Nothing's easier than being for free speech -- today — Page 4

The difference, of course, being that a satirical publication is not a government entity/agency and was never responsible for the deaths of millions. But.... sure.... you can try to equate the two. Even if it's not possible.

This was a satirical publication with an ability to shock, offend, and poke. What they said or drew is irrelevant, because they had the right to do it. That shouldn't be squashed just because FindingNamo finds it offensive.

You don't have to like or defend their message/content/etc. But if you have the luxury of living in a free democratic country, you should probably want to defend their right to publish their articles and cartoons. As a French official stated on Wednesday, "There is no free country without freedom, and there is no freedom without freedom of the press" (see: North Korea).

It would be difficult for me to self-identify with the Nazi's for a lot of reasons, especially since the term Nazi has a different connotations on its face, especially to a Jewish American.

Though France has a freedom of speech law, it also has anti-hate-speech laws. In reading about the f*ckery of what happened in Paris, I've read that it is illegal to deny the Holocaust. I also read that Islam does not come under the same protections against hate speech as Christianity and Judaism.

This is all relatively new information to me and I don't quite know what to make of it. I do know that I'm still against violence which I guess I have to post all the time now.

Oh you c*nt...now I'm singing Pie Jesu, but changing it to Pie Robbie and there are not enough drugs in the world to calm this particular psychological storm.

"This was a satirical publication with an ability to shock, offend, and poke. What they said or drew is irrelevant, because they had the right to do it. That shouldn't be squashed just because FindingNamo finds it offensive.

You don't have to like or defend their message/content/etc. But if you have the luxury of living in a free democratic country, you should probably want to defend their right to publish their articles and cartoons."

No one in this thread, and certainly not Namo, said anything like that.
What I think he's saying, and I agree with, you can condemn that attacks and still find Charlie Hebdo's content racist and/or offensive. Just because you don't endorse Charlie Hebdo doesn't mean you condone the terrorist attacks.

And Namo thanks for posting that article. I especially liked this part at the end.

"To combat violence you must look unflinchingly at the concrete inequities and practices that breed it. You won’t stop it with acts of self-styled courage on your computer screen that neither risk nor alter anything. To protect expression that’s endangered you have to engage with the substance of what was said, not deny it. That means attempting dialogue with those who peacefully condemn or disagree, not trying to shame them into silence. Nothing is quick, nothing is easy. No solidarity is secure. I support free speech. I oppose all censors. I abhor the killings. I mourn the dead. I am not Charlie."

What I loved most about this article is that it discussed things regarding this tragedy that actually resonated with me on a personal level that has nothing to do with this tragedy:

"To abhor what was done to the victims, though, is not the same as to become them. This is true on the simplest level: I cannot occupy someone else’s selfhood, share someone else’s death. This is also true on a moral level: I cannot appropriate the dangers they faced or the suffering they underwent, I cannot colonize their experience, and it is arrogant to make out that I can. It wouldn’t be necessary to say this, except the flood of hashtags and avatars and social-media posturing proclaiming #JeSuisCharlie overwhelms distinctions and elides the point. “We must all try to be Charlie, not just today but every day,” the New Yorker pontificates. What the hell does that mean?"

I went through a personal loss a number of years ago and, though most people were wonderful, a few were a little too, 'I know how you feel,' or 'I know what you're going through.' And my only thought (left unspoken) was, 'No. You don't.' They couldn't know what I went through...even if they had experienced loss. I did not need someone to commiserate with...to try to find commonality. I needed people to see what I went through as singular and to try to deal with me on that level. I couldn't bear someone identifying with my situation, because it was mine and mine alone. I learned a valuable lesson through all of that. I learned that we can never really know each other's experiences, but that we still can listen in a way that doesn't co-pt someone else's emotional life. I've since had a few friends go through similar losses to what I experienced, but I knew NOT to say 'I know what you're going through.' I only know in the most shallow of ways. That may sound strange, calling the experience of the death of a loved one 'shallow,' but really...that's where it began and ended. It was the other stuff I needed to hear that might be of any use to them.

I didn't want to wade into this because I knew it would be messy and I'd be messy and not really formulate my thoughts well. But we try, right?

But are they trying to find commonality? Perhaps they're just being empathetic, which is a behavior/action that is extremely natural to most rational human beings following a traumatic or negative experience.

Robbie, I have no quarrel with anything you posted. Obviously you are entitled to whatever you feel under such sad circumstances.

But shouldn't we give well-meaning others a pass? Finding common ground in order to express empathy is a primary way we humans relate to one another and how we offer consolation. Perhaps your friends fell short, but shouldn't they get some credit for making the attempt?

'But shouldn't we give well-meaning others a pass?'

Well...I mean...they got a pass. I didn't voice to them my internal reaction. But four years later, I think I can 'anonymously' offer my experience of that time as a way to think differently about empathy. It doesn't have to be an 'I understand' or 'I know what you're going through.' It can simply be, 'Go ahead. Talk. I'm here to listen.' They didn't do anything wrong (though there were a couple of doozies, like the people who questioned my decision to take my loved one off life support rather than leave them a vegetable for whatever time was left). And I certainly wasn't angry about it. It was a new experience for me that taught me that empathy doesn't have to be 'We are all one,' but 'What you've been through is singular and I honor that.'

Buy it or don't. I'm cool with that. But please don't assume that passes weren't given, or I didn't appreciate the attempt. I'm responding to a part of that article that rang very true to me with a personal observation.

I also feel that I need to say that there were MANY people on this very board who supported me through that horrible time and still do to this day, in an example of the 'virtual' bleeding over into the 'real' world. This is not about anyone here.

I'm not sure, but robbie's gone all gooey on us. Sometimes a little loving snark is in order. That's when you get bitch-slapped by a friend...good and hard...and it doesn't hurt. It feels like really hot sex instead.

Not to say I don't love gooey robbiej. I like Namo all gooey, too.

---

Updated On: 1/9/15 at 06:20 PM

"Well...I mean...they got a pass. I didn't voice to them my internal reaction. But four years later, I think I can 'anonymously' offer my experience of that time as a way to think differently about empathy."

Robbie, it never crossed my mind that you were unkind to anyone. (Although now that you mention it, anyone who felt a need to question your decision re turning off life-support probably deserved a little unkindness.)

I was suggesting that human nature being what it is, maybe it's time to give them a "pass" in your heart.

That being said, your advice on "grief counseling" is well made.

If the references to "obtuseness" are directed at me (And aren't they always?), I understood what Robbie was saying perfectly well. And he's right.

But we've abandoned most of our cultural rituals dealing with personal tragedies and everyone is making it up as we go along.

Robbie gives us a great account of how we SHOULD act in the face of loss; but I also think we have to forgive people the very human urge to want to do something to help that is more active than listening.

Gaveston, can't you find an encounter group to join or something? Did you miss that Rob's story was meant to be illustrative of the themes and ideas in this thread?

---