Ask Lemmy

I'm religious, and I think that people should be absolutely free to satirize religion if they want to. What someone else believes isn't my affair, I definitely think my faith has lots of room for improvement from an organizational perspective, and there are plenty of religious ideas I think are toxic and wrong. Why shouldn't we have nuance and differing opinions? Why should anyone have the right to hurt others through their religious practices? We should be criticizing those things and calling them out and trying to make them stop, whether we practice religion or not. I think the treatment of women and queer people by a great deal of religious groups is wrong and should be criticized. I don't think government and religion should be intertwined at all. Just because I practice in a faith doesn't mean my faith is the authority on anything, but universally we should not be hurting others.

As in everything in life, your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins.

If you don't like the satire of Charlie Hebdo, your right is to not read it. If you don't like a comedian who makes pedo jokes, your right is to not buy their tickets. If you don't like a TV show that shows drug use, your right is to not watch it.

That's it. That's the end of your personal rights on that issue. You do NOT have the right to tell other people what they personally view, watch, read, etc...

If enough people share your view, that publication/comedian/show will either change or go out of business naturally because of lack of subscribers. That's how it works.

I personally find Charlie Hebdo to be racist twits. But that doesn't give me any right to kill them. I have the right to just ignore them.

I think the people's presumption that they have some right to be free from offense has done way more damage than anything.

In the words of Sam Harris: "People were murdered over cartoons. End of moral analysis."

Everything is and should be allowed in comedy. Religion is no exception.

"Islamists" are politically far-right - paleoconservatives, theocrats, fascists.

Prohibiting satire of religion is a form of blasphemy law, and blasphemy laws shouldn't exist.

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.

It was depressing that every newspaper in the developed world didn't print the cartoon :(

Satire’s dead, but I’d love to see a revival of both it and serious human existence within my lifetime c:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.