I think that if free speech means anything, he has every right to say that, and if you’re the free speech advocate you claim to be, you’d believe that too.
The group that supports both Charlie Hebdo’s right to say what they said, and Garry Trudeau’s right to say what he said.
Which group are you in?
…just an aside, are you the A’isha from the former JREF forums? Because if you are, then welcome to the dope, its awesome to have you here. 
And if you aren’t, then welcome to the dope, its still awesome to have you here!
Well, it certainly makes the Islamophobe-shriekers look stupid that these atrocities are occurring on a daily basis. They attempt to deflect by name-calling and we’re supposed to be the jackasses.
Yes, I am. And thank you!
Who’s that, precisely?
How so, precisely?
Who, precisely?
How’s that work, precisely?
Who’s “we,” precisely?
Nope. You’re not supposed to be.
So, opposed to the multiple people in this thread supporting “hate speech” laws (i.e. those who do not support Charlie Hebdo’s rights). Good.
Of course, no one disputes Garry Trudeau’s right to say what he said. But I will ask you to disagree with it – both the discredited left-wing meme that CH was racist, and the call for “hate speech” regulation.
You fool no one except your comarade hater bigot.
Of course it is clear that any supposed concern is only about your hatreds and the extreme ideology shared.
Charlie Hebdo, a very hard Left magazine was and is under the French law which has nothing do with your laws - and already has the bans on speech you pretend to be against (the most fundamental passed by the French governments on the right and not the left). It is a mirage of lies and distortions used to justify your own sad myopic agendas.
The only reason it is your cause celebre is the excuse it gives for your pretensions your bigotry and hatred of others is supported.
As a secular living here I am 1 000 000 times more in danger from the takfiri, but I am not mistaken by your false concerns, you are the people who send people to the death in the end as well. Mirrors images.
What makes you look stupid except to your fellow haters is the idea that running around looking for every negative thing you can connect to a Muslim (and allying yourself with posters who use the barely disguised hate speech of the hinduvata supramacists) says that you are anything but what you are labeled.
To all others it is clear. But it is also clear in the other areas you post, that you have now the nickname shriekbean.
The hate speech laws that exist in France, but not in the US?
Can you quote, specifically, where Garry Trudeau called Charlie Hebdo racist or called for hate speech regulation?
Is there some reason you are repeating the fact that the incident in which Muslims killed people for satirizing Muslim leaders in France happened in France, rather than answering the question about whether “hate speech” laws should exist, in France or anywhere else?
Tolerance advocates “punch up” at more Islamophobes: Thailand Attacks: Police Suspect Muslim Separatists Of Killing 6 In Far South
Discredited by whom, exactly ?
Because the latter-day CH wasn’t *racist *per se… but it **was **hella islamophobic. In words and 'toons both. Indisputably.
I must have said this before, but : while CH was a rather hard-left publication in most respects and as such everything about it was reviled by the far-right ; the selfsame far-right websites (and sometimes even newspapers) would nevertheless regularly copy/paste CH’s (relatively) recent anti-Islam cartoons. Because in that specific respect, they were eminently compatible. Kind of like Stalin and Hitler would find a workable compromise on the specific subject of Poland, ya dig ?
CH’s position was clearly very empathetic to ordinary Muslims. They were making fun of extremist leaders and ideas in the French anti-clerical tradition. The only people who don’t understand this are those who didn’t learn the most basic facts about French culture before making judgments about cartoons whose captions they couldn’t even read. There was a huge incentive to do this among the English-speaking left, because “those racists deserved it anyway” was an extremely tempting way to resolve the cognitive dissonance caused by a clear example of peaceful speech being responded to by overwhelming Islamist violence in a Western country – the thing you are constantly claiming doesn’t happen.
Falling over yourself to announce that “French Nazis willfully misinterpreted the cartoons in the same way I did” doesn’t do any favors for your intellectual bona fides.
No, I don’t. There’s no compromise involved in someone taking and using someone else’s cartoons.
Fucko, I’m French. And I’ve been reading Charlie since the mid 80s. So, yanno. Why don’t you piss off, eh ?
I stand by what I said. Charlie’s been a few things over the decades. In the late years, it had become (in large but not exclusive part) a shitty, basely xenophobic rag.
You do realize that one can hold both opinions, that is “their speech was complete shit” and “their speech didn’t warrant getting shot”, all together, right ? There’s no contradiction there.
I’ll go again :
I assert that late year Charlie was complete, thoroughly islamophobic (and tentatively, debatably racist) shit with no redeeming value whatsoever on that specific topic. It was not “peaceful speech” by any stretch of the imagination.
I assert that Charlie’s shitty cartoons didn’t warrant AK bullets.
I get to do both, see ? I just did ! \o/
Fuck your mother in the ass too, while we’re at it ?
[QUOTE=Pedro]
No, I don’t. There’s no compromise involved in someone taking and using someone else’s cartoons.
[/QUOTE]
You’re missing my point. The idea was that two political systems, otherwise opposed in everything from stem to leaf, would nevertheless coincidentally reach the same conclusions regarding a peripheral topic, both coming from completely different; antithetical; incompatible lines of reasoning. For one side it was a straight and narrow path to that conclusion ; for the other it took a lot of work.
This is not an indication that Charlie compromised itself. It’s an indication that Charlie fucked its line of thought somewhere along the way. And to be honest, I’m not even convinced it was sincere of “Charlie” - I’m reasonably convinced Charb was a punctual islamophobic cunt who did a lot to foster that editorial line in the paper, I’m not so convinced the majority of the folks who went in that direction (again, both in articles and drawings) were as militant. Many old collaborators seem to have just gone with the flow.
Which is reprehensible too, but, yanno, maybe not as much ? I liked some of these guys, once upon a time…
Then we should be repeating the fact middle aged white Americans murder muslim families in cold blood.
it is a fact of the same quality.
and they torture innocent people to death in secret prisons.
Another fact of the same qulity.
Of course it was two extremists, not “muslims” who killed people and a muslim police officer died in the line of his duty killed by these two extremists.
That France has had laws that you americans call hate speech on its law code for many decades, and even back to the 3rd republic, it is of no matter, it is empty politics, ideological posturing by somehow who si bound up in his local games of hatred and ideology.
It is rich, you tell a French what the CH position was. I am sure Kobal needs to hear this from someone who has learned about the CH and its politics from the American extreme right blogs and the Fox news that was telling us about the mythical no go zones.
But what do we expect from the bigot who posts random news to draw together his narrative, in the same fashion of the old antisemites of the europe.
Maybe we should start psoting about the Budhdhist violence in the Myanmar against the religious minorities or thehinduvata extremist violence and you can feel more martyered and you can talk then about christian genociding.
Err, that would be mid-90s, not mid-80s. I did not read Charlie in the crib. I wish I had, but you can’t choose your parents, amirite ? 
Metaphysically, yes. While their bodies are still cooling, no. “They were racists” in response to them getting murdered is the same thing as “she was wearing a short skirt” in response to a rape – its truth in a vacuum is irrelevant to the social context in which it is uttered which makes it pure apologism.
Yes, that was a terrible thing when it happened once. If it happened multiple times every day like Islamists murdering people does, it might compare.
:rolleyes:
Indeed – a traitor to your vision of Islam, I’m sure.
Is there an English version of this post, or at least a French one?
I will tell a leftist, Islamist violence-apologizing, anti-freedom agent of darkness whatever I feel he needs to be educated about.
I actually am complaining about the backwardness of Hinduism and Buddhism in another thread right now. The Hindu extremist movement is called “Hindutva” not “Hinduvata,” by the way.
Don’t worry, he can soon tell us with the citations to the Fox News about how the Muslim Paris City is so dangerous there are the no go areas.
And from the Fox news commentariat, he can tell you about how it is the Islamicphile Left that made the Loi du 29 juillet 1881 punish racist diffamations. Or how it was the Muslims how pushed the Loi Gayssot…
We can learn a lot from the Americans who read the right wing blogs and watch the Fox news.
For a bunch of people who claim not to be American, you sure do seem to know a lot more about what an American cable station airs than I do.