They both contain satire.
If Jonathan Swift was alive today, he wouldn't be losing sleep over the competition.
3) Okay. But, without the judgment, what do those two things have in common?
Both have come under attack from people whom they have satirized.
4) Could you repeat that, please, in a normal type size so that the whole class can hear it?
Both have come under attack from people whom they have satirized. Supporters of North Korean dictator Kim Jong-Un threatened to blow up theatres that screened the film The Interview because of its unflattering depiction of him. Two men with ties to Al Qaeda walked into the office of the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo and shot 12 people to death and injured at least 10 others because of its unflattering depiction of Mohammed.
5) About the attack on Charlie Hebdo: are you ready to take the clash of civilizations seriously yet?
No. Two lunatic gunmen don't represent 1.8 billion Muslims. If that were the case, I would have to allow that Father Charles Henry Sylvestre or Father Donald Roemer represented the Catholic Church, or Larry David or Seth Rogen represented Judaism. I wouldn't wish that on the worst religion in the world.
6) But, you have to admit that they hate our freedoms, right?
Actually, they mostly hate each other. Sunnis tell yo momma jokes about Shiites. Shiites write graffiti about pork on the walls of Sunni owned restaurants. People in the west get sucked into this because they make the mistake of laughing at one or the other. Or, propping up Middle Eastern oil despots and/or starting wars in the region, but that's almost as bad.
7) But, this was definitely an attack on freedom of speech, right?
If so, it wasn't a very effective one. Attacking such a small publication to kill free speech is like pricking somebody's big toe with a pin in order to kill them. I would be much more concerned about western leaders signing into law rules that give them access to private communications and the ability to jail anybody who "supports terrorism" by say, writing critically about their war on it. In this case, the pen truly is mightier than the sword.
8) Can you not see that we're at war?
The deadly attack wasn't on a government or, heaven forbid, an actual military facility: it was on a satirical magazine. Think about that for a moment. The two gunmen attacked a publication that regularly criticizes the very system that they claim to hate. They obviously need lessons in winning friends and influencing people. Or, basic logic.
9) Can we at least agree that Bill O'Reilly made a good point when -
No. Actually. I can stop you right there: "Bill O'Reilly" and "made a good point" don't make sense in the same sentence. Bill O'Reilly can't even make a good point sharpening a pencil!
But, uhh, I don't mean to single him out. The first 24 hours after the Charlie Hebdo attack was not punditry's finest hour. Depending upon who you listened to, the gunmen were: opponents of the Keystone-XL pipeline; fanatic Muslims who wanted to destroy western democracy; Larry Flynt; Larry Hagman; Larry the Cable Guy; people who don't take Jihadis seriously enough; people who take Jihadis too seriously; supporters of multiculturalism; fanatic Muslims who wanted to trick western democracies into destroying themselves, or; a baby's arm holding an apple. It's amazing what the human mind can conceive of when it isn't burdened by facts.
10) Why do tyrants hate satirists?
Simple. They hate being laughed at.
11) I don't like being laughed at either. What's the difference?
You aren't a sociopathic murderer with psychopathic followers who will kill other people, even at the cost of their own lives, if you order them to. Unless you are, in which case I say that with all due respect.
12) Are you happy with the level of support that cartoonists around the world have given Charlie Hebdo?
Honestly, if I see one more cartoon weaponizing pencils, I'll personally start a boycott of the lead industry! On an emotional level, I appreciate the expression of solidarity. However, on a practical level, does anybody really believe that Al Qaeda leadership is holed up in a cave somewhere going, "Look at all those cartoons about pencils overcoming guns. We're outnumbered! We may as well surrender now - it's all over but the awarding of the Reuben!"?
13) Are you happy with the level of support that the public has given Charlie Hebdo?
Are you kidding? Half of the people who use the #IamCharlie tag on Twitter think they're supporting Charlie Sheen. A month from now, people who wear the "I am Charlie" t-shirt will be asked if they're promoting a remake of Flowers for Algernon, and the main character's name isn't even spelled that way!
14) We need to support satirists in the face of violent Jihadi intimidation. That attitude is a little cynical, don't you think?
On the contrary. I have complete faith...in people's ability to be distracted by the outrage of the moment.
15) I understand what you're saying, but -
Hey! Did you hear what Tina Fey said about Angelina Jolie at the Golden Globes?
I rest my case.
17) Oh, phooey on that! Why aren't you more vociferous in your condemnation of the brutal murders of a dozen people just because they were involved in publishing a cartoon?
Isn't it self-evident that that is a vile act?
18) Would it kill you to say it more often? Maybe lead with it and make it the focus of your writing?
Like everybody else? Sorry, but I'm not into pack punditry: it's easy to make fun of official enemies of the state, and it costs a satirist nothing. I prefer to write about what we are doing in response to what our enemies do.
19) I'm sorry, but I find that unacceptable. Haven't we already established that I don't like being laughed at?
Thank you for your support of this satirist.
Exactly.