So you’re outright saying their cartoons are never racist? Just want to be clear.
Clearly.
Combo of ignorance of real racism and the privilege to remain in that state, if I had to hazard a guess.
Then I don’t know what your argument is.
I’m not saying racism is the only motivation for fear of Islam, there’s plenty of dead bodies to give the lie to that notion. Islamicists have caused real bloodshed and terror in Europe, no doubt.
But at the same time, I’m not going to ignore that a publication like CH is as motivated by racism as anything, racism it openly displays in the cartoons you yourself agree “cross the line”. Yet in this very thread, there are still people saying they “disagree that CH can be fairly characterized as a racist publication”. Yet it’s just me you’re arguing with, not them. Them, you’re joking with. So, clearly not that much of a line for you, is it, really?
So “strawman” me that…
Is it your argumeny that if you “cross the line” on racism that automatically makes you a “racist publication” for the rest of your days? Should you wear a big scarlet R on your shirt?
Dave Chappelle comedy skits or SNL skits are sometimes racist and cross a line too. Does that make them and everyone involved “racist people” and “racist publications”?
Or can magazine sometimes say things you disagree with, without you declaring war on it for ideas against humanity?
CH doesn’t want to enslave blacks, kill jews, or even send Muslims back to their countries. That their satire sometimes crosses a line is something we can handle with societal feedback, not by declaring them profane.
No. Just too be clear.
I’ve realized that you don’t have the foggiest idea of the position many of us have expressed about CH and the underlying discussion of the importance of free speech vs. those who would act to suppress it. I do not call you an Islamist, but you may well be a fundamentalist in your beliefs in a similar way to those who would argue that it’s more important to prohibit offense than to allow it.
The “norms” are that no target is off limits as it pertains to censorship or violent reaction.
That does not mean that there is nothing off limits as pertains to disgust and repudiation.
The point is that people should feel free to express themselves in whatever way they want, and should only fear social repercussions, not legal or physical.
That sounds about right. I find many things objectionable, and I may personally boycott them, or even ask other to do the same. OTOH, I still think that they have the right to exist.
I doubt that any of us would have ever heard of this publication if it were not for the terror attacks on it. It had less circulation than my local township newspaper.
That’s ridiculous. Of course they are sometimes racist. You can admit that without taking the MrDibble path and declaring that they must be purged for their sins.
This.
I wasn’t clear. By, “No”, I meant that I’m not saying that they are never racist. Sometimes they are.
Great, thank you for clearing that up 
No, only up until you apologize and stop doing it.
No, they’re not.
Oh, the lowballing of virulent racism as “things I disagree with”, that’s new…not.
You sure about that? A place that happily hosted a cartoonist that says : “I want all Jews to live in fear, unless they are pro-Palestinian. Let them die” until he got too troublesome.
It’s not “It’s OK to print racist cartoons” ?
You’re putting words in N_B’s mouth he never said. When people talk about “the norms” absent any clarification, it’s “societal norms” that are understood to be meant, and that’s what I’ve been arguing against.
So, these “people free to express themselves”, not Western Europeans then, then, because Europe does plenty of limiting of free speech.
Speech is not people, and speech does not have a “right to exist”. There is merely speech that society allows, and that that it prevents.
You think racist speech is like the first, like someone advocating for a flavour of ice cream. I think it is the latter, like yelling “Fire!” in a crowded theatre.
History has already proved my view correct. Many, many times.
No, I was aware of it before then, from the initial Muhammad cartoon controversy.
Allowing open racism to exist is sanctioning it. It’s like the proverbial table with 1 Nazi and ten others talking to them.
I’ve asked you this multiple times and I don’t believe I’ve seen a direct reply:
Are there some forms for bullying that are worse than others, and shouldn’t we denounce them in order of priority? What do you think the priority should be?
I’m pretty sure I answered the first part, but I’ll repeat myself - yes, some forms of bullying are worse than others.
However
is fallacious* bullshit. Why are we limited to denouncing them one by one, if we have the capacity to and the emotional capability to deal with them all (while acknowledging that both that capacity and that capability are not limitless, and more so for some)?
I can condemn Islamic terror (as I have) and condemn racism. And still have room left over for MRAs, and litterers, and people who kick kittens.
*Specifically, the fallacy of relative privation
Depends where you start.
If your assumption is that any caricature or representation of Mohammed or a muslim is inherently racist then you are forced to assume that the artist is also racist and so their defense of their work is already invalidated by the racism you’ve unilaterally imposed on them.
Which I don’t - something I already addressed when I mentioned Jyllands-Posten.
When I say the caricatures are racist, it’s because they are the bulgy-lipped curved-nosed brown-skinned turban-wearing epitome of racist stereotyping, like how the only Jews HC knows are ones with hats and sidelocks and hooked noses, and the only Africans are either gollywogs - or worse, monkeys.
I did not say one-by-one. I said prioritize. Criticism of murder for insult deserves a higher priority than insult of fundamentalism.
If tomorrow, CH was shut down permanently, would acts of Islamic terrorism also vanish? Or would they be emboldened?
Umm, those mean the same thing:
“determine the order for dealing with (a series of items or tasks) according to their relative importance”
If that’s not one-by-one, then what is it?
I think you have the effect of CH on Islamicists mistaken. I bet the ones in charge love CH - it’s free propaganda the other side pays for!
I’m not playing this game with you. You asked for a cite of racist publications and complained whe only one had pictures. Make of “prioritize” what you will.
The ones in charge are rarely the ones dying.
I’m sure it’ll be “Done with you” next.
Why do you hate my free speech so much?
Did I? You can quote me on that, then?
Yeah, that was all I said about those ridiculous irrelevant cites (that someone else posted, so I have no idea why it’s twisting your melon)
I make of it the meaning ascribed to it, which includes an idea of ordering that you are disavowing. If that’s the case, maybe pick a better word?.
I don’t even own a pair of tactical shorts.