1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com.
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world or !askusa@discuss.online
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
Satire should be staunchly defended. Some people may find it offensive and they can go fuck themselves.
Satirical publications are often the last free press able to publish in authoritarian governments and have often played a critical role in communication to weaken oppressive regimes.
We can all occasionally suffer jokes in bad taste in exchange for freedom of the press.
if it was far-right satire i would feel pretty shit about it but it should probably still be allowed (?)
Yup, far right satire should also be allowed.
Granted, the only comedy the far right knows is the one joke so it's a stretch to call it satire.
totally agree, it's always horrid hateful propaganda
It was depressing that every newspaper in the developed world didn't print the cartoon :(
They sold millions of them here in France though but yeah you're right. Especially the Danes who backed down then and again.
I think Charlie Hebdo comics are often in bad taste and more shock value than critic, but that's no legitimate reason to massacre people.
More than the attack on Charlie Hebdo itself, which I can "understand" in the twisted sense of a religious fanatic, it was the overall ruthlessness of the attackers that shocked me. I remember vividly seeing a video of one of the attackers walking up to a wounded police officer and executing him at point-blank range.
I'm with you here, satire should be protected, killing people for satire is awful, and Charlie Hebdo have a really dumb and bad taste humor.
We pull back too much because Islamic nutjobs will get violent because you dared draw a picture that resembled their stupid prophet. By doing that, we are giving them what they want and telling other religious groups that if they get violent enough, we’ll stop to appease them too.
You can mock Jesus, Moses, Krishna and any other religious figure because their followers, at worse, are going to verbally protest, if they do anything at all. But draw fucking Muhammad and people will tell you to knock it off because we don’t want to upset the assholes who will riot and kill people because they can’t handle someone having a differing opinion. Society bends over backwards to not offend Islam out of fear.
In response, we should have doubled down. Make more cartoons, get more vulgar with it…go all in, not stopped to appease them. Some people did for a while immediately after the attack, but not enough and not long enough, imo.
On the other side, if you do double down and get vulgar then you'll find lot of racists joining in with you. That's the dilemma of criticizing or satirizing Islam while also staying away from xenophobes.
Prohibiting satire of religion is a form of blasphemy law, and blasphemy laws shouldn't exist.
Is it a sensitive topic? I mean satire is respected in any country with decent human rights / freedom of speech. It only triggers bigots that theoretically have bigger problems.
What a void attitude.
The Charlie Hebdo event has proven that the discussion is very neccessary, and that satire is not fully respected even in a modern western society.
I wouldn't say it's void, they were extremists. Not to take away from the tragedy of course. From my understanding the question is specifically about satire.
I'd say we've moved to wanna be oligarchs highjacking media companies in democracies for "fake news" and war crimes committed against journalists. Israel is too busy blowing up hospitals to attack foreign journalists for Nettenyohoo memes.
Didnt some journalist quit because he made satire of besos and besos being the owner of the media company didnt let it get published? Thats the reality satire faces today.
A more controversial topic would be discussing the satire of luigi that is being surpressed. (Any form of luigi speech really, but satire too).
Didnt some journalist quit because he made satire of besos and besos being the owner of the media company didnt let it get published? Thats the reality satire faces today.
That's because that cartoon she made was literally the truth of what's happening behind the scenes in the white house. It moved from satire into reality and that was too much for Bezos and his wealth villain buddies.
My opinion is that satire must hurt. Otherwise it may have no impact, then it is nothing else than cheap comedy. But it is possible that it hurts too much, so that some people cannot endure it. Society has a duty to protect the weak as well as the artists. It is a narrow line.
Satire’s dead, but I’d love to see a revival of both it and serious human existence within my lifetime c:
Honestly? That I would rather have Meta (and a bunch of Western countries, while we're at it) lift restrictions on that front first before they go against LGBT people.
I'm not on board with the idea that edgy or offensive humor is valuable in itself, but I absolutely abhor the scenario where offended conservative and traditionalist views are treated in their own terms while marginalized groups are considered needy or nagging if they ask for the same treatment.
Also not on board with comedians assuming that noting their ignorance or bigotry is the same as not having a sense of humor, incidentally. Everybody sucks, is my point.
"Islamists" are politically far-right - paleoconservatives, theocrats, fascists.
Even a scientist on the bleeding edge deals the game of life in error bars. Absolutes do not exist anywhere except idealized fantasy. Anyone driven to violence because of belief is not human;/only primitive animal.
Murdering humans over a drawing is a sensitive topic for me. Please do not expect civility when discussing ancient barbaric pre-scientific belief systems.
Everything is and should be allowed in comedy. Religion is no exception.
Satire should be free. Hate speech should not. People shouldn't be killed for either. I don't particularly cry when bigots die though.
All that said, there's reasons some jokes just aren't worth telling. There's times and spaces, and for some jokes there's neither and that's ok.
Is making fun of a religion hate speech? Like religion is a choice to embrace so its kind of weird that it's a protected class, despite the pilgrims fleeing it.
As in most things: it depends. Your question is too broad for an answer lacking nuance. But why did you ask?
Ohh was just musing on it from a legal perspective. It's the one thing I can think of that's a decision driven protected class.
It is funny how attacks on the protected classes seem to rhyme. Homosexuality is presented as being a decision to try attack it. Gender identity is presented as being a choice to try and discredit it.
Now I'll agree that religion is a class someone can move through, from Christian to muslim, to atheist and finally Buddhist for example. But I don't think that particularly matters. Someone can realise their sexual identity later in life, then realise they are wrong and it was something else. I don't think that's them making decisions, so much as learning more about themselves and the world. So how someone can move around a religious space doesn't really interest me in terms of what it means as a protected class.
Muse away, transphobes have trodden a lot of ground if you want a head start.
Don't really understand your last sentence there. Seems inflammatory though. Religion is something you are not born with that's my point. It's akin to your favorite sports team as far as I'm concerned.
"There is no gay gene, people arent born gay" it rhymes. Lately it's being used to question trans-rights to suggest they aren't born that way either.
All moot though, born that way, not born that way, doesn't matter at all. It's a way of making one protected class feel lesser than another in order to discredit them.
This was my "are we the baddies" moment, some 15 years ago btw. Someone pointed out that my anti-thiest rhetoric and the "just asking questions" I was asking were incredibly reminiscent of the other bigots. Of course, in the moment "they were wrong", "I was right", "yada yada yada". But, later when I had time for some introspection, I asked myself why do anti-thiests quack like the other bigots, and more importantly why was I quacking too.
Well I'd say being anti religion is not the same. For one it's punching up at the moment. I don't care what you practice with yourself but growing up in a system that uses Christianity as a cudgle has really pissed me off. I also don't agree with those morons saying homosexuality is a choice, that's categorically false imo. To be honest I don't feel that religion should be a protected class when I see it solely used to hurt others. I think you're also just trying to associate me with those bigots for some weird reason and honestly I don't appreciate it.
Yup, I covered your response in my comment above "you're right", "I'm wrong", "yada yada yada". For my own part I realised anti-thiests were, by and large, just another load of bigots that justify their bigotry as being "justified" or "not the same" like all bigot do. Some idiots, like me get taken in. Anyway 15 years later my then idol, Richard Dawkins, famous anti-thiest comes out as a transphobe too. Who knew bigots are bigots right? I'm just saying if you don't like being compared to ducks stop quacking.
Also, you replied to yourself. Maybe you forgot to sign in to an alt, maybe it's a failed edit, maybe it's a bug. As to your response "blacks have weaponsied racism against the whites and use it as a cudgel" is not an uncommon sentiment, "feminism is being used to oppress men" is another, you're still quacking.
If you don't believe religion should be a protected class you agree people should be able to oppress you for your athiesm. Athiesm shouldn't be seen as a default any more than white, straight, cis, able-bodied, etc. "I don't think religion should be protected class because I am persecuted for my religious stance" is an interesting position to take. Have you considered anti-thiesm isn't about defence at all? Quack
My response to myself was a follow up to my thought. Why do you think I have some inauthentic narrative here? So far you've accused me of being a transphobe and creating sock puppet accounts. With zero rational. I have no interest in some troll ust lobbying unfounded accusations. I suggest you seek help as you seem very paranoid. I'm also done with this conversation as you've proven to be unhinged.
Where have I accused you of being a transphobe? Please quote me and I'll correct the erro. You can't because that is a lie.
Let's recap. You mused on what not being born a protected class means for a protected class, in your last comment you said religion shouldn't be a protected class. Putting it all together a protected class one is not born into shouldn't be protected. Which rhymes incredibly with the rhetoric transphobes and homophobes use. Note: I am not calling you a transphobe, I am saying you quack like one. Re-read the above until you see the destinction.
You also said that you feel like people are using their protected class as a weapon. Which rhymes incredibly with the rhetoric racists and misogynists use. Note: I am not calling you a sexist or misogynist, I am saying you quack like one. Re-read the above until you see the distinction.
Once again: whether someone is born a protected class means nothing. Whether someone is disabled from birth or comes to it later in life, they deserve the same protections. This is a strategy used by homophobes to attack the lgbt and it's used by transphobes to attack trans people. If you don't want to be associated with them, don't quack like them.
You also said a person shouldn't be protected from persecution due to their religious stance. Nope I don't want athiests to not be hired purely due to their athiesm.
I know I know, I am an idiot. I am a big meanie saying you drink babies blood, despite never saying that, whatever you need to dismiss me and call this a win. I've been there. But later, when you have some time for introspection, ask yourself why anti-thiests quack like all the other bigots? Pull out and examine your own ideas, do you see the rhymes?
A week ago I was in line to check out and there was a young woman in a hijab. When she turned to help me I saw her entire face and hands (all I could see really) had acid burns all over.
The paradox of tolerance will never be something I struggle with once The Fall happens. Regardless for whichever religion seeks to lynch me.
