Work to be done after Paris

Hi Tom,

“The First Amendment to the United States Constitution was not written with a religion like Islam in mind.”

Bill of Rights (including The First Amendment) was submitted to the states for ratification on September 25, 1789, and adopted on December 15, 1791.

The Treaty of Tripoli, signed November 4th, 1796 contains the following,

“As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen [Muslims]; and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan [Mohammedan] nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.”

It seems to me the were very much aware of the religion of Islam, which is hardly surprising as it was more than 1000 years old at the time of writing.

Sincerely
Shane

Tom – Assuming #5 is referring to Shane’s comment #4, I can’t find a sentence he “cut off in the middle”, either from your post or the treaty he refers to.

Muslim-only zones?

I looked into those sources a bit. With the exception of the NY Times, they are mostly editorials and/or highly biased publications (that doesn’t make them wrong, but right now I suggest a rather large grain of salt). I followed The Middle East Forum to some of the sources for these “no go zones” they say the French Government lists… they are actually listed as “sensitive areas.” Even the NY Times report only says “Others describe ‘no go’ zones in Muslim districts….” with no sources cited.

I suggest greater care for news sources. A large volume of overblown or simply wrong reports will not make this more accurate.

GM –

in a cultural discourse that sometimes takes seriously the possibility of faith being a “brain-virus” or that faith should be some private, dirty secret in the midst of enlightened materialists

But that ‘cultural discourse’ also seems to take seriously the idea that atheists and secularists may be possessed or at least influenced by demons, or that atheists shouldn’t be allowed to hold political office.

The latter, BTW, relates to Tom’s point about “reliance on democratic processes to advocate for social change”. I’m quite willing to grant that I feel more threatened by Islamists than Christianists, all told. But that doesn’t mean I think political Christianity is completely hunky-dory either!

Ray,
Ok, and that would be where I have something in common with YOU as opposed to a radical Imam or Falwell-type Christian. I DO believe government should be secular (religiously neutral) and open to whomever is capable of doing a good job.

So, both of our houses have some ordering to do. Got it. But, specifically, my point was in the case of French Muslims, most of them not radicals, who have to put up with cultural bullying from both the French Right and Left. Charlie Hebdo is a ferociously leftist publication, and they went out of their way to publish some of the most disgusting, childish garbage targeting the most sensitive of Muslim sensibilities as possible.

And this is defended by secularists as a worthy cause, some “duty” that must be performed in a liberal democracy against ALL religions, precisely because faith is garbage and anyone who has it, no matter the form, is worthy of mockery that a five year old would be justly scolded for.

But Ray, you’re exemplifying the exact locus of my exasperation. I know Hebdo went after everyone. I’m not talking about LAWS. I’m talking about ATTITUDES manifesting in ACTIONS and the question of wisdom therein. Those are NOT irrelevant in any way as far as societal health is concerned.

Should Hebdo be ALLOWED to publish offensive crap? That’s a stupid question, because we know the answer is yes. It’s not about rights, it’s about fixing a very serious problem.

Rushdie’s point begs the question: Is the radicalization of a population, which is a matter of life and death, a WISE application of cartoons? Do the cartoons make us better people? Do they make us more generous? Do they initiate creative dialogue? Do they make the problem WORSE?

Maybe if the cartoons don’t go far enough to somehow shock potential-radicals into normalcy, we should build a publicly owned Mosque so we can go in and shit on the floor! Maybe that’ll do the trick!

I mean, no one is asking that kid in PA to offer some kind of political rationalization for his stunt, because it’s obviously some kind of nihilistic, stupid prank that a 15 year old would pull. So why do we swallow rationalizations from adult French “journalists” for doing the exact same thing!?

(And no, I don’t think that kid should be in legal trouble, and I would scold the clergy for not defending him in order to show Christ-like forgiveness.)

@ toodles

This is a noteworthy observation. I had a quick look at The Guardian’s custom Google search function (a leftist newspaper/ website that I have a love/ hate relationship with) and the term “Charlie Hebdo” returns 2,360,000 results, whereas “Boko Haram” returns 1,460,000 results.

Some events are just so audacious that their impact can’t be measured by a simple body count. Perhaps this is one such event. There may be a recognition that the murders were intended to be a slap to the face of Western (largely) secular sensibilities and a fear that this affront was delivered by the enemy within. And yet there seems to me to be something else going on here.

Is it that the mathematics just don’t add up unless the life of an erudite Western secularist really is worth more? Why exactly is it that politicians in my country feel the need to stand somberly in front of the gathered press holding hastily printed A4 sheets of paper but do and say nothing – literally nothing – when a hundred times as many people are killed by the likes of Boko Haram? Why have people the world over gathered in the city streets and squares to protest this atrocious event but remain comparatively silent in the face of the larger and consistent mass murders that will be a footnote on tomorrows paper? Why not stand with a sign saying “Ju suis une personne” instead? Is it that those people being murdered half-way around the globe are so distant and so different that it’s difficult for us to empathise with their plight?

To add, I am absolutely not holding myself up as a paragon of virtue in any of this.

In case it isn’t obvious, I’m finding my own opinions on this are being re-shaped by this conversation. That’s a good thing. Thanks, all.

Yeah, the comm box has been interesting.

I’m still not sure what to think about all this other than:

1) What happened in Paris was a truly horrible and unacceptable event
2) The response from the media, politicians and the public has been both understandable and also curious when measured against the relative silence in the face of other atrocities. Is this not a good example of Western bias?

BTW, that Stephen Fry blog post was articulate drivel. I’m surprised that a smart guy like Ray was so taken by it that he took the time to provide us with a link. Fry is fine when he’s on a show like QI and not actively ranting against religion – which seems to be a rare occasion these days. Unless he starts writing articles against the sacking of fire chiefs because they express controversial views about homosexuality he is displaying a double standard when he suggests that Muggeridge destroyed his life’s work when he criticised a film because of its controversial parallels with the life of Christ.

GM – I agree that laïcité, secularism in the French model, can be – and frequently is – taken too far. I like the balance generally struck in the U.S. far better.

But I haven’t run across people claiming that mockery of religion – puerile or otherwise – should be accepted in gratitude. And I do think there is a major distinction between mocking ideas and mocking people. (Said so a year and a half ago, even. Further thoughts.)

Is the radicalization of a population, which is a matter of life and death, a WISE application of cartoons?

Depends a heck of a lot on context. Are the cartoons in response to a heckler’s veto, for example? (See my video, first link in #19, for exactly that.) That could make the cost worth it. Can “potential-radicals” be turned from radicalism? (The guy who killed Theo Van Gogh said “I take complete responsibility for my actions. I acted purely in the name of my religion.”.) If not, that could make the cost no cost at all – or, at least, already paid.

I think I understand what you’re driving at. You’d like to see more respect all around – and I agree. And giving respect is a fundamental requirement for getting respect – sure.

But recall, I come at this from the perspective of an atheist. And I have plenty of experience with people being offended simply by me acknowledging that I’m an atheist. (Just using the word ‘atheist’ in an advertisement is controversial.) Sometimes there literally is no way to put forth an idea such that nobody will take offense to it.

So I guess I think the ‘practical floor’ of offense, the actual achievable minimum, is higher than what I gather you’re after. And so I suppose my expectations, and the practical actions I think wise because of it, are different.

Ray,
As far as mocking and asking people to take it with gratitude, re-read the quote from the Hebdo editor in #21, sourced from here:

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/01/charlie-hebdo-secularism-religion-islam/384413/

He’s convinced himself that he’s doing Muslims a favor, that if they just saw the HUMOR they’d be so much better off!. Now, of course, the motive of attempting to convince someone to not throw their life away in an insane blaze of murder is a good one, but it’s a patently foolish approach, and I think the whole “tough love” thing is a platitude to justify getting yuks at someone else’s expense.

I mean, how many former neo-nazis say they left the movement because they were tired of being made fun of? The whole thing FUNCTIONS on social isolation.

Again, the causes of radicalization are myriad and different individuals have different paths of attraction down that road. But, a search for identity does seem to be relatively common. If you have a bunch of socially and economically isolated people, mockery just feeds their paranoia. I mean, you’ve got young men and women with no economic future, they don’t have a say in their public identity formation, and then once their faith is fully atomized and privatized, the ONE THING they have left, their private devotion to something sacred, is pissed on for FUN. The last vestige of an existential anchor of identity is turned on them as a big joke. They’re not offered an alternative anchor, just derision, and the rest of the community may not join in, but they defend the whole affair with all the pretense of nobility that they can muster.

That creates despair. And hopelessness. And some of those kids are going to turn around and bite you for it. That’s just common sense. That’s school-yard-lesson obvious truth.

And I know the feeling, Ray. I’ve had people turn from very friendly to very hostile the SECOND I casually mention “Oh, I met my wife at church.” or something like that. I’m not that naive, people knee-jerk and paint others according to their assumptions, and there’s no avoiding that. But I’m prepared for it, and I’ve BEEN prepared for that since I was a kid, because I was taught well, I’m very grateful for that. Not everyone had the privilege.

I know missionaries in the middle east, in really scary places. Like, when we correspond via email, we have to talk in code because the risk of saying “Jesus” might give them away to whoever might be listening and then no one would hear from them again. But they are able to be effective because they take the time to learn how to communicate with people who would cut your head off for saying the wrong thing. Is it SAFE? No. But it’s a hell of a lot safer than saying “Well, screw it, let’s just kick them in balls and have a laugh, and maybe they’ll get the joke. If not, we can always kill more of them than they can of us.”

Ok but that’s a pretty thin justification. Shaming people out of an action usually just forces dark positions underground. Racism in America is still a huge problem, FAR out of proportion to the amount of publicly professing racists. That’s because admitting racist inclinations is social suicide, so it all just becomes MORE insidious.

You’re missing the point. That a KKK member would deny that he is a racist is because “racist” is now a radioactive word. No one sees themselves as a racist because because “racist” is associated with a cartoon version of itself. No one was offered any kind of thorough explanation of where racist inclinations come from, it was just “This is bad, and wasn’t it awesome when Gene Hackman put that racist pig through the barber shop window?!”

There was no attempt to understand where this evil comes from in an individual or society, they were just depicted as ape-men and no one relates to that image, so now no one knows that they are actually a racist. Thus it’s much harder to combat racism now. Yeah, good, we’re not hanging black people in the woods for sport, but now we have a ghettoized black population that’s absorbing thousands of bullets every year. There was a better way to handle this, and we didn’t do it, so now it’s become much more intractable.

I understood your point. I just don’t agree with it completely. I have no doubt that what you describe is a driving force to some extent; I just don’t think it is the primary one.

What I remember being taught is the why racism and bigotry are wrong. I look at modern teachers, media, and politicians and they all talk about acceptance as an attempt to understand others before we judge them. I see social progress as an evolving dialogue where we are encouraged to step outside of what was once our tightly knit social circles.

Interracial relationships are becoming more common. I think that leads to greater acceptance. Look at how many people travel today as opposed to years in the past. Of course a lot of that is because it is easier with modern technology, but the fear is also decreasing. When I was a kid, people who traveled to Africa or Asia were almost unheard of. Now, it’s almost a requirement of a college education. We are learning as a society to learn about others. We are not just suppressing our fears and rage that way you seem to suggest.

Shame is one tool, it’s true. But it’s not the only one in play. I’m glad to see that you seem to think it has its place.

Of course we both agree that no enemy should ever be dehumanized. I hope that needn’t be said.

Bill L,

What do you mean by social progress? You used the phrase a couple of times and I’m wondering if you think there is some ideal state that society can progress towards. Also, who is it that decides the point at which “the enemy” is being dehumanised?

Here’s a flawless example that I just stumbled upon without even looking for it.

http://www.vice.com/read/this-american-bro-an-ethological-study?utm_source=vicefbus

You don’t even have to read more than a few sentences. This isn’t “Let’s take a minute and think about the state of the young American male and how we can address whatever internal crisis is causing this phenomenon.”

This is straight up “I am so much better than this person I can’t even handle it. But I’m going to handle it because I’m laughing so hard.”

WHAT IS THIS GOOD FOR?

GM,

Some good points you’ve made there… we all need to do better.

Friends,

I must admit, when I first read Tom’s blog I was upset at it’s tone and content, so I am pleased to return here a few days later and read the conversation which has ensued from Tom’s comments. I have quite a different “take” on the terrorist attack in Paris and am quite distressed by the reaction, as a Christian and as a multiculturalist, for several reasons., which I will attempt to explain.

First, the reaction from the secular world and among atheists that I have read who have offered their reactions and analysis, is to frame the issue around freedom of speech. May question is this: Is the freedom of speech of the dominant society of France to use mockery, ridicule and caricature of personages and symbols that a religious and ethnic minority hold as sacred really threatened? Are we really even talking about a “right” at all? I heard an analysis on CNN the day after the incident where the guest explained that the message of the cartoons in question is that Muslims aren’t “French” enough to satisfy the French and it’s their fault for not seeking to assimilate, which entails abandoning their ties to and identification with Islam. In other words, Charlie Hebdo’s magazine’s message to the Muslim minority in France is what we call in my professional and academic circles refer to “forced march assimilation.” The message to Muslims is this: Assimilate and abandon your religious and cultural traditions and practices (because we, the majority, disapprove of them, or face dehumanizing mockery and ridicule of what you hold as sacred and holy. The majority appears to be asserting its “right” to use blasphemy and mockery for whatever purposes it sees fit.

I find this very troubling as a Christian who believes that freedom of religion and freedom of speech are two inseparable human and civil rights. I truly believe that we Christians should not, of course, in any way condone terrorism and violence, but must also recognize that mockery and ridicule of religion harm all religions, and most especially, religious minorities in any society, which we who follow the Judeo-Christian tradition, have been historically, are now in some countries in the world, and could be again. What should be and would be our response to societal and political pressures to abandon our religious traditions from an intolerant secular society. If we believe that our religious freedom is worth defending through legitimate, non-violent social and political means, why shouldn’t the followers of Islam in France? I cut and paste a post from a Buddhist family member of mine from Facebook:

““One should not honour only one’s own religion and condemn the religions of others, but one should honour others’ religions for this or that reason. So doing, one helps one’s own religion to grow and renders service to the religions of others too. In acting otherwise one digs the grave of one’s own religion and also does harm to other religions. Whosoever honours his own religion and condemns other religions, does so indeed through devotion to his own religion, thinking “I will glorify my own religion”. But on the contrary, in so doing he injures his own religion more gravely. So concord is good: Let all listen, and be willing to listen to the doctrines professed by others.”
Emperor Asoka 268-232 BC

@ Bill L – Thanks for the response. None of my questions were rhetorical. I was just trying to better understand you.r position. I wont reply to your first answer as I’ll be leading us off on rabbit-trail. To your second answer I’ll keep it brief and say only that while I appreciate your candour I think the problem is that mockery can easily cross over into dehuminisation, especially when beliefs become inseparable from the person. This of course doe not mean that a belief or set of beliefs can be above criticism but there is surely a point whereby mockery becomes its own goal. The thrill of delivering a sublimely crafted insult that cuts your opponent down.

Two interesting links. The first is a very short audio critique of Bill Maher thoughts by Randal Rauser – http://randalrauser.com/2015/01/a-response-to-bill-maher-on-religion-and-free-speech/

The second is a cartoon critiquing satire that I linked to on Rauser’s site and that I’ve reposted it here for ease of access – http://www.theguardian.com/world/ng-interactive/2015/jan/09/joe-sacco-on-satire-a-response-to-the-attacks

I don’t necessarily agree with Jenna. While we as mere mortals may argue for “freedom of speech” and “religion” and such and believe it’s everyone’s right- as a Christian, God doesn’t give us the right to speak and say whatever whenever we want. So, we could argue (biblically and spiritually) that freedom of speech is not necessarily a Christian ethic (for us and for the world who blasphemes God)). We are to “tame the tongue” and “refrain from evil speech.” From a “divine” perspective God does not “honor” per se other people’s religion, on the contrary, He condemns them! Elijah most certainly mocked and condemned the prophets of Baal (not necessarily arguing that we should do the same). God “allows” them (other religions) to continue yes, but most certainly condemns them (Rom. 1ff.). In fact, Jesus says, “whosoever does not believe in me is condemned already” (Jn. 3:18). Jesus addressed the “woman at the well” implying her beliefs were way off (Jn. 4:22). My first encounter with people of other “faiths” is not to immediately blast them into eternal damnation and I am in no way meaning to sound harsh and bigoted, but I do at times believe we may accept more and/or “respect” more than what God would have us to. We should be careful when speaking of “human and civil rights” and most certainly see if what we are saying and thinking are in line with God’s Word. When we say that “the followers of Islam” in France ought to be able to do just that, follow, we are essentially condoning murder (though no one seems to want to address whose interpretation is correct-moderates or radicals). The Koran does teach killing of infidels-unbeliever. Blessings!

There demonstrably are threads/types/variants of Islam that can and do “work[] within democracy”.

I think this is a fair statement. And yet surely we must be concerned for peaceful Muslims who are as much part of French society as any man but who now find themselves to be the targets. Perhaps it’s the far-far-right (e.g. Front National) that are the real winners here.

Billy Squibbs,
I would be careful, because the left/right divide in France is rather different. The National Front scores on a racial/immigration level, but the French left and right are both militantly secularist and have no problem demanding religious people scour any public-facing aspect out of their praxis. The French left is willing to fight for the Arab community’s equal civic rights on a racial level, but they just as gleefully join in mocking that same community’s religion, because public religion isn’t “French.”

GM –

I’m calling out the editor as behaving foolishly and duplicitously… I’d have a lot of questions… “Has religion wounded you personally and directly in some way?”

You are aware that the first time they published ‘offensive to Muslims’ cartoons was in response to the 2006 controversy (and violence), and then in 2011 they got firebombed? In 2012 they published more, in response to the violence associated with the whole “Innocence of Muslims” thing. It seems you are acting like this is all just a lark. Like they just decided, “Hey, this would be funny!”

As far as the cartoon, I assume you know the difference between satire of a head of state and satirizing a disadvantaged minority group.

I suspect your notions about ‘power’ and ‘advantage’ might be influenced by getting firebombed, or seeing people killed. You might revise – upwards – your estimates of their ‘power’.

Worthiness of derision does not automatically demand follow through to the point of mockery.

Sure, not automatically. When does it, though? If ever?

As Robert Heinlein put it, “One man’s theology is another man’s belly laugh.” It really is hard for me to just list the claims of, say, Mormonism’s founder Joseph Smith with a straight face. I think the Jehovah’s Witnesses are roughly as risible. Yet I wouldn’t start out being rude to Mormon missionaries, any more than I’ve been rude to the JW types who’ve come to our door on occasion.

If they don’t accept my polite decline of their offer, though – I will escalate as needed. Hasn’t been necessary so far, but…

Did you watch that video of mine? I’ll quote the end: “If you want to persuade me to accept your religion’s restrictions on behavior, then either convert me to your religion or at least give me a convincing logical argument that it’s in my best interest. Or if you can’t do that, try asking nicely. I’m a reasonable guy, I don’t want to offend people if I don’t have to. If it’s not a major inconvenience or a matter of principle, I’ll probably go along. But if you’re going to try to bully people, to terrorize people, then I have to say [a short phrase with words that don’t fit with this blog].”

So here’s the thing. Pope Francis commented on the Charlie Hebdo thing. Francis defended freedom of speech as a fundamental right, and even a duty to speak out for the common good. But he said there were limits to free speech, especially when confronting another equally fundamental human right: the freedom of religion And “One cannot react violently, but if [someone] says something bad about my mother, he can expect a punch. It’s to be expected.”

See, that comes across to me as, “I know I shouldn’t react violently… but I will.” It comes across as a threat of violence. And whether or not the Pope should follow that “turn the other cheek” stuff… I’m not a Christian, and I don’t feel the need to always turn the other cheek. I don’t react well to threats of violence. That comes across to me as someone starting a fight. Frankly, I’m half-tempted to organize an “Everyone Insult the Pope’s Mother Day” in response.

My question to you is, did Hitler jokes make anything BETTER?

Yeah, I think so. Claim to be a superior race, attack people for it, mockery’s the least you’ve got coming. Poking holes in falsely inflated egos, pointing out that the Emperor’s naked, I think that helps. Not just morale, but in the field of persuasion and rhetoric, too. Not always, but often enough.

Note, still, I’m talking ideas, not people. That’s why I probably won’t agitate an “Everyone Insult the Pope’s Mother Day”; you’d have to insult a real, though presumably deceased, person to pull it off. I’ll mock the Pope’s insincere defense of free speech, but I won’t attack the Pope’s mom.

Long enough, more later.

As far as the Pope’s comment, it’s clumsy, annoying, and potentially very wrong. I’m willing, up to a point, to give his English the benefit of the doubt, but even then, it sucks the nuance out of a time and argument that requires a lot of nuance.

I THINK he’s basically saying “If you poke a bear, what do you expect to happen?” If you stupidly provoke the highly provokable, don’t hide behind some pretense of civility to rationalize your imprudence. If he’s not saying that, then he’s dead wrong and needs to be taken to task.

And every benefit you listed to Hitler jokes can be accomplished by other means. Means that fortify respect for humanity, even in the hell of war, which, you know, has some benefits when it comes to things like war crimes and atrocities against civilians. The military didn’t take our soldiers and make them capable of torture by instilling resonant appreciation for the dignity of every individual.

GM

I’ve read lots on all of this but just nothing that even approaches the level of understanding, intelligence and compassion that you demonstrate in you above posts. I’m truly humbled. You go on to say:

If it started to happen, it didn’t continue. The relegation of blacks to 50 years of urban blight is proof of that. I would accept a response of “Well his ideas just aren’t realistic.” if I saw anything approaching a genuine effort.

You are right again here. And you are right about the lack of “a genuine effort.” But it goes much further than that. It isn’t a lack of effort at all. It’s just the opposite in the opposite direction. The “50 years of urban blight” is, I believe, due to a very great effort and quite a calculated one.

Dependent populations are controllable and those that control them want nothing more than to continue that control. Who has championed the 80+ Federal programs and the 20+ trillion dollars spent in the inter city since the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Who reaps the political benefits of the dependent population those programs have created.

Who riled up the masses in the recent “hands up don’t shoot”, “I can’t breathe” demonstrations. Oh, right, “black lives count” we’re told. But the people killing blacks are 100x’s more likely to be black than white but that matters not when the puppet masters say “jump”. The betrayal of the inter city by those who pretend to represent them makes anything Charlie Hedbo did look like child’s play.

GM –

This isn’t people getting butchered because of some sincere attempt at thoughtful dialogue.

First off, it is people getting butchered. I want to emphasize that. That’s a pretty central element.

And secondly, it’s people getting butchered for jokes. Crude jokes, often enough. Arguably mean-spirited, in some cases. But still – jokes.

If mockery is the best reflection of the best of your values, then your values suck.

To quote GM, “If you stupidly provoke the highly provokable, don’t hide behind some pretense of civility to rationalize your imprudence.”

Killing people over jokes can be construed – quite reasonably, I think – as a provocation. Indeed, one might almost say “THAT is an assault on freedom of speech that must be met with defiance of repetition”.

Do we see if there’s a grievance on behalf of the offended that we can address to establish some kind of sincere gesture of good will? Oh no, forget that, it’s “LET’S DO THAT THING AGAIN!”

I know that the Middle East (heck, most of the world) has legitimate grievances with the West in general and the United States in particular. I don’t have to speculate or soul-search to know that. I’m not surprised that terrorism happens, nor confused about what motivates a lot of it. (That doesn’t mean I sympathize, or justify, of course – just that I grasp at least some of why it happens.)

The cartoons aren’t – or at the very least, are not just – ‘the straw that broke the camel’s back’. They are something else. And as I say in that link, Note also that “not provoking” is *very* different from “appeasing”. Not toppling elected governments, changing our own society and tech to not depend so much on oil so our money doesn’t prop up thugocracies, not blowing up wedding parties and such on a regular basis – that’s not appeasement.

Letting butchers tell us what we can and can’t draw – sorry, that looks like appeasement to me.

The military didn’t take our soldiers and make them capable of torture by instilling resonant appreciation for the dignity of every individual.

Sorry, ‘dehumanization’ and ‘mockery’ are not identical sets. There’s some overlap – mockery can be used to dehumanize – but they are not automatically the same thing. It looks like you’re obscuring, or maybe just don’t recognize, that distinction. I can’t tell.

And every benefit you listed to Hitler jokes can be accomplished by other means.

And everything that war accomplishes can be accomplished by other means, too. Yet sometimes war is necessary. And sometimes mockery is necessary, too. Speaking of soldiers, just check this out. (It’s only 45 seconds, you can spare the time.) I hereby appoint you drill sergeant, with a strict no-mockery policy. How would you handle this situation? (Bonus question: Did the drill sergeant dehumanize the recruit?)

Or, just tackle the question I asked in #47 (and repeated in slightly different form in #54): “Is there ever a call for mockery?” I still honestly have no idea what you think about that.

Person B’s violent display of power gets them re-elected. Who’s more powerful?

What violence did anyone at Charlie Hebdo carry out, and to what office were they elected? I’m confused.

You know Ray, I once asked you to give me a compelling appeal to forgiveness on a purely rational basis. You said to the person who refused to forgive “Then you’ll suffer. And you’ll probably bring other people down with you.”

And I respect that. That’s absolutely valid. But it’s pretty useless when we trade it in for “He started it!”to justify our bad behavior.

So, to the Stripes bit. Yeah, Francis is way out of line. He’s absurd. But say Francis actually DID kill Bill Murray for calling him Francis. We find him standing over his body with a loaded gun, heaving, sweating, wild eyed.

WHO CALLS HIM FRANCIS IN THAT MOMENT?? Who’s looking to prove a point TO Francis by calling him Francis?! The time to prove a point is obviously for later. The immediate crisis is to get Francis to calm down, to find a way to communicate to something or someone outside of our standard frame of reference.

This is Walter screaming at the dude after pulling a gun on Smokey.

AM I WRONG DUDE?! AM I WRONG?

No, Walter. You’re not “wrong.” You’re just an a**hole.

An interesting opinion piece from Giles Fraser – http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2015/jan/16/france-much-vaunted-secularism-not-neutral-space-claims-to-be

I think I agree with the overall thrust of the article. Actually, that “pork or nothing” policy is quite scary.

And I’d say “Hey Elijah, knock it off.”

Is there ever a call for mockery. There are two answers depending on the meaning of the question.

Is there ever a duty to mock?

No, I don’t think so. There IS at times a duty to condemn, however. Now, when you really look at it, the act of condemnation is a pretty solemn one, in proportion to the gravity of the object of condemnation. If I’m condemning something that people have deep attachments to, I’m well into the territory of offense that someone very well might take personally. I’d expect them to. Now, I don’t have a single ethical or social qualm with saying “The Qur’an is not the word of God and Muhammed is not God’s prophet.” I just committed blasphemy towards Islam. I believe what I just said is true, I have the legal and moral right to say it, and no person or persons has the legal or moral right to harm me for it. The moral difference here between condemnation and mockery is, am I trading in an appreciation of the solemnity of the act for personal amusement.

Think of it like this. Mockery is to condemnation in the same way that vengeance is to justice. Justice can be satisfactory because it serves a greater good, it is public validation of a wrong that needs to be made right or answered for. Mockery makes MY base emotional needs a good that is more valuable than the good of the other. That’s not for me to take from the situation.

Now, is mockery ever “called for” or permissible? That completely depends on things like social capital and context. Here’s an exmaple.

I go on a camping trip with my buddies. My friend Tim leaves the cooler outside and raccoons eat all the food. It’s a bonehead move, Tim knows better, and now we’re in a tough spot. Well, Tim might get himself a “Smooth move dummy.” or a nickname for the rest of the trip. That’s because I know and love Tim, he’s knows there’s a bond there that’s a lot stronger than ribbing over some lost ground beef. He’s WILLING to pay the expense for the humor because we’re at the place in our friendship where the humor actually strengthens the bond, and I know this because I know him.

Now, say one of the guys is new, a co-worker of a friend that no one really knows very well. He does the same thing as Tim. The exact same act doesn’t illicit the same response, because we just don’t have the same social capital. We haven’t put in the work yet. So we say “No big deal man, we’ll just run into town and see what we can scrounge up.” Maybe LATER we can give him the business, because that act of patience hopefully earned his trust. It’s all about trust and willful participation.

So, say I’m Francis’s Lt. He says “If anyone calls me Francis, I’ll kill you.”

Holy crap.

So Ok, this is out of the ordinary, not what I would expect from someone, and it doesn’t make any sense. The first thing I’d do is just ask “Wait, why?”

Maybe he gives me a long story about how the name invokes a really awful time in his life or whatever. Not likely, but the whole scenario is unlikely. But say he’s just irascible and not likable.

“I just hate it, so shut up.”

“Well, hold on dude. We’re here to do a job, and this whole ‘I’ll kill you’ thing isn’t going to fly. I got 15 other guys to think about and the last thing they need is accidentally calling you Francis and you going off the rails. No one is here to piss you off, no one’s looking for a problem with you, so you can fall in line like everyone else and do your job, and I think you’ll learn to like it here. If not, you’re not running the show, and if you have to make yourself miserable to do what you’re told, so be it. Just keep it off my radar, and I’ll do my best to look out for you. And for the rest of you guys, I don’t want to hear anyone starting crap with this guy. If he pulls anything towards you, you come to me and we’ll handle it.”

GM – First off, I think Dan Fincke does a good job covering the ground on the Hebdo thing.

Now, you say, “Jokes were sending certain people, a large amount of people, into violent hysterics.” There’s more to it than that, though. Jokes in another country and culture were sending people into “violent hysterics” in their own country. These are threats, and actual violence, over what someone else does in their own home, as it were. This isn’t going over “Voice of America” radio, specifically aimed at majority-Muslim countries. This is a lot more analogous to walking by someone’s house and hearing them badmouth Mohammed in their own living room.

I understand that – and why – many Muslims feel oppressed and attacked. And yet, as Fincke puts it:

Now it is possible to reaffirm a moral commitment even as you denounce violence in its name. It is possible to think a cause is just even if you’re rejecting terrorist tactics in support of it. But saying, “violence is wrong, but so also is insulting religious people” basically puts those two things on the same moral level by putting them in the same sentence. It basically says, “Let’s stop doing both” as though both deserve equal condemnation. And if the violence stops because we “learned our lesson here” the terrorists are vindicated and the violence is rewarded. This is categorically different than saying something like “this terrorist act was wrong but that doesn’t invalidate the fact that this other violent or oppressive government action it was retaliation for was also evil”. A statement like that equates violence and violence and points out that a cycle is at work and it’s not just lopsided violence. But a massacre of insulting cartoonists is not a cycle of violence. It’s a violent reaction to (at most) offensive free speech. They’re not equivalent.

And when you say “the murder is wrong but the speech was offensive” you are minimizing the murder. Because if you didn’t want to minimize the murder, you could have said “the speech was offensive but murder is wrong”… which one you put after the “but” shows which you think is most important. It’s the difference between “she was dressed provocatively but no one deserves to get raped” and “no one deserves to get raped, but she was dressed provocatively”. The former is a rejection of victim blaming and the other is an instance of it.

That bit about “And if the violence stops because we “learned our lesson here” is expanded on later:

In real-world power dynamics, extremists will not give up recourse to violence for as long as it accomplishes their goals. They will turn to softer tactics of persuasion only if forced by seeing that violence is simply futile and only causes more disrespect of their wishes and puts them more on defense against world opinion. Fundamentalist extremism must not be pandered to in its demands for deference. We must not do it the favor of sympathizing with its grievances.

You referred back to our discussions about morality. And that’s legit – but I think you missed a point. I’ve argued several times in favor of strategies that are ‘nice, forgiving, clear’… but also ‘provocable’. As I already said above, “I’m not a Christian, and I don’t feel the need to always turn the other cheek.” Forgiveness is important; and it’s an option that I don’t think is explored enough. But it’s not universally appropriate, either, at least in my view. To wit:

Allowing evil to entice us to abandon universally celebrated values like kindness, patience, wisdom and general self-awareness is the real capitulation to terror.

And if we were going out and slaughtering random Muslims in response to the Hebdo massacre, you would have more of a point. But I – and lots of others – are calling for a drawdown on drone strikes and military intervention in general, while also sometimes putting out irreverent or even offensive cartoons.

I find some of Fincke’s points to be highly suspect.

“But saying, “violence is wrong, but so also is insulting religious people” basically puts those two things on the same moral level by putting them in the same sentence. It basically says, “Let’s stop doing both” as though both deserve equal condemnation.”

Well, “basically”, no. This is semantic squirming about a statement that truncates the larger conversation. There would be a point only if there wasn’t a larger conversation. The truncation is made in a dialectical context where most everyone is on the same page, at least until clarification is needed. I can very easily say both insulting religious people and murder are morally wrong and then, if I have to or have the space to, talk about how each wrong should be responded to politically and socially. Saying that they should both be “condemned” doesn’t necessarily imply the same follow-through in action, and I don’t think it should. I haven’t seen a single critic of Charlie Hebdo calling for active government censorship and neither have I seen them say “We should let murderers have a freebie once in a while.”

Most sensible people would put “harassment” and “murder” in the Wrong Column. The question then becomes how to respond to each in kind.

And like I’ve said before, criticizing Hebdo and the like is NOT like accusing a rape victim of being implicit in their own rape, precisely because they chose to participate in a crisis in a very specific way. Of COURSE insulting speech is never a morally valid instigation of violence, but acknowledging the, now historic, fact that we are dealing with people who blatantly disagree is NOT validating their position. It is a fact that should inform us how to best move forward.

I’m kind of stunned that you’d liken this to walking by someone’s house and overhearing a private conversation. There is no, and never has been, anything private about the front page of a newspaper. It’s a PUBLICation. Any westerner in 2015 who has any illusions of “Well, maybe they won’t find out that I put this out for the entire world to see.” is lying to themselves. No one is that naive anymore.

Speaking of naive:

“In real-world power dynamics, extremists will not give up recourse to violence for as long as it accomplishes their goals. They will turn to softer tactics of persuasion only if forced by seeing that violence is simply futile and only causes more disrespect of their wishes and puts them more on defense against world opinion.”

Well, that’s a very narrow view of extremists’ goals. Every tactical action by terrorists feeds into the strategic goal of additional recruitment. It’s literally the only way global terrorism can continue to function. If the last 15 years have taught us anything, terrorism isn’t just a leadership issue, it’s a human supply issue. So now, yes, we killed the guys who carried out the Paris attacks, and maybe we kill the leaders who supported the attack from afar. But now, the leaders of EVERY extremist organization have the same exact narrative that is necessary to recruit in the first place: “The West is so committed to destroying Islam, they are all rallying behind mockery of the prophet and YOU AND ALL MUSLIMS as a moral good. They see YOU as contemptible. They want YOU to bow down and be ashamed of YOUR faith. Defend yourself and the faith of all Muslims everywhere.”

It’s up to us to find the best way to maintain what goods we have and dismantle that narrative. Freedom of speech is certainly one of those goods, but we’re not using it very wisely. I think if we restrict our reasons that we give to the average Muslim to not radicalize to MATERIAL motivators, we’re only doing half of the job. The existential element is absolutely vital. I think America is doing a better job at the existential than the Europeans, but that could change if we start adopting the Charlie Hebdo approach.

Ray wrote:

“Nothing is better than mockery at puncturing overinflated egos.“

Ironically, that sounds exactly like something someone with an overinflated ego would say.

The rape victim questions are all red herrings in this context. I’m just not going to sucked into that downward spiral. Women protesting the frequency of rape are not speaking out against some perceived sanctity of rape. Rapists are not defending the act of rape as some kind of important moral good that must be protected. There’s not a billion-strong community with a deep personal commitment to rape, whereupon condemnations of rape are perceived as direct insults to that billion-strong community and their entire way of life. There are no “moderate rapists” as opposed to “rape extremists” to pervert the otherwise peaceful tenets billions of people associate with rape. What are you even talking about?!

That the cartoons were related to violence in other parts of the world is very much a part of the military and economic exploitation of these people. The cartoons and their celebration by Westerners just further destroy any credibility that we have left over there because they are the cultural backdrop against which all of the material concerns materialize at their front door. It isn’t JUST that a cartoon was drawn and people with zero other interests decided to involve themselves.

“There are drones overhead, unexploded ordinance under our feet, and one thing we know for sure about the places that are raining death and discontentment on us, is that they hate our religion so much that they will die just to mock it. That is how deep their commitment to hating Islam is.”

The cartoons REPRESENT US in their minds. WE are the ones who inserted ourselves in the region, and we are allowing anti-clerical bigots define what we represent to these people, from the backfield. Any diplomatic, sincere cross-cultural attempt at mutual understanding has to shout above the blare of stupid, crude jokes that serve no good purpose. Complaining that “removing the pretext of insult” will just be filled with some other pretext as justification for being crass is defeatist nonsense. If they react violently to any of our efforts or behavior, that’s on them. But if WE compromise whatever integrity we have with the broader population, that’s on US. Why buy into their paranoia?! You think you’re being defiant, you are just playing straight into their narrative.

“Don’t trust these people, they really hate you and your beliefs, and they don’t even try to hide it. They even profit from mocking it. They may offer material goods, but they want to rob you of your salvation that they mock. Don’t sell out. Rise up and defend your faith.”

The extremists are setting YOUR tone and you don’t even know it.

That the satire is heard by the broader community is exactly the problem.

Mocking a religious symbol held dear by 1 in 5 people on the planet and speaking out against a CRIME and the social circumstances within our culture that enable it are not differences of degree.

Comparing college males who have apparently shattered moral compasses to peaceful, productive citizens who ascribe to a certain religion while attempting to integrate their religious beliefs with a sometimes hostile globalized culture is a shockingly desperate insult to try to prove a point. I’m appalled right now.

The fact that you think the cartoons “won’t matter” under de-militarized conditions is such a telling example of the unexamined arrogance Western civilization carries into other cultures. The Middle East is primarily constituted by shame/honor based cultures. Does that, as a product of an individualistic culture, inform you at ALL as to how to proceed? The anthropological FACT that you’re dealing with not just different normative ethics, but different ingrained ethical PARADIGMS means that you just have to play by a totally different set of rules.

This isn’t “Hey, Western 20 year old, you’re actually way outside the goods of your own culture and you’re deeply confused, if not a total moral failure. You might have been malformed by a cultural mutation within the celebrated normative ethics that has moved you away from those ethics. Get with the program.” as spoken by a cultural insider.

This is “Hey, your culture’s goods are actually not very good. There’s a better way. Everything you’ve been taught by your family, school, church, community, friends, and government on a normative basis from childhood as worthy of admiration needs improvement and radical re-alignment.” as spoken by a cultural outsider.

But apparently, SCREW THAT! THAT SOUNDS HARD! We won’t KILL the barbarians, we’ll just create an imaginary intellectual ghetto where the White Educated Masters get to tell everyone else what “matters.” They’ll get Pizza Hut and Richard Dawkins as a trade off. I’m sure they’ll be thrilled.

GM – There’s plenty of ‘appalled’ to go around, it’s not rationed. I mentioned “rape culture”. Those kids don’t have “shattered moral compasses”. They have actual active values. They accept that “rape” is bad, but the point is that they think “so long as she’s not actively fighting me off, it’s not ‘rape'”. Seriously, too, go look up that Vox Day stuff (and he’s not unique). There are cultural reasons why so few rapes get reported and so few of those reported rapes get prosecuted and why so few of those prosecutions are successful.

The fact that you think the cartoons “won’t matter” under de-militarized conditions is such a telling example of the unexamined arrogance Western civilization carries into other cultures.

From the perspective of being a significant factor in inciting terrorism, they “won’t matter” – if we actually do stop killing people and overthrowing governments and propping up thugocracies. I was perfectly clear about that rather important context. And I can point – again – to suicide bombing as an example. Ideology is simply not a significant causative factor there. Including in Islamic regions.

We won’t KILL the barbarians, we’ll just create an imaginary intellectual ghetto where the White Educated Masters get to tell everyone else what “matters.”

You are not responding to what I wrote, but instead to what you think (wish?) I wrote. Take a moment and reread what I just wrote about context.

Ok, so I’ve given it some thought and I can now better articulate my problems with the rape culture examples.

First, about questioning a rape victim. The circumstances under which I’d question a rape victim’s decisions would be something like this: She willingly goes to a place populated by people she knows have been accused of rape before, makes conversation with alleged rapists about how badly she wants to have sex with someone that night, takes a fist full of barbiturates and passes out nude in one of their beds. But at that point, I’d almost have to assume that this woman was not mentally stable, so “blame” doesn’t really enter into the equation. I would just have questions as to what compelled her to put herself in that position, recommend rigorous therapy, and then seek thorough prosecution of the attacker(s). In other words, the circumstances would have to be so severe and unusual, and the qualifications of cogent responsibility so absent, I don’t see it as a useful parallel at all to what we’re talking about here.

As far as rape culture, I don’t think rape culture is a “culture” in the same way as “Muslim culture” or “European culture” or even “NASCAR culture.” The first stark differentiator is, the most sure fire way to identify someone as “part” of rape culture is that they deny the existence of rape culture. The fact that rape culture manifests in very specific, (sometimes) subliminal facets of our culture means it does not function in the same way as other cultures. There’s no rape table down at the multicultural food festival. Full-blown cultures have active, aware participants and purveyors who find pride and identity therein. They embrace everything about it, by name, for better or worse. The purveyors of rape culture advance rape culture exclusively by thinking they are doing something else by having warped moral underpinnings. This is to say nothing of active, self-aware rapists who understand what rape is and do it anyway.

My critique of the dialogue surrounding rape culture is the way the Left tends to seemingly… gloss over the 800 pound gorilla in the room of a generation of boys being raised with an unlimited stream of pornography being pumped into their rooms from puberty to adulthood. This is the glorious legacy of the sexual revolution and Larry Flynt. To be sure, it’s kind of talked about in skirting ways. Objectification of women, the “media” we consume, etc. But it’s very rarely specific and often goes after soft targets like make-up commercials, because no one wants to come across as “puritanical.” This article in particular almost made my head explode:

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/01/16/living/feat-teens-online-porn-parents/

“”It’s just that it’s so different now than it was for me … my dad leaving Penthouse on the coffee table in case I was interested,” he said, according to Maddie. “You want to be careful that you are not just wildly clicking around, because there’s scary stuff.”

and

“Here’s what I’m concerned about, and let me tell you why,” Schroeder says parents can say. “The images you are seeing do not represent real life. They’re not made for your age group. However, here’s what there is, so it’s not cutting you off completely.”

Not cutting them off completely! Just a moderate amount of pornography for the children! Then we’re utterly shocked when the 20 year old has callous ideas about sexuality and respecting women and themselves.

The most “provocative” thing I’ve seen outside of, say, Femen, would be things like the “slut walk.” But this NULLIFIES mockery by reappropriating a derogatory term. It takes the pejorative power out of a word by claiming it for yourself. But the image of Mohammed isn’t a pejorative for Muslims to use against others, Charlie Hebdo was using it as a pejorative AGAINST Muslims. Femen, in fact, cuts themselves off at the knees because in advocating for a radical sexual liberality, they feed the very amoral/immoral underpinnings of the things that directly feed rape culture.

I do actually agree that the militaristic issues are significantly more important. If I was confused about what you meant about the cartoons, then I recant that quote.

As far as the sociology, I would need to see a lot more discussion on how being ostracized is either unrelated to mockery or has no effect when it comes to either self-radicalization or the recruitment of new radicals. Because, with the way things are going over there, a complete military disengagement might not be the best idea. So if (huge if, but still) we do need to actually do more fighting in the middle east, I still think it’s very important that we represent ourselves and our culture in the best light, while still reserving the right to criticize and condemn evil. I hope I’ve never come across as advocating some excessing coddling of violent people, their feelings are secondary when they are killing people.

But when this kind of stuff happens: http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/20/world/charlie-hebdo-violence/index.html

“Today, we are telling France and world countries that while Islam orders us to respect all religions, it also orders us to punish and kill those who assault and offend Islam’s Prophet Mohammed.”

I think that’s worth paying pretty close attention to, especially in Gaza where the French government has been a staunch vocal ally to the Palestinian people.

I also would fully vet Vox Day as an ignoramus and a participant in rape culture, but I don’t think he’s the same KIND of radical as an Islamist. See comments in 82 for a better clarification of my issues with rape culture being used in this conversation. Vox Day is avoiding association between his concepts of masculinity and rape. He has some kind of concept of “rape is bad” as probably informed by watching a few episodes of Law and Order. He thinks women are “faking” rape or whatever, but if he could see it verified that they were, in fact, raped, he would condemn it. It’s all very stupid, but it’s not the same thing as “Sharia law and all of it’s harshness is the will of God and man’s highest good.”

GM –

The circumstances under which I’d question a rape victim’s decisions would be something like this

Well, see, the circumstances in which I’d question a cartoonists or satirists judgment (with respect to violence carried out on them) are similarly stringent. I can understand being angry, even furious, at boorish behavior. Taking that to violence ‘ain’t the same ballpark, ain’t the same league, ain’t even the same sport’. If one of my sons died, and Westboro Baptist decided to protest at his funeral, I’d be… ahem… ‘annoyed’. But I’d only punch them if they actually came up to me and got in my way.

Full-blown cultures have active, aware participants and purveyors who find pride and identity therein. They embrace everything about it, by name, for better or worse.

Sadly, cultures don’t have to be “full blown” to have powerful effects.

a generation of boys being raised with an unlimited stream of pornography being pumped into their rooms from puberty to adulthood. This is the glorious legacy of the sexual revolution and Larry Flynt.

Pornography is a larger topic than I want to tackle along with everything else going on here. It’s a discussion I’m open to, eventually, but given the spread of topics I think somepruning is in order. I’ll just say that (a) I don’t want, or allow, my kids to get uncontrolled access to alcohol either; and that (b) there’s middle ground between “banning Lady Chatterly’s Lover” and “Larry Flynt”.

But the image of Mohammed isn’t a pejorative for Muslims to use against others, Charlie Hebdo was using it as a pejorative AGAINST Muslims

Of course, the common point is that the Slutwalk people are doing exactly and precisely what “rape culture” in general tells them not to do – with the specific warning that by doing so they invite doom upon themselves. (And Hebdo was – very specifically, given the history we’ve stipulated – throwing pejoratives at violent Muslims.)

But this is probably the time to get into mockery and its (de)merits.

I mean, I gave you my Stripes reply, and you gave me some vague appeal to efficiency. THAT’S IT?!

Far from it. Although, I challenge you to do as much in three words. Go to it.

the DI clumsily engendered an environment where the other troops could treat Francis as an outsider, and further convince Francis that he IS in fact an outsider

If the drill sergeant’s treatment of Francis were unique, you might have a point. I haven’t been through Basic myself, but the people I’ve talked to who have don’t exactly lead me to believe DI’s are chary with such comments.

This is to say nothing of the fact that if someone told their DI that they would kill them if they called them Francis, the most efficient thing would probably involve AR 635-200.

Oh, Francis was far less focused than just the DI. Indeed, it could be argued that his speech wasn’t even aimed at the DI, but rather his fellow recruits. It certainly included them. If there were a “secondary hierarchy”, Francis would have initiated it himself.

Mockery works when ideas – or people – are taken (or take themselves) too seriously. Especially when such ideas are held to be beyond question. It can knock people out of habits of thought and get them to look at those ideas, or people (or, rarely for humans, themselves) in a new light. Let’s face it – humans aren’t all that good at applying reason to things that are shellacked in respect and reverence. As Heinlein put it, “Man is not a rational animal, he is a rationalizing animal.”

Mockery isn’t a rational argument as such, but it’s aimed at something irrational. I have said, repeatedly, that it’s not generally the first choice – I use it when polite argumentation has failed – but it does work, often enough to keep it in the toolbox.