I'm going to keep this post short, sweet and on point!I’ve been thinking about this since the incident in Paris. So, here is my question.How is it that Charlie Hebdo’s collection of disparaging (to bring reproach or discredit upon; lower the estimation of) cartoons is not being condemned as an intentional campaign (an organized course of action to achieve a particular goal) created simply to achieve a goal , by employing bullying tactics, against their intended targets? I saw some of the cartoons on line. And of course today, I see news of people lining up by the thousands to by what is essentially a book of rehashed/repackaged nonsense. Worthless trash.The comments from some of the people buying this edition border are absurd, teetering on moronic!
BBC: Catherine Boniface, Paris: "This issue is symbolic, it represents their persistence, they didn't yield in the face of terror."
It represents their persistence in the face of terror? Certainly, I don't see it that way. The magazine sale represents a marketing campaign- virtually guaranteeing a barrage of purchases- A cash cow! So if Charlie Hebdo is persistent in wanting to finally make a profit, then yes, I get the persistence. But in the 'face of terror'? Sorry, that's just another talking point. If the media would have used the word crime, as opposed to terror, no one would have lined up to buy this magazineBullying vs Free Speech In the West we are very big on the bullying meme. It’s all about bullying. We have politicians talking bullying. (See Obama below) We have so called celebrities talking about bullying. We have bullying songs. Bullying rules. At schools. In the workplace. Obama talkin’about bullying
“All of us have an obligation to think about how we’re treating other people. What we may think is funny or cute may end up being powerfully hurtful,” President Obama said at MTV’s forum
Not so subtle signs of bullying
- Belittling. Persistently disparaging someone or their opinions, ideas, work, or personal circumstances in an undeserving manner
- Embarrassment. Embarrassing, degrading, or humiliating an employee publically in front of others
- Offensive communication. Communicating offensively by using profanity, demeaning jokes, untrue rumors or gossip, or harassment
- Campaigning. Launching an overt or underhanded campaign to “oust” a person out of their job or the organization-
Yes, campaigning fits Charlie Hebdo’s publications. As does offensive communication. Belittling. Embarrassing. Harassing. Disparaging. And the BULLY is always attention seeking?Charlie Hebdo has it all.Charlie Hebdo fits the bully mold.If Charlie Hebdo's cartoons were presented as bullying, instead of free speech, could they still be presented as heroic? Clearly, how any one incident is portrayed to the masses determines how the mindless masses will view the incident? The madness is truly in the presentation of what passes for reality!
