Believe it or not, I don’t hang on your every post. I haven’t seen you make that categorical distinction in previous posts. If you have, then I’ve missed it. I’m glad that you agree that murder is worse than insult.
Then you haven’t been reading what I write.
I have no problem with mocking any and all religions. I have a problem with some of the ways its done. The punchy-downy-plausibly-deniably-covering-for-racism ways.
Your definition of “punchy-downy-plausibly-deniably-covering-for-racism” seems to be “makes fun of someone who isn’t white”.
What would be a MrDibble approved way to use humor to criticize religiously motivated homophobia in the muslim community, equivalent to the way that The First Temptation did? Or do you consider that movie beyond the pale as well?
…I wish everybody appealing to “free speech” in this thread would have something to say about the French ban on face coverings in public. You can’t defend one without recognizing that the other is an explicit attack on the freedom of expression.
Top quality “whataboutery” there.
I think there should be no restrictions on what someone is allowed to wear in public. There should be no religious exemption and no compulsion. Same rules for everyone.
That would cover veils and also offensive mohammed t-shirts of course.
I do wish however that people criticising bans on face coverings in public would have something to say about the pressures put on women by religious communities to dress in certain ways on pain of violence, shunning and worse.
This. If a woman wants to wear a veil or a bikini she should feel free. Both from government restrictions and from family pressure.
France shouldn’t ban face coverings in public.
Now that I’ve said that, is murdering people for drawing a picture bad?
…you’ve read the thread right?
Absolutely everybody agrees that murdering people for a drawing is bad. Without exception.
So that’s thread over then, isn’t it? What else is there to discuss?
The original in 2005 was the Jyllands-Posten newspaper in Denmark publishing 12 editorial cartoons most of which depicted Mohammed.
How about your condemnation of religiously mandated dress codes?
I’ll condemn that as well. People should be able to walk around wearing anything they wish or nothing at all. Being governed by puritanical dress codes based in antiquity is odd.
It certainly seems like there’s a lot of people in this thread who think it’s only bad if we say it’s about equally as bad as drawing the picture, it may or may not be bad depending on whether we can find a way to say the victims were racist, or it may be kind of bad but you’re not allowed to actually say it’s bad without being an Isblababobe. The constant need to defend the people doing the murdering and find reasons that the victims deserve it might indicate that there are some who just don’t think it’s unambiguously “bad” - but I’m falling into the trap of thinking that words have meaning and people do things for a reason here, so who knows.
Yeah…? 
“seems like”
Are those just weasel words to defend your poor perception, or would you care to actually cite an example?
…so that’s yes, absolutely everybody in this thread, without exception, agrees that murdering people for a drawing is bad.
This is a thing with you, isn’t it?
Most Jews are White, and their depiction in CH is also a crude racist caricature and also p-d-p-d-c-f-r.
Maybe my position is a little more nuanced than the stupid monochrome strawman you seem to think it is.
I don’t know, I’m not a humour writer. I just know it shouldn’t be crude racist caricatures.
A caricature necessarily accentuates and stylises the features and personalities and environment of those people it seeks to lampoon, often to the point of the grotesque (which can often be the point itself.)
In a single image it has to be clear who it is that the artist is targeting and to pack in the criticism and offence that is intended. It is not always possible to do so by employing subtlety all round and nor should we expect it.
Poor cartoons are ones in which the image or the point is indistinct and the intended effect is lost. If exaggeration or stereotypes are needed to do that, so be it.
I personally don’t trust your assessment of what is and is not racist or what crosses the border in terms of taste and offence. That’s not a personal attack, I don’t trust any individual to make that assessment.
Ironically, the authoritarian tone of your calls for bans are probably the most offensive thing about this whole thread, that’s the very real slippery slope. (but note that I don’t call for you to be muzzled, the offence you give is my problem to deal with). The proposed societal norms of a MrDibble world takes us in a very dark direction indeed.
Translation : racist cartoons are OK because proper nonracist caricature is hard.
… because I’m the only one ever to have called out CH’s cartoons for racism 
I’d tell you which broad group’s assessments of racism I don’t trust give a fuck for, but you can probably guess…
That’s funny, all I’m really asking for is for the supposed norms that already exist to be applied evenly.
That dark place? That’s where the Muslims of Europe already live.
No, I can’t guess. Do tell which population you treat as a whole rather than individuals.
No you aren’t. You are wanting special protection for one group over another. The norms are that no target is off limits.