Pope Francis on Paris Attack - "one who throws insults can expect a 'punch'"

[Alcon]

As astonishing as I find your pronouncement to be (and I say that as an irreligious, agnostic person myself), I find it morally reprehensible to mock religion in the way that they were doing it.  Every fiber of my being tells me that such mockery is crude and wrong.  I will not argue with you because at this point it's all normative.  We will simply have to agree to disagree.  

That's the problem with your argument in a nutshell.  Every fiber of your being is bothered by an action, so you apparently conclude it's wrong and immediately stop thinking about it.  You apparently don't think about the consequences of deeming a certain action unacceptable, or the consequences of living in a world where it's popularly considered unacceptable to offend someone's sensibilities about their sincerely-held beliefs.  This isn't just a matter of varying sensibilities.  This is a problem where you stop thinking several iterations before the moral repercussions of your conclusion stop.

Also:

Okay.  Right.  Our newsmedia also call the publication "satirical" rather than "hatemongering."  If the TV says it's so, it must be, right?

When you're being sarcastic about someone's argument, maybe you should actually use an argument  they made, instead of a random argument you think of.

They also claim to be against oppression.  Highly ironic considering the vitriolic attacks against those with whom they disagree.

Explain why making vitriolic attacks against ideas they disagree with is "ironic" if they're against oppression.

[Alcon]

You used the word unacceptable many times.  You'll notice that I never used it.  (To quote politicus, don't put words in my mouth.)  I accept all of it.  I suggest that you learn to accept as well.

I used "unacceptable" twice, not many times, and I meant morally unacceptable, so just replace it with "wrong."  There you go.  Now you can reply to my post.

[Alcon]

I do not suggest that making vitriolic attacks against ideas with which one disagrees is ironic.  I am tempted to say "learn to read, man" but it occurs to me that at that point I was not completing sentences.  Politicus has mastered English well enough to convince me that she understands vernacular.  One would assume that you do as well, being as how it is your native language.  

I have no idea why you're talking on attacks on people, considering I initiated this conversation in response to you objecting to attacks on ideas...I read fine.  I just wrongly assumed you weren't randomly shifting the conversation.

In that case: I want to talk about your claim that it's "morally reprehensible" to attack ideas (in this case, mock religion) in a way that's "crude and wrong," or what that means.  I just reject your claim that something being "crude" or offputing or whatever ("wrong" could mean anything) means it can't be useful and productive.

I cannot find any other substance in your post, but perhaps that is my shortcoming so in the spirit of polite debate I will ask:  Is there anything else that you need explained?  If you need French-English translations of the many spiteful pieces of "literature" created by Charlie Hebdo, you might first try google translate.  The sentences are generally simple, meaning that they do not contain subordinate clauses, so google does a pretty good job in translating them.  You may have to be imaginative once in a while because cartoon writers, like me, often do not write proper and complete sentences, but I bet you are smart enough to figure it out if you try.

Like I said before and above, I want some idea of whether you think "crude" conduct is inherently wrong, and whether it's inherently wrong to offend sensibilities.  I doubt you do, but when you write things like "every fiber of my being tells me such mockery is crude and wrong," and then respond to a critique of that claim by claiming this is just a subjective reaction, you make it seem like you're seriously not thinking beyond that level.  That's what I've been pushing back against since my first response to you.

*** Random digressions that I don't think matter (feel free to skip) ***

Irony occurs whenever the actual result contradicts the expected result.  For example, on Phineas and Ferb when Phineas says something like, "It's not like a giant anvil is going to fall out of the sky" and then a giant anvil falls from the sky.  Similarly, it occurs when those who say that they will not tolerate intolerance show such intolerance toward perceived intolerance that they will not tolerate it.

In that ridiculously strict sense, merely opposing intolerance -- if you're going to define "tolerance" that broadly -- is intolerant.  Yes, one of the big ironies of tolerant liberalism is that it can't tolerate intolerance.  Obviously, liberalism/pluralism/etc. have a more nuanced approach to (in)tolerance than just "for tolerance, against tolerance," because that's definitionally self-defeating.  You're acting like you're the first one to think of this, and this isn't an issue liberal democracies have been wrestling with for years.

Certainly it occurs when a self-ordained anti-religious publication is so religiously devoted to stamping out all religion, as well as when those who claim to be so deeply devoted to the cause of freedom that they feel they are free to so attack the freedoms those immigrants who emigrate from lands seeking economic or other freedoms.  

This reminds me that you never responded to the post where I was arguing with you on what "religion" is after you were a royal jerk based on something you misread.  I believe that qualifies as irony, considering the rest of this post.

Your use of "religion" is an equivocation.  You're using "religious" in a colloquial sense to prove any irony about people who oppose religion in a literal sense.  If you're going to condescend to me, [something arrogant here].

[Alcon]

I think in situations in which material oppression is going in one direction and ideological oppression is going in another (which, yes, is a reasonable characterization of the situation here) it’s my general preference to take the side of those experiencing the former.

Hey, I don't want to do hit-and-run here at all, but I'm too tired to respond to the rest of your post, and this sentence really struck me.

Could you define what situation you're speaking of?

And from whom, and how, is ideological oppression "flowing"?

And why you believe a "side" must be taken between the two 'oppression flows'?

I'm not playing gotcha here, but this is a statement that makes sense to me in the abstract/theoretical sense, but when I start thinking about what it actually means materially...I mean, I'll let you go for it without poisoning the well.

[Alcon]

Madeline, here's the fundamental problem with your argument on "mockery," in my eyes:

I think afleitch makes a great last point.  The phrase "makes a mockery of..." exists entirely because there are people who think that making them uncomfortable, or casting their beliefs in a poor light, is inherently "mockery," and inherently malicious or wrong.  Speech and conduct has to be analyzed beyond whether it generates offense.  It has to be analyzed because speech can be offensive (and even crude) and yet be very helpful in challenging ideas, practices, etc., that are problematic. 

And, in fact, I think learning to tolerate even maliciously crude statements is very healthy.  There's a natural human tendency to want to avoid cognitive dissonance and people who challenge beliefs that are emotionally important to them.  This tendency is totally unhealthy.  And, when we attach moral importance to the idea that people should avoid offending our beliefs, it becomes easy to morally demand that people stop doing so, even when they're doing so for very constructive reasons.  That is vastly more damaging than any individual defense.  The inability to shake off crude mockery is the sign of an individual or culture who already is already is sanctifying their opinions in a dangerous way.  This is ignoring the fact that many belief systems hold that even intellectual challenges of their beliefs are inherently "crude," or at least inherently improper.

This is also, by the way, where the whole oppressed/non-oppressed analysis falls apart.  Obviously, certain ideas are more associated with certain groups than others.  Obviously, there are some groups likely to really want to hold some ideas.  In some cases, attacking a group's beliefs is a means of being cruel to them.  But questioning or attacking the ideas held by a group is not inherently "oppressive."  Being a socioeconomic or power (or whatever) minority does not mean it is any healthier to sanctify your belief system.  Ideas have incredible power over individuals.  Even within a minority group, an idea can be oppressive.  It is understandable that persecuted groups would be wary of attacks veiled as substantive criticisms or satire.  But that does not mean their belief system should be spared substantive criticism or satire.  It also definitely doesn't mean that group is less prone to wanting to avoid criticism or satire, because every human being -- no matter how oppressed they are or aren't -- feels that impulse.  And it's bad.

[Alcon]

I'm going to address afleitch's question first here because I have a ready answer to it. I'm not quite sure what to make of Alcon's point yet. I might have a coherent counterargument. I might lack a coherent counterargument but hold to my original position anyway for emotive reasons, or because we lack a common ethical frame of reference for the value of challenging beliefs, or something. I might also retract 'and raucous mockery' and just limit myself to saying that there's a responsibility to avoid defamatory innuendo, or reverse my position entirely (more sincerely than the last time I claimed to do that). Give me time.

No problem.