave matter. not because they acted against the "freedom of speech", freedom is allways confined with the freedom of others, the french got that themselfs long ago, also it seems they have forgot that... but killing without being threatened to the death is a sinister crime and those extremists provocted the reaction they got. i wouldn't dare to even call them muslims anymore, what they did has less to do with religion and more with the reaction of a child to being mocked.
my condolence to the victims and their relatives, but i'm certainly not charlie.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Well, I'm glad someone can see my point of view. But one thing that bothers me more is Charlie Hebdo and its reasons for mocking..I don't get what they are trying to accomplish...But I don't think the shooters thought what they did was right was right :/
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Oh and our freedom of speech is used to laugh, not to hate, otherwise it's propaganda: that's the difference. Hoped you understand now
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I understand...but I'm still not on anyone's side, because I seriously don't understand what the cartoonists were trying to accomplish, and the Islamists couldve settled this in a more peaceful manner..I have been studying different religions a few years back, and from research, I know Islam is a peaceful religion, even if Im not a Muslim. But I don't understand why they had to do this, a peaceful and more sophisticated manner couldve worked out..I'm not calling them monsters, but I'm not exactly sure on this whole..make fun of us and you die thing?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
If they had been peaceful people motivated by intelligent debates and all Charlie Hebdo wouldn't have criticized them.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Not all of the violence in this world is caused by Muslims..you know...
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I never said that. If you want to criticize my opinion, at least try criticizing something I actually said, not something you fantasized.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Hey, I'm not trying to criticize your opinion. I'm just stating something I think might be true. And you're saying I should criticize something you said, not my own opinion?
.-.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Let see: you posted a reply (synonym of "answer", something everyone would interpret as a direct response to a past comment); you added "..you know..." at the end of your reply (which sounds rude, provocative, making your comment sounds even more like a critic); you didn't developed your reply, you just put it like that, without clarifying your point. And YOU blame ME for not understanding what you posted and posting an off-topic reply? Talking about hypocrites...
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I'm thinking this is going to be another fight, so I think it's best if thats avoided. So, yea, we should go our separate ways and think what we think.
Good day..
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Ok, first, we don't blame the religion: only the barbarians using it as an excuse to murder innocents. Second, our newspaper Charlie Hebdo has always mocked EVERYONE, no matter of their beliefs, political sides, race or anything, it's just humor. A satire is meant to mock through humor.
👍: 0 ⏩: 3
no. a satire is meant to denounce the grievances of sociaty. humor is a modern way to do that, but not necessary. to mock without good reason is not satire, but simply mindless mocking. good satire is seldom funny, since it hurts, because it's true and punches the truth in your face with the necessary force to cause a change. charlie did not do that, charlie wasn't real satire, charlie was mostly just hate for hate's sake.
the extremists's reaction was not just in any way, but it was not unprovocted.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
To be honest, the fact that they mocked everyone doesn't make it any better that they were islamophobics. Charlie Hedbo was also very offensive, nevertheless it was made only to laugh. Actually, laughing and ridiculing something is as harmful as offending it directly. We honestly shouldn't be siding with Charlie Hedbo, or France for that matter, at all, we should be siding the families of the victims, if anyone deserves our support is them.
Free speech comes with responsibility. Charlie Hedbo wasn't responsible with it and are somewhat guilty for what happened. Yes it was a tragedy and yes it could have not happened if both sides had responsability, but they were making fun out of an entire ethnic and religion, and as everything in the world, it had very extremist people who didn't have a well-functioning brain and caused the tragedy.
In conclusion: Charlie Hedbo was partially guilty for what happened because it wasn't responsible with it's free speech. We shouldn't be supporting them, we should be supporting the victim's family. What happened wasn't fair or just, it was a tragedy nonetheless.
👍: 0 ⏩: 3
Do you honestly believe that the artists were responsible for what happened? I really hope not.
Murder is a terrible, terrible thing. We should be able to publish even offensive things without having to fear being murdered because of it. I find what they published to be offensive, but that does not justify murder, and it does not make the artists in any way responsible for their deaths. By saying that the artists were responsible, you're actually justifying the attack.
If you said something that offended someone and they killed you for it, would you want people to say: "Well, he deserved it, he didn't know how to handle his free speech after all."?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
That was far from my point. But I can see how you can mistake it for that.
The attack was nevertheless a tragedy, the artists didn't deserve dying for that. But free speech comes with responsibility, to simply know when you shouldn't just say what's in your head when that thought is simply offensive.
I'll repeat this again, it was a tragedy, it was not fair that the artists died for what happened, the extremist shooters hold the guilt for it, they shouldn't have done it in any way, and using the excuse of their religion (I shouldn't even consider them religious, because islam is far from what they claim it is) just hurts it even more.
But let's consider one thing, the publishing was really offensive to a hole religion, there's a lot of actual muslims going out there and saying how fucked up it was. My point is that we shouldn't side with Charlie Hedbo and defend their free to speak, they are overusing it and doing it irresponsibly. They not only offend muslims, they offend, as people love to repeat, everybody.
But not only singular people, if it was the case it would be just fine, but groups and religions as well.
Hell, I saw a bunch of their Homophobic shit and I am also offended.
"Oh, but it was just to laugh" (not actually for you, weryoue, for anyone that uses that argument)
That's the problem. When you make people laugh while offending something, it becomes worse. Since laughing at those publications means that you're so ignorant, so idiotically careless, that offenses are funny to you. That offends even more than being aggressive with it.
I'd rather have someone with their fury tell me that he was a homophobic piece of shit, than someone to make a fucking joke about it. I'd kick the balls of both of those, but I would do it stronger on the joker.
In conclussion: No, the shootings were not ok, but we shouldn't be siding with Charlie Hedbo and their "right to free speech" and more with the families that lost their members.
We shouldn't be charlie, we should be those poor people caught in the fires of the careless extremists.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
All right, thanks for clearing that up. I completely agree with you, then. Fun shouldn't be based on humiliation or strongly offensive things.
I've just heard other people claiming that it was the artists' faults, so I guess I jumped a bit to conclusions there.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
It's fine, thanks for understanding.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Oh god! They laughed! What a tragedy! And they put a face to a faceless prophet in a land were blasphemy is NOT a crime! [Little help: that was sarcasm.]
Did they propagated messages of hatred or calls for murder? No. Do they treated the Muslim religion any worse than any other religion or ideology or any political party? No (which means not islamophobic; any "well-functioning brain" would have been able to make a distinction). Did they ever insulted anyone except the ones who think the rules of their religions are superior to the laws of democracy? No.
"We shouldn't be supporting them, we should be supporting the victim's family." "Charlie Hedbo was partially guilty for what happened because it wasn't responsible with it's free speech."
Thanks for that. Nothing like the little botched dogmas of an hypocrite to remind you there's things more criminal and sickening than terrorists. There's those who excuse them and can't even confess it.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
| Next =>