Checking Charlie Hebdo’s Privilege (Douthat, NYT)

[Yorktown]

Checking Charlie Hebdo’s Privilege

APRIL 18, 2015 - Ross Douthat - NYT

A LIVING cartoonist lecturing his murdered peers makes for a curious spectacle, but that’s what transpired at journalism’s George Polk Awards a week ago. The lecturer was Garry Trudeau, of “Doonesbury” fame; his subject was the cartoonists for Charlie Hebdo, (..)
“ridiculing the non-privileged is almost never funny — it’s just mean.”

Trudeau is hardly the first writer to accuse the Hebdo cartoonists of “punching down.” (..) David Frum, in a response to Trudeau, distilled as follows: In any given conflict, first “identify the bearer of privilege,” then “hold the privilege-bearer responsible.”
(..)
on the contemporary left, the theory’s simplicity is becoming a kind of intellectual straitjacket. The Hebdo massacre is just one of many cases in which today’s progressives, in the name of overthrowing hierarchies, end up assuming that lines of power are predictable, permanent and clear.

Which they are not, for several reasons.

First, while power flows from pre-existing privilege, it also grows from the barrel of a gun, and the willingness to deal out violence changes power dynamics, even when it doesn’t have a truly revolutionary outcome. The terrorist’s veto on portrayals of Islam is itself a very real form of power, and as long as journalists who challenge it end up dead, the idea that they are “up” and their targets are “down” reflects a denial of life-and-death reality. (..)

Second, we live in a world where William Gibson’s insight that “the future is already here — it’s just not very evenly distributed” is vindicated every day, and where migration and communication bring cultures that are experiencing this uneven distribution into constant contact. In a globalized world, the faith that the Hebdo cartoonists mocked is the faith of both the powerless and the powerful, (..)

Third and finally, almost every official hierarchy of victimhood tends toward some kind of blindness or partiality.
(..)


http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/19/opinion/sunday/ross-douthat-checking-charlie-hebdos-privilege.html?rref=collection%2Fcolumn%2Fross-douthat

[msongs]

1. religionists are the most privliged class on the planet. they commit wholesale murder and the victim

gets blamed

[Yorktown]

2. Yup. Charlie Hebdo, Geller, Jylland Posten, they all got blamed

in the name of the defense of minorities

That's what makes the article so right.

[trotsky]

3. Devastating turnaround of Trudeau's critique, right back at him.

Very interesting.

[Yorktown]

4. Breaking News, just in

Two individuals with links to radical islamism have been spotted taking reconnaissance photos of the home of Riss, the new editor in chief of Charlie Hebdo, in replacement of Charb, one of the January victims (the two persons have been taken to a police precinct for questioning).

I hope Trudeau will find words to condemn the fascist control of people taking street photos.

[rug]

16. Which other rightwingers do you suggest we read?

And which others do you think have devastating critiques?

[Yorktown]

26. Does an argument validity depend on who says it?

[rug]

35. Apparently.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

The author of this hit piece is a former speech writer for Guiliani (911) and is a right wing pundit. He also wrote such gems as: http://theweek.com/articles/445001/how-social-conservatives-became-minority-need-protection

and

http://theweek.com/articles/551922/how-gay-marriage-supporters-distort-meaning-hate

The first article discusses how social conservatives need protection and the other is a piece that takes marriage equality supporters to task for daring to use the word hate. From THAT article: but on the use of the concept of "hate" to browbeat and bully our moral, cultural, and political opponents into submission.

DU does not allow Right Wing sources to be used on this site, even to bash atheists. If the OP would like to bash atheists, he should use a less RW hack to do so.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1218195530

[Yorktown]

39. Question about the alert you posted

DU does not allow Right Wing sources to be used on this site

Is this a fact?

[rug]

60. Not quite. It depends on how it's used.

[cbayer]

5. Ross Douthat? Really?

The same Ross Douthat that wrote "Grand New Party: How Republicans Can Win the Working Class and Save the American Dream"?

Ross Douthat who is loved by David Brooks?

Did you read this? Did you get to the anti-abortion screed and the attacks on progressives?

I'm speechless.

[trotsky]

6. But cbayer, you have no problem with the anti-abortion and anti-gay rhetoric of the pope.

In fact, you praise him regularly. Why the double standard?

[AtheistCrusader]

7. But that's totally different.

This guy is a columnist with who knows how many thousands of readers.

The pope is only the titular head of an organization with about ~1.3bn members.

Totally different.

[trotsky]

8. And also...

BECAUSE RELIGION!

[MellowDem]

9. I don't agree with...

The screed on abortions. I do think he makes a point on how some progressives view privilege on way too simple minded of a fashion, leading to absurd opinions like Trudeaus.

The religious and religion have tremendous privilege in this world, and part of what led to these attacks was the direct challenge to this privilege Hebdo offered.

To the progressives that just see it as punching down on poor Muslims, they must be either blinded by their own privilege or incredibly ignorant of the world outside their own culture, or both.

[cbayer]

10. This guy is a hypocrite when it comes to religious privilege.

He tries to the make the case the christianity is the most persecuted religions in the world. Don't for a minute think he is challenging all religious privilege. He is only challenging that for groups that he isn't a member of.

He's making the case that although some do have privilege they need only take a plane ride to lose it, and this is in the cause of justifying bigotry against some people while upholding his own status.

And then this:

you’ll see today’s progressivism as a force that has consistently liberated adults at the expense of children’s basic rights and that depends on a great deal of hidden violence — millions upon millions of abortions, above all — to sustain its particular vision of equality.

His goal in the end is to attack progressives who believe that there are prescribed hierarchies of power and victimhood in this world. He goal in the end is to promote his own incredibly high place on the privilege ladder.

[MellowDem]

13. I agree the guy is a hypocrite...

on the whole. Broken clocks and all that.

[cbayer]

14. Agree about broken clocks. The danger is in thinking they

are telling you the correct time, lol.

[Yorktown]

28. Was Charlie Hebdo persecuted? Did its attackers enjoy the privilege of violence?

You are deliberately trying to avoid facing the very good question Douthat is raising.

But I understand: it's soo comfortable to wallow in the certitude that Islam = minority = no privilege = must be defended. And that people wary of Islam = haters = Geller lovers.

[cbayer]

31. May your time here be brief.

[Yorktown]

32. You are the gold standard of tolerance

You accept absolutely all forms of expression of your own opinion.

And disagree with minimal fact checking. I apologize for having proven you dead wrong.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1218199407

I understand you found it unpleasant. And absolute proof of a hateful agenda.

[edhopper]

41. I was just asked to serve on a Jury for this post

I recused myself because I am too involved with the posters.
I didn't feel I could be objective.

[pintobean]

42. I laughed and voted to leave it

The alerter claimed it was hateful.
It went 0-7.

[edhopper]

43. Yeah

normally my bar is set higher to hide.

I thought it was unresponsive and catty, but not more than we usually get here.

[cbayer]

47. Apparently the jury saw fit to leave it.

Recusing yourself sounds like a good idea. It also tells you that I trust you enough not to have you on my jury blacklist.

[edhopper]

55. What is a just blacklist?

You blacklist people from your alerts or jury's about your posts?

I serve on juries often, but I almost never alert. (mostly I alert on RW trolls with under 10 posts)

[cbayer]

58. I have a blacklist of people who are not permitted to serve on juries

when my posts are alerted. As you may have noted, I have a fan club who love to judge me pretty relentlessly.

Their judgements are impotent unless they actually get called to a jury on one of my posts. I do not believe they would act in good faith at all, so have blacklisted them from ever being on a jury for me.

I also do not often alert, despite cbayer meme #58 which states that I am an alert stalker. I am not able to see most of the responses to me that are likely to be personal attacks anyway and have the A/A group hidden.

The site is so much better this way. Almost like it is populated with grownups!

[edhopper]

61. Thanks

I didn't know about the jury blacklist

[cbayer]

64. It's unlikely you would need it, but it's available to you if you wanted it.

[trotsky]

63. You mean like grownups who brag about laughing at other people's religions?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=136850

[Yorktown]

50. In case anyone asks, I did not 'alert' over any of cbayer's posts

Even if she does tend to use rather strong language against poor little me.

[edhopper]

56. Well I, for one

hope you stick around York.

[Yorktown]

59. Thanks.

[Act_of_Reparation]

11. I guess he's not "lovable", like Ben Carson is.

[cbayer]

12. Oh, please. If you can't distinguish between a person in a movie

and a real person, I really can't help you.

But nice personal attack. I understand that when one has no substance, that's all there is.

Make sure you recommend this thread while you are here.

[Act_of_Reparation]

18. 2 serving 0

If you can't distinguish between a person in a movie and a real person, I really can't help you.

So, when you said you wouldn't turn down the services of one of the "world's best pediatric neurosurgeons simply because" of his religious beliefs, you were talking about Cuba Gooding, Jr.

I wasn't aware he was board-certified.

But, of course, I'm not criticizing you for your ability to compartmentalize. Most of us can do that reasonably well. I'm criticizing you for your olympian hypocrisy.

But you probably already knew that.

But nice personal attack. I understand that when one has no substance, that's all there is.

So I am to assume you had no substance when you replied to the OP, then?

Make sure you recommend this thread while you are here.

As I am not in the habit of gushing over right-wing assholes, I think I might leave that dubious honor to someone else.

[cbayer]

20. Surely, you are better than this.

Do you really think I love Ben Carson the politician? Really? What about him do you think I love? Is your overall view of me so distorted that you can convince yourself that is true?

What do you think of the author of this article? Some people in this thread are gushing over this right wing asshole (and not a character from a movie), so perhaps you were right to leave that dubious honor to some of your pals.

[Act_of_Reparation]

29. 3 serving 0

Do you really think I love Ben Carson the politician? Really?

No, I don't. That is not at all what I'm saying, as I indicated rather clearly in my previous post.

What do you think of the author of this article?

I think he's a fucking asshole.

But his being an asshole doesn't necessarily make him wrong in every conceivable circumstance, and neither does his conservatism. Nor does agreeing with a conservative asshole in one particular instance make one a conservative asshole one's self, or a fan of conservative assholes, or constitute "gushing" over conservative assholes. Of the millions of conservative assholes littering the face of planet Earth, simple statistics suggests you might agree with a few of them on one or two occasions, no matter how liberal you may be.

I think that if you were possessed of a single shred of intellectual honesty you would taken this into consideration, that if you had even the slightest sense of humility you would have taken a long look at all the articles you've posted and, in this one case, given the poster the benefit of the doubt. You might have granted that Douthat, hardly a household name beyond the cabal of dedicated NYT readers, may have been unknown to the OP. You might have pondered the possibility that they did not agree with every letter Douthat put to paper, that--perhaps--among the cheap swipes there may lie some salient points worthy of discussion.

But you didn't. You dismissed the article based solely upon its authorship and then unironically chastised the OP for posting such things on a progressive forum despite your own history of doing the same thing.

You'll have to pardon me if I find that fall-on-your-ass-and-laugh-out-loud funny.

[cbayer]

30. I am finished with you. Please feel free to let me know if you want to

engage with me in an honest and civil manner.

In the meantime, collect your greenstamps.

[trotsky]

40. Well fucking done. n/t

[Heddi]

57. That was so hot. I'm in love with you

I'd totally have your babies. They can gestate in a box or whatever.

You're my new hero.

[trotsky]

62. Don't forget to give him some green stamps.

[rug]

15. Right wing! Right Wing!

I am shocked.

[cbayer]

17. As long as it's not a right chicken wing, lol!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/20/ben-carson-vegetarian_n_7343542.html

[rug]

19. Hitler was a vegetarian too!

[cbayer]

21. And adorable!! What a coincidence.

Was Hitler concerned about an electromagnetic pulse attack? Ben Carson is.

http://www.westernjournalism.com/ben-carson-reveals-little-known-threat-that-could-cripple-america-2/

[rug]

22. Hitler was all for EMP weapons.

He never met a weapon he didn't like.

During the early 1940s Axis engineers developed a sonic cannon that could cause fatal vibrations in its target body. A methane gas combustion chamber leading to two parabolic dishes pulse-detonated at roughly 44 Hz. This infrasound, magnified by the dish reflectors, caused vertigo and nausea at 200–400 metres (220–440 yd) by vibrating the middle ear bones and shaking the cochlear fluid within the inner ear. At distances of 50–200 metres (160–660 ft), the sound waves could act on organ tissues and fluids by repeatedly compressing and releasing compressive resistant organs such as the kidneys, spleen, and liver. (It had little detectable effect on malleable organs such as the heart, stomach and intestines.) Lung tissue was affected at only the closest ranges as atmospheric air is highly compressible and only the blood rich alveoli resist compression. In practice, the weapon system was highly vulnerable to enemy fire. Rifle, bazooka and mortar rounds easily deformed the parabolic reflectors, rendering the wave amplification ineffective.[38]

In the later phases of World War II, Nazi Germany increasingly put its hopes on research into technologically revolutionary secret weapons, the Wunderwaffen.

Among the directed-energy weapons the Nazis investigated were X-ray beam weapons developed under Heinz Schmellenmeier, Richard Gans and Fritz Houtermans. They built an electron accelerator called Rheotron (invented by Max Steenbeck at Siemens-Schuckert in the 1930s, these were later called Betatrons by the Americans) to generate hard X-ray synchrotron beams for the Reichsluftfahrtministerium (RLM). The intent was to pre-ionize ignition in Aircraft engines and hence serve as anti-aircraft DEW and bring planes down into the reach of the FLAK. The Rheotron was captured by the Americans in Burggrub on April 14, 1945.

Another approach was Ernst Schiebolds 'Röntgenkanone' developed from 1943 in Großostheim near Aschaffenburg. The Company Richert Seifert & Co from Hamburg delivered parts.[39]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directed-energy_weapon#German_World_War_II_experimental_weapons

[cbayer]

23. Oh, yeah, well did Hitler lose a couple of teeth during a campaign breakfast

and still gave a speech??

Because Ben Carson did.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/ben-carson-lost-a-tooth-during-campaign-stop-still-spoke/

(See what happens when you stop eating meat).

[rug]

24. Hitler had terrible teeth.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1234784/He-stand-pain-Nazi-records-Hitler-hated-going-dentist.html

No wonder he rarely smiled.

[cbayer]

25. OMG, I think Hitler and Ben Carson might be the same person!

No wonder people are so upset for me for liking the Ben Carson character in a movie.

I should be stoned……


you have anything? I lost my connex in the states.

[rug]

36. I'll ask around.

There's a few coming up for parole.

Which reminds me. Hitler was a drug addict!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2014/10/14/high-hitler-nazi-leader-was-a-crystal-meth-addict-says-new-documentary/

[Yorktown]

27. Chomsky recently said the NYT is the world's best newspaper

I suppose it means progressives can appreciate well written opinion pieces from people coming from different horizons.

Douthat is a regular NYT contributor.

[okasha]

33. It's the Aubusson of bird-cage liners.

[Yorktown]

34. Which means?

[trotsky]

44. That she shares an opinion with Ann Coulter. n/t

[Yorktown]

45. Does it mean okasha leans RW?

Just asking, of course.

[trotsky]

46. It means there is a disgusting RWer that she agrees with on at least one particular item.

So the criticisms you've been getting in this thread are just a tad hypocritical.

[Yorktown]

48. Hypocritical criticisms? Here? In the 'Religion' forum?

I can't believe you.

But then again, I'm a skeptic.

[trotsky]

49. LOL

Now you're getting it!

[Yorktown]

51. Well, i'll tell you the only thing I think I learnt so far here:

There are people here who are so in love with the idea that all religions are nice and peaceful that they will maul you to death if you disagree.

A paradoxical lesson, but an interesting one nevertheless.

[Fix The Stupid]

53. ...

"There are people here who are so in love with the idea that all religions are nice and peaceful that they will maul you to death if you disagree. "


Why, it's almost as if their very livelihood is dependent on "religion"...

Think about it...

[Act_of_Reparation]

54. Hypocritical?

[Jim__]

38. Trudeau's speech is far more thought provoking than anything in Douthat's attempted rebuttal.

As to use of the word privilege. Trudeau used the word once in his speech, and he uses it with reference to himself:

I’m aware that I make these observations from a special position, one of safety. In America, no one goes into cartooning for the adrenaline. As Jon Stewart said in the aftermath of the killings, comedy in a free society shouldn’t take courage.

Writing satire is a privilege I’ve never taken lightly. And I’m still trying to get it right. Doonesbury remains a work in progress, an imperfect chronicle of human imperfection. It is work, though, that only exists because of the remarkable license that commentators enjoy in this country. That license has been stretched beyond recognition in the digital age. It’s not easy figuring out where the red line is for satire anymore. But it’s always worth asking this question: Is anyone, anyone at all, laughing? If not, maybe you crossed it.

He uses it twice, if you include the use of non-privileged:

Traditionally, satire has comforted the afflicted while afflicting the comfortable. Satire punches up, against authority of all kinds, the little guy against the powerful. Great French satirists like Molière and Daumier always punched up, holding up the self-satisfied and hypocritical to ridicule. Ridiculing the non-privileged is almost never funny—it’s just mean.

I take the part of Trudeau's speech that is about Charlie Hebdo to be concerned with the responsibility that goes along with free speech. That's not an endorsement of government suppression of speech, but rather a question as to how individuals should weigh responsibility against possibility. In Douthat's criticism of Trudeau's speech, he failed to address Trudeau's point that 100 Muslims had been arrested for expressing support for the attacks. Does Douthat support those arrests because the Muslims, in exercising their free speech rights, were ignoring their responsibility? ...(A)lmost every official hierarchy of victimhood tends toward some kind of blindness or partiality.

[trotsky]

52. Yet "privileged" and "non-privileged" only make sense in context.

If a Muslim extremist is pointing a gun at a cartoonist, who is "privileged" in that exact scenario?

Is not "privilege" associated with "power"? As in, who has more social/economic/physical power than someone else?