I’m not given to googling stuff on work devices without any context
On that we agree
No, they did it a lot.
Context is obviously that it’s a racist cartoon (well, actually words and pictures).
Wait, so you didn’t know what I was talking about when I mentioned Fips, either?
It’s curious how many people fully support these cartoons without ever seeing them.
(And what is being supported is far too often no different than the anti-semitic cartoons of the 1930s and American racist cartoons.)
The French are ruling an actively atheistic state that attempts to keep all religions out of public life. It attempts to force one cultural identity on all its people.
This is common in Old World nations. Germany for the Germans. These nations often have an official religion and even an official language. They work for uniformity. Mostly, New World nations have seen the folly in this.
Thanks for sharing that. Lots to think about.
The alleged racism of the cartoons is not the reason for the death threats. A perfectly neutral and non-racist depiction that ridicules Mohammed is enough to tip some people over the edge. Heck, Maajid Nawaz received death threats just for retweeting a stick figure of Mohammed that was inoffensive in the extreme.
No, never heard of that term before, I assume if you wanted to make a point you’d explain your references and the relevance but you don’t seem willing to do that.
Never said they were. I was commenting on ISiddiqui and LHoD’s’s comments, to start, and then it went on a whole Freeze peach sidetrack independent of that.
Whereas I was assuming someone capable of sticking their oar in to defend racist European cartoonists would know enough of the historical background to same, or at least was equally as capable of looking up names, so as to not need handholding…
Seriously, it’s as simple as highlight, right-click, “search Google for…”, man.
Yeah, you’re done.
I hope someone is wearing their tactical shorts.
Hey, ISWYDT.
I’ve seen the cartoons. I absolutely have zero problem with them or practically any other exercise of freedom of expression. It’s vastly more preferable to not allow the state or a violent mob dictate what can be said or printed.
I find it sad, but not surprising, that others are willing to capitulate to groups willing to employ the most violence.
I took your excellent advice to google “Charlie Hebdo” and one of the things I’m noticing is that while there is no question that the magazine has certainly published some pretty crass anti-Islamic cartoons, they appear to skewer all shibboleths with fairly equal opportunity. Seems no-one is safe from ridicule. Including French racists.
At this point, I’m not sure that the link to the polemic you provided is a fair representation of Charlie Hebdo’s anti-islamic rhetoric. Of course, not being a consumer, I don’t know how their satire is weighted.
Maybe it’s more a matter of tempering rights with responsibilities – the notion that … just because you can do something doesn’t automatically mean you should do it.
If you [absolutely deservedly] flip somebody off in traffic they might just kill you. You never know.
Sometimes, not doing it is the role you can play. I don’t think of that as an abridgment of freeze peach. I just think of it as learning to work and play well with others while we try to get the ‘others’ to simmer the fuck down 
Going over the cartoons with a magnifying glass to determine whether they are blasphemous enough to justify murder = justifying murder.
Nobody has justified murder over cartoons. It’s possible to criticize cartoons for being crass while at the same time acknowledging the context of the entire publication as being aimed at satire at the expense of everyone and everything. Justifiably so in many cases.
You’re arguing about what level of “support” the cartoonists should receive, based on whether the content of the cartoons is fully seen or not. The only way any of that matters is if you believe there is some level of blasphemous content at which the cartoonists’ right not to be murdered should no longer be “supported.” If you don’t believe there is EVER a justification to murder someone over the content of a cartoon then why would we need to parse out the exact contents of the cartoon?
This is the game the pro-murder side keeps playing - why can’t you just admit what you are arguing for?
Which part of, “Nobody is justifying murder over cartoons”, have I failed to make clear?
The part where it isn’t true.
Here’s another fun experiment :After Dylan Roof walks into a black church and kills nine people, every single attempt to discuss his motives, his pathology, how to prevent more attacks, etc. is met with people who insist that what we REALLY need to be talking about is how the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church is homophobic. If you dig into the sermons from their pastors you can see that they have said some very mean things about gay people, and we need to talk about this, over and over again, constantly. No, I refuse to just say that the have the right to be as homophobic as they wish without being massacred - I’m going to qualify EVERY attempt to unambiguously condemn the massacre with “they are homophobes” and divert EVERY discussion that touches on the massacre in any way into a debate over exactly how homophobic the AME is. As a bonus - I have NEVER mentioned the AME’s homophobia before, or seemed to be aware that such a thing as the AME existed, and I only became interested in it two days after the massacre.
Is there anyone on Earth who would accept that this is just something I feel in good faith needs to be addressed, as opposed to considering it apologism for the murders?