Why I Am Charlie: on the value of free speech, and the impediments to empathy

The terror attack on Charlie Hebdo has a root cause in common with many other shitty events over the past year. Some people, in their attempt to understand the attack, decide that Charlie Hebdo was wrong to publish demeaning depictions of Mohammed, thereby assigning some blame to them. They further argue that not only was it wrong to make fun of Islam’s prophet, it is wrong in general for Charlie Hebdo to publish offensive content, pointing to other Hebdo covers and calling them racist. Firstly, those images dubbed “racist” certainly seem so on the surface and out of context. However, digging deeper and finding the elusive French satirical double meaning reveals that the image is not condoning racism, but lampooning it. It is the Colbert Report scenario, in which some people might actually take it seriously, but the intent is to show just how ridiculous the idea is through exaggeration and zeal. On the Mohammed images, the purpose is to highlight the disparity between France and Islam on the topic of free speech. In France, the right to free speech trumps rules of all religions, including the rules of Islam. To those who blame Charlie Hebdo for being offensive, I hope that you are swayed by what I have to say, as we embark on another journey to make the world a better place by searching for right and wrong in the context of current events.

The right to free speech must include the right to offend. We must be permitted to question authority, to question religion, to question our own governments, the establishment, our peers, friends, and enemies. When we stop questioning, we stagnate while those in power accumulate more of it. We need to be able to think and speak critically of our world, as a litmus test for how we’re doing as the only sentient species on the planet. The freedom of speech, inclusive of the right to offend, is not exempt from this questioning, but is upheld each time the question is asked. Is there more goodness in the Universe today than yesterday, because of human activity, or are we a pox on our world, an embarrassing excuse for an intelligent species who cannot even realize the value of life? Without a vector for relentless criticism of our world, its people, and their actions, we have no way to answer this question, let alone do something to change the world if we dislike the answer.

If we give in to censorship, to sensitivity of others’ religion (or other beliefs) at all costs, we are giving up one of the largest steps forward humanity has ever accomplished. We would be conceding that people cannot be trusted to react peacefully when others disagree with them, a requisite for successful Democracy. If you believe in Democracy, in the idea that the power of a nation should stem ultimately from its People, you are buying into the idea that people can and should be trusted with such a responsibility. If our government were based on the presumption that people cannot have an intelligent debate on a subject and agree to disagree, then we would be catering to the most offendable groups, walking on eggshells in hopes that we don’t upset them. This is not the way of an advanced intelligent civilization. This is a medieval and anti-democratic course of thought. The problem isn’t that people are too offensive, it’s that people are too offendable.  Radical Islam is to blame for the Charlie Hebdo attack, period. Nobody outside of a religion should be subjugated to its rules, and everyone within a religion should at least tolerate, coexist with, or agree to disagree with those outside.

I am Charlie, not only because I believe that Charlie Hebdo’s satirical criticism exposes certain truths about the world we currently live in, shedding light on issues that need to be addressed, but also because I believe that humanity can and should evolve to the point where we turn to conversation before violence, a value for which Charlie Hebdo has become a symbol.

This type of evolution, where we attempt to understand one another before we react to one another, is an evolution of a greater empathetic ability. This attack and other tragic events in recent history (ISIS, Ebola, Boko Haram, Mike Brown, and Eric Garner), and the conversations they have inspired, have revealed something to me that I very desperately wish weren’t true: human beings have not yet fully evolved this ability to empathize with one another. I believe nearly all humans are capable of sympathizing to a certain extent (as a reminder, sympathy is where you’ve actually had the same experience and gone through the same feelings), but the events and debates over the last year (and all throughout history, really) show little to no signs of empathy.

And that’s a crying shame. I’ve gone through many hypotheticals, aiming to discover how to make the world to be a better place. What needs to change in order to slow (and eventually stop) the unjust ruining and ending of lives? The bottom line, always, is that people must change. People must see the value of others’ lives. People must understand the circumstances of others’ lives. And people must strive first to understand others, before reacting to them. This goes for the villains and the victims both. If our response to the Mike Brown killing was to get revenge by killing Darren Wilson, very little would change, and the world would not get better. If our response was to applaud Wilson unquestioningly, very little would change, and the world would not get better. We need to try to understand both individuals, their backgrounds, and their reasoning for their actions, regardless of which side you support. Failing to appreciate the importance of understanding all sides of a story, even if one of those sides is your enemy’s, is a failure of a basic test of empathetic ability and by extension, a backpedaling of human progress. Without empathizing with one another, we cannot fully comprehend the value of each other’s lives, and we will be hindered in learning from the incident what needs to be changed to make the world a better place.

I may be setting the bar a little too high here, but I’ve got standards that must be met before I’ll call something empathy. First, the empathizer must not have had a similar experience (because that would be sympathy). Second, the empathizer must truly understand, to the best of their ability, the experience. And finally, the purpose of the empathy must be to directly assist the other person, or those with whom they could sympathize, and not one’s self or those with whom one could sympathize. Basically, you must have nothing to gain but understanding through empathy. With these guidelines in mind, let’s explore empathy in the context of this year’s terrible events.

ISIS: The Islamic State is a militarized radical faction of the second-largest religious group in the world. Their actions can be compared to countless cases throughout history when people killed in the name of their religion. It is abundantly clear that the ideals of ISIS are without empathy. The thing which prevents them from empathizing with their victims is blind belief. If we ask why ISIS kills, we can say that they kill because they believe their killings to be just. If we ask why they think so, we can say that they are convinced by higher powers (either superiors within ISIS, or their interpretation of the Koran).

Now let’s try to empathize with ISIS. This is psychologically difficult to do, and some would argue that even attempting would equate to capitulation. However, if we allow our detest for ISIS to prevent us from attempting to understand them, then are we really that different? I like to think that I’m better than that, so I’ll move on. I can only imagine the world in which ISIS members grew up. In a place like Iraq or Syria, the promise of eternal reward must have special appeal, and I do not fault them for their faith. As much as I hate the individuals in ISIS for their actions, I have to try to understand that their actions are a result not only of their own natural tendencies for violence, but also of the environment in which they live. I can understand that someone who grows up with next-to-nothing and little hope for success in life, could turn to religion for solace. I can understand the importance of being extremely convicted in that religion. And I can understand that when the chance to use violence is promoted by their interpretation of that religion, that one might be convinced that these violent actions were just. If this broad generalization counts as empathy, we can finally assign a value to ISIS with a fuller picture, and identify a narrower target for making the world suck less. ISIS is still awful and should not be allowed to continue its violent acts. Empathy does not preclude a warranted violent response, and I fully support the militaristic efforts to combat ISIS overseas. However, violence is not the only solution to the problem. The only reason such a group can exist is through the absence of empathy, and as such, instilling empathy into current and would-be ISIS members would also solve the problem, with the added benefit of such an issue never being able to come up again, as long as empathy holds.

Ebola and Boko Haram: The U.S. reaction to the Ebola outbreak is an example of sympathy reigning over empathy. Before there were any Ebola patients in the country, the general sense that I got was along the lines of “Africa is so far away” and “oh, that’s awful, but what can we do?” Fast forward a couple months, with people contracting Ebola in the States, and the shift was apparent: “I hope wearing these trash bags and duct tape on the plane saves my life” and “QUARANTINE EVERYONE FLYING IN FROM AFRICA!” What changed was the perceived likelihood that Ebola could actually affect ourselves or people we know. Why is it that we care so much about people we know, and so little about people we don’t know? It is because we do not assign a value to unknown people’s lives, which is due to our lack the empathy to do so. If we cared as much about the Africans in danger of contracting Ebola as we did for our own loved ones, you can bet the world would be a better place.

The same goes for Boko Haram, a scourge on the Earth which has been terrorizing Africa since 2002. Like ISIS, they are a radical militarized faction of Islam, and exist only due to the inability of its members to empathize with anyone outside their specific interpretation of the Koran. Like Ebola, this problem is concentrated in Africa, and the US populous seems not to care. Maybe they figure the world is a shitty place, and we’re lucky to live in a less-shitty part of it. I say let’s not leave it up to luck. Let’s take action to make the whole world less shitty.

Mike Brown and Eric Garner: Let’s first empathize with the deceased. Mike Brown grew up black in a poor part of the city, where (whether you’d like to admit it or not) his chances for success in life were lower than if he were born rich and white. Eric Garner was similarly disadvantaged due to his race. Their upbringings were affected at every turn by the racism inherent in the systems of our society, and also by the racism of certain people. With less opportunity and more strife than they deserved, I can understand that robbing that store (if he did) or pushing that clerk, or selling loosies might have seemed to them ways to forcibly and/or illegally take what is rightfully owed them. I can understand that if they entered their encounters with the police with the mindset that nothing good could come of it, that assaulting the officer (if he did), or resisting arrest might have seemed like a way to be able to walk away from the situation better off than if they did nothing. Do I think they should’ve robbed, pushed, and assaulted, or sold loosies and resisted arrest? No, but I do understand what might have motivated them to do so, and I don’t think we should allow systemic and unabated racism to continue to motivate prejudice’s victims to act unjustly. Racism is a form of non-empathy, which again seems to be a root cause of so much hurt in the world.

Now I’ll attempt to empathize with the police officers who shot and killed Mike Brown and used a disallowed chokehold on Eric Garner, leading to his death. I can understand that these cops grew up in the same world as those they slayed, only the reason in their eyes for someone to turn to crime might not be systemic racism, but a personal choice. I can understand that if they have been affected by racist thoughts (spoiler alert: they have), that the discretionary force they used during these encounters might have been augmented by their feelings. Do I think these cops should have used as much force as they did? From what I believe to have occurred during the incidents, absolutely not, but I do understand what might have motivated them to do so, and I don’t think that we should allow unabated racism to continue to block the empathic ability in police officers that might have prevented these deaths. We should also not allow systemic racism to protect them from the appropriate consequences of unjustly taking these lives.

I don’t mean that people should be let off the hook because they are products of their environment. I only mean that disregarding the influence of their environment is a form of non-empathy which prevents us from understanding the person, hinders us from identifying the underlying sources of the problem, and allows the problem to continue. If we don’t realize that being dealt a bad hand in life can contribute to one’s propensity to do wrong, we are turning a blind eye to one of the root problems in our society, and will never be able to fix it. It is through empathic attempts to understand why people do terrible things that we have the chance to change the situation, and prevent further atrocities.

In every situation, tragedy could have been avoided, and progress could have been promoted, if there were more empathy. Even now, as we discuss our opinions on these issues, the empathy deficit slows our progress towards understanding and ultimately fixing them. These events are terrible, and the loss of life and goodness attributed to each is unacceptable, but what is also unacceptable to me is the way that empathy is shunned in the face of these issues. Let’s suppose we move forward un-empathetically. We continue to frown upon radical Islam, and fight it militaristically, but even if we killed every member of ISIS and al-Qaeda, what’s to stop the next jihadist group from doubling their death count? We turn a blind eye to Ebola and Boko Haram, but if we don’t do something about these troubles in Africa, who will? We blame Mike Brown and Eric Garner for their own deaths, but what’s to stop police officers from using their power to further their own agenda, by killing those they despise?

We need empathy, now more than ever. Sympathy can only take us so far as to help the people with whom we can easily relate. With the task of making the entire world a better place, we have no other choice but to try and understand and reconcile the differences between starkly different people. It is the golden rule: to do unto others as we would have them do unto us. We cannot allow ourselves to put on the same blinders that ISIS and Boko Haram don to convince themselves that their cause is just. We must continue to criticize, and be able to be criticized, in order to allow humankind’s progress to continue. Censoring free speech is not the answer. Conditioning ourselves to react civilly to free speech is a start, but evolving true empathy for our fellow humans is the key. With the understanding we gain through that empathy, we will be able to identify the root causes of these shitty parts of life on this planet, and we will be able to make the world a better place, together.

And if you don’t agree with me, then you’re an unevolved, pathetic, scum-sucking, idiotic, greedy, evil part-of-the-problem asshole, and the best thing you could do to make the world a better place, would be to kill yourself (consider that your first test in free speech conditioning)