RSS
From the New York Times:
Fake next cover from French TV show
Mr. Spurgeon attributed that response to a generational divide between American cartoonists who came of age in the anything-goes, do-it-because-you-can underground comics scene of the 1960s and ’70s, and younger cartoonists who are alert to what they consider the position of white male privilege that such work often issues from.
In an essay from the website The Hooded Utilitarian that circulated widely on social media, Jacob Canfield, a 24-year-old cartoonist in Ann Arbor, Mich., argued that Charlie Hebdo’s “white editorial staff” members were not simply free-speech martyrs but frequent, deliberate peddlers of “a certain, virulently racist brand of French xenophobia.”
… The disagreements over the offensiveness of the cartoons, Mr. Canfield said, agreeing with Mr. Spurgeon, stemmed in part from differences between older cartoonists who remembered the censorship battles that gave rise to the underground comics movement, and younger ones more attuned to the sensitivities of identity politics.
Although a few middle-aged and elderly relics like the late cartoonists might not have gotten the message, young people generally understand well that the point of Sixties was not to demolish power structures forever but to create a new power structure.
As Commenter Fish notes:
“One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship.” — 1984
Orwell….the gift that keeps on giving!
English
Arabic
Chinese (Simplified)
Dutch
French
German
Hebrew
Hindi
Italian
Japanese
Korean
Persian
Polish
Portuguese
Russian
Spanish
Swedish
Turkish
Vietnamese
“One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship.”
Orwell….the gift that keeps on giving!
They have had so much traffic that they are unable to censor the comment thread and have closed it down.
Steve,
This post got me thinking about certain catchy phrases that you and others have come up with in describing multicultural societies. These phrases run counter to the propaganda our elite preach about diversity being a strength, and show in a concise way how our society and culture are ultimately paying the price. A price we were never told we’d have to pay.
Here are a few off the top of my head. If anyone has such phrases, list them. I am trying to put together a list of them.
‘Increasing diversity will increase inequality’ – self explanatory
‘Demography determines your future, but also rewrites your past’ – This dovetails into your retconning of history meme.
‘Freedom or equality, choose one’
I like this take on it: http://www.theguardian.com/world/ng-interactive/2015/jan/09/joe-sacco-on-satire-a-response-to-the-attacks
Nobody should die from a making a cartoon. That’s nuts. But was Julius Streicher defended by hordes of free-speech advocates? As Steve often mentions, ‘invade the world, invite the world’ is not a sensible policy… The cartoonists were just a symbolic target. Journalists, being as narcissistic as politicians, now think it’s ‘cuz our freedoms’.. Whereas in their brief interview they mention death of children in Syria, Iraq etc. http://www.vox.com/2015/1/9/7522015/cherif-kouachi-terrorist-charlie-hebdo
Many of the most popular NYT’s “Readers’ Picks” comments demand that the NYT publish the cartoons at the center of the terrorism sorries. Not one of these comments, as far as I can tell, has the yellow flag signifying its endorsement as an “NYT Pick.”
In a cowardly way the NYT seems to have partially capitulated to the Readers’ Picks, publishing 2006 footage of Charlie Hebdo cartoonists creating caricatures of Nicolas Sarkozy: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/09/opinion/charlie-hebdo-before-the-massacre.html . The footage features a boring sequence in which the cartoonists walk back and forth from their desks to a giant corkboard, pinning up the Sarkozy cartoons, and speaking French. The only reason I can see why this footage was published is that the corkboard also has lots of prominent cartoons depicting Muhamed. That is the closest the NYT will come to helping the readers know the nature of the cartoons at the center of a major story on Islamic terrorism. A story that may well be the biggest story of 2015. Not just the first 9 days, the whole year.
It would take an extremely rare individual to be willing to die for "free speech", purely. The cartoonists appear to have died standing rather than "on their knees" for Secularism of which free speech may, or may not, be a part of. If it's true, they wanted to have a political party banned...
People need to be extra cautious of what they're being asked to sign up for and not feel bad if they opt not to retweet that Mohammed image. Likely, the cartoonists themselves didn't due for free speech.
If one is a Christian, these were simply a few of the bullies, for decades, our Lord told us to turn the other cheek to and pray for. Muslims slaughtered them and made them loved by millions.
BTW, there is a sweet cartoon a French Christian made of the four cartoonists in line to meet Jesus in Heaven whereupon Jesus exclaims, oh, no! not those guys! They're smiling and one even is waving a big hello to Christ.Replies: @Crassus
multicuturalism= diversity = collectivism. eff commies!
http://freebeacon.com/blog/exclusive-two-more-female-marines-dropped-from-infantry-course/
Gender is a social construct and women are just as equal as men – nevermind a 0 percent pass rate from the initial hike at marine corps officer school. Women are now 0 for 29, and these are women who made it through marine basic training.
But the left is so much smarter bc they use math and science. Obviously, it is sexism and part of the War on Women since no other possible explanation could exist and we are all equal genetically.
I also like how much coverage these brave pioneering women get for attempting the course, but virtually no coverage when they fail on the first day like 100 percent of them have.
Of course they've completely inverted the inherent joke found in the women-in-combat debate--the blind assumption that it's a good idea and that any day now we'll be stocked full of GI Jane super soldiers (just like on TV).
In the IOC, “it’s up to the person in front to set the speed of the hike,” he says. “There doesn’t seem to be a standard around these movements.”"
Women passed at the enlisted training school, where there was a fixed standard. At the officers' school, it was run like a race, where the hindmost get failed.
The only "special pleading" in view is that there be a fixed standard at the officers' school as well. And just consider that many men could also fail there, who would have passed except for the sheer bad luck of being put in with a bunch of extra-fast guys.
@iSteveFan:
A nice one:
Diversity + Proximity = War – this is from the game/pick up artist blog Chateau Heartiste, which has dived into politics the last few years.
A couple of common phrases found in comment sections for article and youtube videos, more geared towards whites in general:
Anti-racist is code for anti-white
Africa for the Africans, Asia for the Asians, White Countries for Everybody …
The Social Justice Warrior the NY Times calls “Jacob NMN Canfield” bills himself as “Jacob Monir Canfield” on his own website. Did an Islamophobic editor at the fish-wrap-of-record micro-aggress Jacob Monir Canfield‘s middle name because of its Farsi/Arabic roots?
Question here: are the kids really less into freedom of speech? I’m a relatively geriatric 36, but I always held the strict-freedom-of-speech position, to the point where I always thought Germany’s bans on Holocaust denial, France’s prosecutions for racism, etc., were excessive and unfair.
Somehow I don’t see these young eunuchs getting as wild as S Clay Wilson, R Crumb, Gilbert Shelton, and the rest of the Zap Comix crowd.
Downside: more cartoons of the Pope as a tranny.
Upside: no more pictures of the Prophet’s boney arse and bollocks.
Nobody should die from a making a cartoon. That's nuts. But was Julius Streicher defended by hordes of free-speech advocates? As Steve often mentions, 'invade the world, invite the world' is not a sensible policy... The cartoonists were just a symbolic target. Journalists, being as narcissistic as politicians, now think it's 'cuz our freedoms'.. Whereas in their brief interview they mention death of children in Syria, Iraq etc. http://www.vox.com/2015/1/9/7522015/cherif-kouachi-terrorist-charlie-hebdoReplies: @John F
Yes Julius Streicher was defended by free-speech advocates, at least initially. After all those allied soldiers liberated Belsen-Belsen, Treblinka and a number of other such places they no longer defended him. Unlike the 12 men murdered in Paris, or the millions killed by men like and inspired by Julius Steicher, he – Streicher – received a fair trail at Nuremberg. Please let me and everyone else here know just what kind of genocide Charlie Hebro was calling for.
The Onion had (has?) a television series that did an excruciatingly unfunny bit on women in infantry combat training. The joke, as they saw it, was condescension from men. They showed female soldiers skillfully working their way through a combat training course being trailed by obnoxious male officers who didn’t take it seriously. One rests his beer on a woman’s back as she is crouching behind cover.
Of course they’ve completely inverted the inherent joke found in the women-in-combat debate–the blind assumption that it’s a good idea and that any day now we’ll be stocked full of GI Jane super soldiers (just like on TV).
Steve, isn’t the real message from this article that they “had it coming”?
I’m surprised the military just doesn’t supply the women with hormones to better complete the training and close the gap. Hormones are cheap.
Oh right. Penises are bad, vaginas are good.
That’s what I said in “Track and Battlefield” in 1997.
In a cowardly way the NYT seems to have partially capitulated to the Readers' Picks, publishing 2006 footage of Charlie Hebdo cartoonists creating caricatures of Nicolas Sarkozy: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/09/opinion/charlie-hebdo-before-the-massacre.html . The footage features a boring sequence in which the cartoonists walk back and forth from their desks to a giant corkboard, pinning up the Sarkozy cartoons, and speaking French. The only reason I can see why this footage was published is that the corkboard also has lots of prominent cartoons depicting Muhamed. That is the closest the NYT will come to helping the readers know the nature of the cartoons at the center of a major story on Islamic terrorism. A story that may well be the biggest story of 2015. Not just the first 9 days, the whole year.Replies: @Dahlia
This is disingenuous. They risk death in printing them. I believe they really don’t want to print them, regardless, because they don’t want to hurt Muslims. Of course they’re cagey on the “sensitivity” defense as they have never cared about Christians, but that’s not important.
It would take an extremely rare individual to be willing to die for “free speech”, purely. The cartoonists appear to have died standing rather than “on their knees” for Secularism of which free speech may, or may not, be a part of. If it’s true, they wanted to have a political party banned…
People need to be extra cautious of what they’re being asked to sign up for and not feel bad if they opt not to retweet that Mohammed image. Likely, the cartoonists themselves didn’t due for free speech.
If one is a Christian, these were simply a few of the bullies, for decades, our Lord told us to turn the other cheek to and pray for. Muslims slaughtered them and made them loved by millions.
BTW, there is a sweet cartoon a French Christian made of the four cartoonists in line to meet Jesus in Heaven whereupon Jesus exclaims, oh, no! not those guys! They’re smiling and one even is waving a big hello to Christ.
You have made some intelligent observations, but respectfully, I stand by my insistence that the honorable thing is for the NYT to publish the images. The NYT is a guardian of civil order. Much of its prestige and authority comes from "standing in the gap" between truth and lie, or between truth and silence. They trade on a reputation for bravely speaking truth (speaking truth to power, speaking truth to stupid, whatever the moment demands) at the risk of life and limb. The NYT editorial board asks courageous field reporters to go where these reporters might die and sometimes these reporters are in fact murdered. On Tuesday the NYT editorial board demanded that the New York police take greater physical risks, assertively patrolling dangerous minority communities, even though there is a current violent backlash against the police for doing so. Perhaps they were right to make this demand.
Do not forget, however: it is the job of the NYT editorial board, like that of their field reporters, and like that of New York cops to protect civil society from the forces of disorder, violence, and public bullying. This is job is worthy of tremendous respect, partly because of the dangers inherent in it. When the editorial board does not have the physical courage to print images at the center of the biggest story of the year, I call it cravenness and hypocrisy. Saying so is not disingenuous.
Also when white bigotry may have caused a violent reaction by minority groups, the NYT's established standard is to offer the minutest details to equip the pubic to answer the question, "Was this caused by white bigotry?" They value so highly the shedding of light on possible bigotry that they routinely subject police officers to grave danger. For example, the NYT pressured the Ferguson police department to release the name of the officer who shot Michael Brown. After the release, death threats against the officer were forthcoming. The NYC Police Department, partly taking its cue from the NYT's pulpit, released the names of the officers involved in the death of Eric Garner. More death threats ensued. Also, actual deaths.
The Charlie Hebdo shootings was, as many prominent Muslims (e.g., reporters for Al Jazeera, a former Prime Minister of Malaysia) have claimed, an expected response to anti-Islamic bigotry and the singling out of Muslims for ill-treatment by the controversial magazine. On the other hand, most establishment figures in America, including the NYT editorial board, claim Charlie Hebdo's lampooning of religion was equal opportunity, with Muslims coming in for no worse than Christians and Jews. As an American who hopes to be informed about whether or not and to what extent bigotry was a factor in the Paris attack, I need to Charlie Hebdo's anti-Christian materials next to their anti-Muslim materials.
I want to see the cartoons. The NYT has taught me that I should become suspicious when white American's in authority say, "The violent brown people are wrong. Bigotry was not involved."
Steve, Monir Canfield’s website reminded me of a a couple new pieces of left-wing babble to add to the pile (black bodies, microaggression, etc).
First, “punching down.” This phrase is used to express the fact that you can’t satirize or otherwise joke about official victim groups. I never heard it until maybe 2 years ago, now it is everywhere.
Another growing but less successful attempt at coining new words to advocate for censorship of whites is “stochastic terrorism.” This means that if you say something online that supposedly will induce 1 in 10,000 of your readers to commit terrorism, you’ve committed the moral equivalent of terrorism and should probably be prosecuted. It started as an attack on anti-abortion rhetoric, but it is making a comeback as a way to call the murdered cartoonists terrorists just as bad as their killers.
That has the added advantage that they grow pseudo penises …
Oh right. Penises are bad, vaginas are good.
Of course I assume the Ferguson/Staten Island agitators, even the white ones, will not be held to the same standards regarding the execution of those cops.
@H2
Diversity + Proximity = War –
That is a good one.
I’m just having a look at Eric Zemmour & Eric Naulleau doing their regular show this evening Paris time. Zemmour & Naulleau are having trouble speaking as they talk about the people killed at Charlie Hebdo. Their guests are stunned too.
http://news360x.fr/zemmour-naulleau-09-janvier-2015/
Also, interestingly: Zemmour, who is demonized for his last book and for having implied during an interview in Italy that it would be good if all the muslims were deported from France, has got personal support from Bernard-Henri Lévy.
Of course, it would be paranoid to think that Zemmour's role is to help the Jewish community hedge its bets (Zemmour is of Algerian Jewish descent). It is becoming dangerous for French Jews to be thought of as the likes of Bernard-Henri Lévy (the archetypal court jew and immigrationist, pro-Israeli warmonger) who is as much hated by the French Joe Schmoe as he is respected by the powers-that-be. Zemmour is the living proof that a French Jew can be anti-immigrationist, anti-feminist, and even pro-Vichy (OK, he may be going beyond duty on this). Only paranoids would think that it looks like a good cop / bad cop trick. I tend to think that Zemmour is sincere, though.
Bernard-Henri Lévy, who is found everywhere, is also a good buddy of Michel Houellebecq. They even wrote a book together. They are all like professional wrestlers, who pretend to hate each other in front of the public, but who are good buddies in the real life. And they keep the stage to themselves, which may be their ultimate objective.
So, what can we conclude? The most prominent members of the French Jewish community are afraid of militant Islam, and their fear of this particular brand of Islam is on a par with their loathing of the white catholic French (BHL supported the Femen, he even lent them his lawyer). There will be a demo against terrorism in Paris next Sunday. All the political parties, and Hollande himself, will participate, but the Front National has been told that it isn't invited. It looks (at least to suspicious minds like mine) that it's an attempt to unite the nation against political Islam, while excluding the only anti-immigrationist party. The French elite exclude only two categories of people: jihadis and anti-immigrationists. Sarkozy and Hollande fully agree on this.
Keep calm and vote Le Pen.
In the first article, it said that “At the enlisted training school, Mr. Jacobs, who served as a Marine, recalls that students were told they could walk no faster than three miles an hour, and every hour they had to take a 10-minute break.
In the IOC, “it’s up to the person in front to set the speed of the hike,” he says. “There doesn’t seem to be a standard around these movements.””
Women passed at the enlisted training school, where there was a fixed standard. At the officers’ school, it was run like a race, where the hindmost get failed.
The only “special pleading” in view is that there be a fixed standard at the officers’ school as well. And just consider that many men could also fail there, who would have passed except for the sheer bad luck of being put in with a bunch of extra-fast guys.
I read the essay by this Canfield guy, and he seems to be an extremely hateful character. He is basically saying the victims had it coming for being white and “racist”
Incidentally, I saw the types of cartoons that Charlie Hebdo does. They’re not very good. That is the drawings themselves. They look like they’re from the 70s or something.
The murders have split the universalist left from the identity politics left like nothing I’ve ever seen. The level of anger between the two camps is off the charts, with some of the people coming out for each side being pretty surprising.
@PseudonymicHandler
Well, I see somebody else is grabbing a variant of Pseudonymic Handle for a name, so back to my old alias.
I started off as an enlisted grunt, not a wannabe, but a genuine 03. First of all, it is no place that any woman is going to make it and a lot of guys don’t. Yeah, they structure the infantry school humps for the newbie enlisteds, but that is just a way station for getting them ready for the fleet, where it is going to be more challenging.
Woe betide those who are at the end of a battalion length column, especially in rougher terrain. Too bad for the guys who coldn’t handle it, or got the short end of the stick in OCS. Life sucks and it isn’t fair. Me, I’d rather have officers who figured out how to survive stuff like rigorous TBS humps than whiny pussies who carp about technical fouls.
Anyhow, from what I hear, there is a waiting list to be be a grunt in the Corps, so why do we need to recruit women? It isn’t a matter of “they can do it”, but, “what are they going to add”, how does the addition of women improve the USMC as a fighting force?
Again, there is no manpower problem, so what benefit is there? I can come up w/about 10 negatives right off the bat, so lets hear some compelling, specific, positives, like, “It has been demonstrated that women shoot better” or something, not some bs about equality.
If Charlie Hebdo has taught us anything it is this: Never bring a cartoon to a gunfight.
“Anonymous says:
Incidentally, I saw the types of cartoons that Charlie Hebdo does. They’re not very good. That is the drawings themselves. They look like they’re from the 70s or something.”
They look alot like the drawings of Larry Gonick (author of the “Cartoon History of the Universe”). I wonder who copied whom.
I believe Foucault said to Chomsky: The proletariat doesn’t seize power because it wants justice. It seizes power because it wants power. Chomsky choked on that, as I recall.
As a 29-year-old, the general trend for people my age and younger is definitely yes. It has less to do with opinion and more to do with simple fear. So many people have had their lives and careers ruined that most folks decided it just wasn’t worth it. And who could blame them?
@Bert & SFG
I think Bert is pretty much right about the fear thing. People over 45 or so don’t really understand just how oppressive the atmosphere in schools became in the 90s. Even my elementary school kids are already being indoctrinated in standard left dogma, and they’ll get poor marks if they deviate from the dogma.
I’ve noticed about people my age (around 40) that if one brings up a politically sensitive subject their first impulse is to flee. Sometimes they look alarmed, as if they’ve just seen an unchained pit bull headed their way. Years of training will do that to people.
I remember (this was early 90s) when we got the sexual harassment lecture at a summer academic program. I ran around teasing my RA about harassing chairs and tables by sitting on them the wrong way (I was 13, OK?) and finally got him to crack a smile.
But, maybe they ramped up the brainwashing. It does explain why guys like Heartiste are so popular.
Hippies were obscenely oppressive to deal with on their moral high ground. The rot is old, but judging by some comment sections the natives are restless.
http://news360x.fr/zemmour-naulleau-09-janvier-2015/Replies: @Horzabky
Interesting… At the beginning of the discussion, Eric Zemmour says that he was a personal friend of Bernard Maris, an economist who wrote articles for Charlie Hebdo and who was killed in the attack. They all know each other, and they’re all buddies (sort of).
Also, interestingly: Zemmour, who is demonized for his last book and for having implied during an interview in Italy that it would be good if all the muslims were deported from France, has got personal support from Bernard-Henri Lévy.
Of course, it would be paranoid to think that Zemmour’s role is to help the Jewish community hedge its bets (Zemmour is of Algerian Jewish descent). It is becoming dangerous for French Jews to be thought of as the likes of Bernard-Henri Lévy (the archetypal court jew and immigrationist, pro-Israeli warmonger) who is as much hated by the French Joe Schmoe as he is respected by the powers-that-be. Zemmour is the living proof that a French Jew can be anti-immigrationist, anti-feminist, and even pro-Vichy (OK, he may be going beyond duty on this). Only paranoids would think that it looks like a good cop / bad cop trick. I tend to think that Zemmour is sincere, though.
Bernard-Henri Lévy, who is found everywhere, is also a good buddy of Michel Houellebecq. They even wrote a book together. They are all like professional wrestlers, who pretend to hate each other in front of the public, but who are good buddies in the real life. And they keep the stage to themselves, which may be their ultimate objective.
So, what can we conclude? The most prominent members of the French Jewish community are afraid of militant Islam, and their fear of this particular brand of Islam is on a par with their loathing of the white catholic French (BHL supported the Femen, he even lent them his lawyer). There will be a demo against terrorism in Paris next Sunday. All the political parties, and Hollande himself, will participate, but the Front National has been told that it isn’t invited. It looks (at least to suspicious minds like mine) that it’s an attempt to unite the nation against political Islam, while excluding the only anti-immigrationist party. The French elite exclude only two categories of people: jihadis and anti-immigrationists. Sarkozy and Hollande fully agree on this.
Keep calm and vote Le Pen.
Received institutional wisdom for the last 25 years has been ‘no freedom without responsibility’. Although this reads like civil society, double-entry-bookkeeping, boilerplate, it actually boils down to who-whom of course: Freedom (including freedom from gruesome consequences) depends on absence of hostile boots in proximity to throat.
As an aside: The old line about shouting ‘fire’ in crowded theaters is still trotted out a lot, which is odd, given modern health and safety standards.
‘We vomit’ on Charlie Hebdo’s sudden friends, staff cartoonist says
Haha. None of it’s on my shoes. I pissed on your dead friends, just like they’ve pissed on me and mine.
I love those parenthetical translations (i.e., obfuscations) from “journalists.”
I think Bert is pretty much right about the fear thing. People over 45 or so don't really understand just how oppressive the atmosphere in schools became in the 90s. Even my elementary school kids are already being indoctrinated in standard left dogma, and they'll get poor marks if they deviate from the dogma.
I've noticed about people my age (around 40) that if one brings up a politically sensitive subject their first impulse is to flee. Sometimes they look alarmed, as if they've just seen an unchained pit bull headed their way. Years of training will do that to people.Replies: @SFG, @Cobalt
I believe you guys. I’m just surprised people believe it and internalize it instead of forming their own back channels where they mock the orthodoxy in private.
I remember (this was early 90s) when we got the sexual harassment lecture at a summer academic program. I ran around teasing my RA about harassing chairs and tables by sitting on them the wrong way (I was 13, OK?) and finally got him to crack a smile.
But, maybe they ramped up the brainwashing. It does explain why guys like Heartiste are so popular.
It’s noticeable that kids nowadays are very anti-homophobic which was definitely not the case before the 1990s.
Welll if you want diversity theres always the best political cartoon artist out there – Michael Ramirez.
Of Mexican and Japanese descent.
http://www.investors.com/editorial-cartoons/michael-ramirez/
There have been huge marches all over France today but the crowds are apparently hideously White. Here’s the main immigration restrictionist, FN friendly website on the story:
Demonstrations in homage to the victims throughout France: where is the diversity?
http://www.fdesouche.com/551665-manifestation-dhommage-aux-victimes-france-diversite
It’s a collection of links to Twitter postings with photos from marches all over France. Some of the more sarcastic comments:
“Nothing but Whitey. It’s apartheid”
“It’s hard to believe that photo was taken in Marseilles; it looks more like France”
“It’s hard to imagine Roubaix is majority Muslim when you look at the faces in the crowd”
“Even my elementary school kids are already being indoctrinated in standard left dogma, and they’ll get poor marks if they deviate from the dogma.”
The US K-12 school system worked pretty well when it was focused on assimilation and assuring that, whatever went in the front of the pipe, “Americans” came out the end of the pipe. Then that started failing as it became a bridge too far. Control of the system was then seized by the PC multi-cult, so now the pipeline is apparently focused on assimilating its input into some Orwellian world where only the “right people” decide what’s right…
It would take an extremely rare individual to be willing to die for "free speech", purely. The cartoonists appear to have died standing rather than "on their knees" for Secularism of which free speech may, or may not, be a part of. If it's true, they wanted to have a political party banned...
People need to be extra cautious of what they're being asked to sign up for and not feel bad if they opt not to retweet that Mohammed image. Likely, the cartoonists themselves didn't due for free speech.
If one is a Christian, these were simply a few of the bullies, for decades, our Lord told us to turn the other cheek to and pray for. Muslims slaughtered them and made them loved by millions.
BTW, there is a sweet cartoon a French Christian made of the four cartoonists in line to meet Jesus in Heaven whereupon Jesus exclaims, oh, no! not those guys! They're smiling and one even is waving a big hello to Christ.Replies: @Crassus
You have made some intelligent observations, but respectfully, I stand by my insistence that the honorable thing is for the NYT to publish the images. The NYT is a guardian of civil order. Much of its prestige and authority comes from “standing in the gap” between truth and lie, or between truth and silence. They trade on a reputation for bravely speaking truth (speaking truth to power, speaking truth to stupid, whatever the moment demands) at the risk of life and limb. The NYT editorial board asks courageous field reporters to go where these reporters might die and sometimes these reporters are in fact murdered. On Tuesday the NYT editorial board demanded that the New York police take greater physical risks, assertively patrolling dangerous minority communities, even though there is a current violent backlash against the police for doing so. Perhaps they were right to make this demand.
Do not forget, however: it is the job of the NYT editorial board, like that of their field reporters, and like that of New York cops to protect civil society from the forces of disorder, violence, and public bullying. This is job is worthy of tremendous respect, partly because of the dangers inherent in it. When the editorial board does not have the physical courage to print images at the center of the biggest story of the year, I call it cravenness and hypocrisy. Saying so is not disingenuous.
Also when white bigotry may have caused a violent reaction by minority groups, the NYT’s established standard is to offer the minutest details to equip the pubic to answer the question, “Was this caused by white bigotry?” They value so highly the shedding of light on possible bigotry that they routinely subject police officers to grave danger. For example, the NYT pressured the Ferguson police department to release the name of the officer who shot Michael Brown. After the release, death threats against the officer were forthcoming. The NYC Police Department, partly taking its cue from the NYT’s pulpit, released the names of the officers involved in the death of Eric Garner. More death threats ensued. Also, actual deaths.
The Charlie Hebdo shootings was, as many prominent Muslims (e.g., reporters for Al Jazeera, a former Prime Minister of Malaysia) have claimed, an expected response to anti-Islamic bigotry and the singling out of Muslims for ill-treatment by the controversial magazine. On the other hand, most establishment figures in America, including the NYT editorial board, claim Charlie Hebdo’s lampooning of religion was equal opportunity, with Muslims coming in for no worse than Christians and Jews. As an American who hopes to be informed about whether or not and to what extent bigotry was a factor in the Paris attack, I need to Charlie Hebdo’s anti-Christian materials next to their anti-Muslim materials.
I want to see the cartoons. The NYT has taught me that I should become suspicious when white American’s in authority say, “The violent brown people are wrong. Bigotry was not involved.”
If younger people weren’t so socially alienated these days that’s probably exactly what they’d do, but as all the data show most people are very much alone. I remember how you could still mock it back in the 90s, too, but as it grew more and more entrenched it stopped being amusing. I do remember, however, that every now and then someone brave would speak up against it and be admired and respected for doing so. But then around 2000 they started using gangs of black students to assault people on campus who dissented from the norms. Even in Seattle, where there are fewer blacks than any other major city, black students at the University of Washington regularly attacked campus Republicans if they objected to affirmative action or something along those lines. Of course they weren’t arrested, or even disciplined in any way.
As for Heartiste, I think his popularity is explained by the fact that the truth about female sexuality and motives has been concealed not just since the 90s, but more like the 1950s.
Easy pickings for the perverts in that case. I must have had a half dozen guys try to make a move on me from the age of 12-17 in Seattle, and at that point “homophobia” was a perfectly rational and appropriate reaction. Kids who are taught that homophobia is bad may actually feel guilty about turning down some HIV positive predator who attempts to lure them. How could that go wrong?
Muslims in The U.K and France are even more overrepresented in those countries prison populations than are Mestizos/Amerindians in the U.S prison population.
That is why I say Hispanics on average are the lesser of 2 evils when compared to Muslims. The thug and rape culture is even stronger among Europe’s Muslim community than it is among the U.S’s Hispanic community and that says a lot because Hispanics are not exactly model minorities either. Muslims are the African Americans of Europe.
First, "punching down." This phrase is used to express the fact that you can't satirize or otherwise joke about official victim groups. I never heard it until maybe 2 years ago, now it is everywhere.
Another growing but less successful attempt at coining new words to advocate for censorship of whites is "stochastic terrorism." This means that if you say something online that supposedly will induce 1 in 10,000 of your readers to commit terrorism, you've committed the moral equivalent of terrorism and should probably be prosecuted. It started as an attack on anti-abortion rhetoric, but it is making a comeback as a way to call the murdered cartoonists terrorists just as bad as their killers.Replies: @Dain
I first heard the term “punching down” at my former place of employment, a daily news website. I’d written an article sourced from the Daily Caller that involved criticizing a female student at a relatively prestigious east coast university. My editor told me this was punching down, so the story was scrapped.
Slightly OT but amazingly good:
http://chrishernandezauthor.com/
Does anybody know who the people pictured in this post are?
@downwar:
The top 2 guys are Charb and Cabu, who were both executed during the attack. I don’t recognize the other guys but I’m guessing they got killed during the same attack.
I read that Charb, the anti-establishment free speech crusader, was the boyfriend of a former high ranking member of the Sarkozy government, Janette Bougrab. The insanely close relationship between media, even “subversive”, and power in France is interesting.
, 43:
Punching up or punching down, it all has to do with the stack.
The progressive stack.
The top 2 guys are Charb and Cabu, who were both executed during the attack. I don't recognize the other guys but I'm guessing they got killed during the same attack. I read that Charb, the anti-establishment free speech crusader, was the boyfriend of a former high ranking member of the Sarkozy government, Janette Bougrab. The insanely close relationship between media, even "subversive", and power in France is interesting.@Dain, 43:
Punching up or punching down, it all has to do with the stack.
The progressive stack.Replies: @Justpassingby
Thanks for your help.
I think Bert is pretty much right about the fear thing. People over 45 or so don't really understand just how oppressive the atmosphere in schools became in the 90s. Even my elementary school kids are already being indoctrinated in standard left dogma, and they'll get poor marks if they deviate from the dogma.
I've noticed about people my age (around 40) that if one brings up a politically sensitive subject their first impulse is to flee. Sometimes they look alarmed, as if they've just seen an unchained pit bull headed their way. Years of training will do that to people.Replies: @SFG, @Cobalt
Yes the conditioning is strong in the young. Same stuff was done in 70s but was presented as alternative and appeared to be. This fooled many boomer aged people. Few seemed to notice that the PC bullying was top down.
Hippies were obscenely oppressive to deal with on their moral high ground. The rot is old, but judging by some comment sections the natives are restless.
47: Amusingly, the family of Charb has gone to the trouble of officially denying the relationship with Bougrab (whose father was a harki)!
@5371:
I had no idea that relationship was controversial.
It seems to have been for real though:
http://www.parismatch.com/Actu/Societe/Jeannette-Bougrab-Personne-ne-pourra-m-enlever-ma-relation-avec-Charb-687040
Charb with Bougrab at the home of some jewish singer.
The dude seems more and more like a subversive of the officially apppointed kind.
I had no idea that relationship was controversial.
It seems to have been for real though:
http://www.parismatch.com/Actu/Societe/Jeannette-Bougrab-Personne-ne-pourra-m-enlever-ma-relation-avec-Charb-687040
Charb with Bougrab at the home of some jewish singer.
The dude seems more and more like a subversive of the officially apppointed kind.Replies: @Horzabky
Bénabar, the singer in whose home Charb and Bougrab spent New Year’s Eve, is not Jewish: he’s Corsican. His real name is Nicolini.
Somebody with some time on their hands should make a list of all these silly new terms like “punching down”, “cis privilege”, and the like and figure out who exactly came up with them. Is it somebody well known? Is it all from the same guy? I just find it odd that I see a new term for the first time and then suddenly it’s used by liberals like it has always existed. Like “transphobia” , I heard it used for the first time early last year and then started hearing it regularly like it is a real thing. We really need to start deflating these nonsensical words, and the first step would be to find out who coined them.
No one person came up with those terms. They evolved out of use by feminists and liberals on blogs and Facebook pages. Then college students decided to use them and now they’ve sadly entered the mainstream.