:
|
Now you're saying like you're an oracle saying where is the offensiveness line for humor. That's your opinion. Each person has his own limit after which he gets insulted. I don't think humor presented in that French mag shouldn't be allowed because of potential offensiveness. If I was of Islam faith with all of my personality, I wouldn't give a rat's shit about it. Really. I didn't find it funny (it's more like a lazy low-blow), but that's a different case. What can you say about it?
I somehow don't imagine you going and protesting against tv shows like South Park, because they insult people in their comedy.
I agree with Nep. If something is labeled as a humor, it shouldn't be taken seriously. It's not like that's the point of humor, riiiight?
|
My problem is that you say 'labeled as humor' rather than 'actually being humorous'. Look at Mac's most recent post for examples of the former rather than the latter.
And, leaving that hair-split aside, even if it humorous, that doesn't excuse anything and everything. Just because something is amusing does not mean it isn't serious. In fact, that's almost the definition of what makes good satire.
:
|
Yes it's not as if there are tonnes and tonnes of websites/blogs/articles that do that exact thing all the time.
Also Nate, in humour anything is allowed, and that's something I will defend to the death. Yes, you've got to know where it's okay to make certain jokes and where it's not, but it comes down to this, if one thing is okay to joke about, anything is. Nothing gets special treatment, and that's something I've always believed in.
|
This next point primarily to Nepsotic, but also addresses Varrok's post: the point is not that 'in humour anything is allowed'. Frankly, the far more important point is that "In free speech, anything is allowed".
But you're missing the point that I've been trying to make in this thread. I'm going to express it in its own sentence in its own paragraph, just to hopefully get it drilled into your head that it is important.
Just because something is allowed, doesn't mean its the right thing to do.
This isn't about the law. This isn't about limiting free speech. This is about ethics. And, speaking as a believer in Utilitarianism, the best thing to do is that which creates the greatest good for the greatest number of people. To put it a different way, you should live your life in such a way that the world as a whole is a better place for you having lived with it. And the world is a worse place for Charlie Hebdo's cartoons having been in it.