New Posts
By:
Filters
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

Are you "Charlie Hebdo"?....I'm not....

fairsheet

fairsheet

Senator
As he seems to do quite often, David Brooks does a professional job of penning my opinion on this one:

http://seattletimes.com/html/opinion/2025426158_davidbrookscolumncharleshebdo11xml.html

In my own words, "Charlie Hebdo's" "work" is the equivalent of the low-rent comedian telling fart jokes to 8-year old boys. Note that Brooks makes the point that we Americans wouldn't stand for Charlie Hebdo's crap being published here in America. It's not that it would violate some law. It's just that it would be found unacceptable by our "court of public opinion". From my perspective anyway, that speaks well of us.

For what it's worth, anyone who interprests this post as some sort of "defense" of the Paris terr'sts, will be ignored out of hand. On that note, my favorite line from Brooks's piece is one that should be heeded by all we forumites: "Ridicule becomes less fun as you become more aware of your own frequent ridiculousness." Still, this Paris incident hints at the pathetically binary way in which we've come to observe our society and politic. "Charlie Hebdo" doesn't just call upon us to defend our fundamental legal precepts of "freedom of speech". We need to go one step further and proclaim the "wonderousness of 'Charlie Hebdo"!
 
fairsheet said:
As he seems to do quite often, David Brooks does a professional job of penning my opinion on this one:

http://seattletimes.com/html/opinion/2025426158_davidbrookscolumncharleshebdo11xml.html

In my own words, "Charlie Hebdo's" "work" is the equivalent of the low-rent comedian telling fart jokes to 8-year old boys. Note that Brooks makes the point that we Americans wouldn't stand for Charlie Hebdo's crap being published here in America. It's not that it would violate some law. It's just that it would be found unacceptable by our "court of public opinion". From my perspective anyway, that speaks well of us.

For what it's worth, anyone who interprests this post as some sort of "defense" of the Paris terr'sts, will be ignored out of hand. On that note, my favorite line from Brooks's piece is one that should be heeded by all we forumites: "Ridicule becomes less fun as you become more aware of your own frequent ridiculousness." Still, this Paris incident hints at the pathetically binary way in which we've come to observe our society and politic. "Charlie Hebdo" doesn't just call upon us to defend our fundamental legal precepts of "freedom of speech". We need to go one step further and proclaim the "wonderousness of 'Charlie Hebdo"!
Click to expand...
Good post. From what I've seen of this Charlie Hebdo publication, I don't think I'd care to read it. Support their right to publish what they want? Absolutely.... pretend I like it? No, I don't think so....
 
Keep in mind France, like most socialist/communist European countries, doesn't have "freedom of speech" the way we do. These countries routinely make laws banning speech against their favored groups of "victims" (mostly muslims and Africans) in order to serve their god of political correctness and keep the riots/terror attacks at bay. It doesn't work too often, as evidenced by these terror attacks, the recent muslim riots in France, the murder of Dutch filmmaker Theo Van Gogh, etc. All victims of angry muslims outraged by the expression of free speech. ProgreSSives in the US would do the same thing if they had the balls. Thankfully, most of them don't...
 
marvin martian said:
Keep in mind France, like most socialist/communist European countries, doesn't have "freedom of speech" the way we do. These countries routinely make laws banning speech against their favored groups of "victims" (mostly muslims and Africans) in order to serve their god of political correctness and keep the riots/terror attacks at bay. It doesn't work too often, as evidenced by these terror attacks, the recent muslim riots in France, the murder of Dutch filmmaker Theo Van Gogh, etc. All victims of angry muslims outraged by the expression of free speech. ProgreSSives in the US would do the same thing if they had the balls. Thankfully, most of them don't...
Click to expand...
You mean thankfully we have our guns. ;0)
 
freyasman said:
Good post. From what I've seen of this Charlie Hebdo publication, I don't think I'd care to read it. Support their right to publish what they want? Absolutely.... pretend I like it? No, I don't think so....
Click to expand...

I like cartoons, usually............
 
Dawg said:
I like cartoons, usually............
Click to expand...
I do too, but most of the examples of seen of this group's seem like they get off on ridiculing and antagonizing people. If that's all they ever do, then that's not much.... I'll pass.
 
freyasman said:
I do too, but most of the examples of seen of this group's seem like they get off on ridiculing and antagonizing people. If that's all they ever do, then that's not much.... I'll pass.
Click to expand...
Sounds like you're talking about wingnut radio screamers like Limbaugh and Hannity.
 
fairsheet said:
As he seems to do quite often, David Brooks does a professional job of penning my opinion on this one:

http://seattletimes.com/html/opinion/2025426158_davidbrookscolumncharleshebdo11xml.html

In my own words, "Charlie Hebdo's" "work" is the equivalent of the low-rent comedian telling fart jokes to 8-year old boys. Note that Brooks makes the point that we Americans wouldn't stand for Charlie Hebdo's crap being published here in America. It's not that it would violate some law. It's just that it would be found unacceptable by our "court of public opinion". From my perspective anyway, that speaks well of us.

For what it's worth, anyone who interprests this post as some sort of "defense" of the Paris terr'sts, will be ignored out of hand. On that note, my favorite line from Brooks's piece is one that should be heeded by all we forumites: "Ridicule becomes less fun as you become more aware of your own frequent ridiculousness." Still, this Paris incident hints at the pathetically binary way in which we've come to observe our society and politic. "Charlie Hebdo" doesn't just call upon us to defend our fundamental legal precepts of "freedom of speech". We need to go one step further and proclaim the "wonderousness of 'Charlie Hebdo"!
Click to expand...
The satirical works of France are not so far removed from the works of John Stewart or The Onion here in the States. We would never accept attacks on these outlets, not should the French accept violence on these terms at all.
I wish Americans showed enough backbone to provide support to the VICTIMS, and not some empathy with the attackers.
 
I look at it this way:

If I don't care for the content of some satirical piece, if I find it vulgar, distasteful, offensive, or not very funny.....

then I have every right......to not patronize it.

I don't have the right to decide for everyone else not to patronize it. I certainly don't have the right to resort to violence to express my displeasure.

People write insulting stuff about Christianity all the time. As a Christian, I say, bring it on. Take your best shot. You won't even make a dent.

maybe we could all spend a little less time being offended by those who are doing their level-best to offend us. If we do that, we take away all of their power. After a while, they'll get tired of beating their head against the wall.
 
Zam-Zam said:
I look at it this way:

If I don't care for the content of some satirical piece, if I find it vulgar, distasteful, offensive, or not very funny.....

then I have every right......to not patronize it.

I don't have the right to decide for everyone else not to patronize it. I certainly don't have the right to resort to violence to express my displeasure.

People write insulting stuff about Christianity all the time. As a Christian, I say, bring it on. Take your best shot. You won't even make a dent.

maybe we could all spend a little less time being offended by those who are doing their level-best to offend us. If we do that, we take away all of their power. After a while, they'll get tired of beating their head against the wall.
Click to expand...
Bingo!

Liberals feel the same way as you do, ZZ.
 
write on said:
Bingo!

Liberals feel the same way as you do, ZZ.
Click to expand...
Either that, or just empathize with our enemies..

This is what we call smart power. Using every possible tool and partner to advance peace and security. Leaving no one on the sidelines. Showing respect even for one’s enemies. Trying to understand, in so far as psychologically possible, empathize with their perspective and point of view. Helping to define the problems, determine the solutions. That is what we believe in the 21st century will change — change the prospects for peace.

Either way, right? I'm sure you'd vote for her.
 
fairsheet said:
As he seems to do quite often, David Brooks does a professional job of penning my opinion on this one:

http://seattletimes.com/html/opinion/2025426158_davidbrookscolumncharleshebdo11xml.html
Click to expand...
http://seattletimes.com/html/opinion/2025426158_davidbrookscolumncharleshebdo11xml.html

As is so often the case, Brooks did a good job of crystallizing my own opinion in the opposite direction. I'm not a big fan of Charlie Hebdo's humor which, if nothing else, fails to be funny, which is the one cardinal sin in comedy. It seems to come from a hateful place, and I suspect it makes the situation worse. Yet, when they're the victim of a terrorist attack, I will snap to their side immediately. I may not have been Charlie Hedbo the day before the attack, but I sure as hell was the day after it, because any qualms I have about their content are overridden by a moral imperative that we show solidarity on behalf of free speech, in the face of terror.

I like the counter-argument to Brooks, which is that if he's one of the ones sitting at the adults table, and the satirists are at the kids table, I'd rather be at the kids table, anyway.

http://www.salon.com/2015/01/09/dav...monious_nonsense_from_nyts_laziest_columnist/

"That’s what happens at the adult table envisioned by Brooks. He ignores it, but it is the place where arrogance, greed and hypocrisy abound.... Give me satire over sanctimony, any day."
 
seriously - neither you nor David Brooks is able to grasp the simple concept that "i am charlie" is about freedom of speech, and islamofascist efforts to silence it?

shameful. you seemed smarter than that, sometimes.
 
freyasman said:
I do too, but most of the examples of seen of this group's seem like they get off on ridiculing and antagonizing people. If that's all they ever do, then that's not much.... I'll pass.
Click to expand...

explains why publisher had a 'body guard' and not a very good 'body guard'
 
Dino said:
The satirical works of France are not so far removed from the works of John Stewart or The Onion here in the States. We would never accept attacks on these outlets, not should the French accept violence on these terms at all.
I wish Americans showed enough backbone to provide support to the VICTIMS, and not some empathy with the attackers.
Click to expand...


There's NO valid comparison between "Charlie Hebdo" and either "The Onion" or Jon Stewart. Your offering here, is of no use to anyone.
 
Arkady said:
As is so often the case, Brooks did a good job of crystallizing my own opinion in the opposite direction. I'm not a big fan of Charlie Hebdo's humor which, if nothing else, fails to be funny, which is the one cardinal sin in comedy. It seems to come from a hateful place, and I suspect it makes the situation worse. Yet, when they're the victim of a terrorist attack, I will snap to their side immediately. I may not have been Charlie Hedbo the day before the attack, but I sure as hell was the day after it, because any qualms I have about their content are overridden by a moral imperative that we show solidarity on behalf of free speech, in the face of terror.

I like the counter-argument to Brooks, which is that if he's one of the ones sitting at the adults table, and the satirists are at the kids table, I'd rather be at the kids table, anyway.

http://www.salon.com/2015/01/09/dav...monious_nonsense_from_nyts_laziest_columnist/

"That’s what happens at the adult table envisioned by Brooks. He ignores it, but it is the place where arrogance, greed and hypocrisy abound.... Give me satire over sanctimony, any day."
Click to expand...


Just for kicks, I thought of penning a hate-Brooks response for you! As it is though, it's more fun to watch you twist yourself into a pretzel. For what it's worth, Brooks made pretty much the SAME case, you did here! Alas..in the same vein as the standard modus of those Fox/GOPsters these days, you proclaim one thing (disagreement with Brooks) and then go on to agree with him right down the line.
 
fairsheet said:
There's NO valid comparison between "Charlie Hebdo" and either "The Onion" or Jon Stewart. Your offering here, is of no use to anyone.
Click to expand...
Of course there is. It's a question of free press. And a radical level of intolerance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top