The Big Picture: Je Suis Charlie

[teamcharlie]

Murder: was illegal, still is illegal.
Free speech: all good, not threatened.
Drawing Muhammad (Naked? Really?) and publishing it: not a joke. Not satire. Not funny. Definitely racist.
Terrorists who murder employees at a racist newspaper: assholes. Definitely people who deserve to be put in jail/prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

Seriously though, siding with free speech is great. But even when hate speech is legally protected, it's still a stupid idea.

[Also, no. I'm not team Charlie Hedbo. I just think Twilight is hilarious.]

 

[MrFalconfly]

Drawing Muhammad (Naked? Really?) and publishing it: not a joke. Not satire. Not funny. Definitely racist.

One question mate.

How is taking the piss on religion in any way "racist"?

EDIT:

And if you think it is, would this picture also be racist then?

Spoiler: Warning! May cause certain mentally unstable people to grab for Kalashnikov rifles and try to execute you

 

[vallorn]

The name Muhammed is very common among Muslims, Jesus is not common among Christians (save for Spanish speaking countries/communities).

And yet if you name a teddy bear Muhammad, you're arrested and possibly whipped. Also, a mob of 10,000 people will demand your blood.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudanese_teddy_bear_blasphemy_case

But no, this is a culture we should totally respect.

The way I see it. People demanding my respect generally don't deserve it. Respect must be earned, it is not a given right for someone to respect someone else or their actions. Merely to tolerate them if they are not illegal. It's why as a gay guy I don't go to gay pride stuff. I'm happy with just letting people know on a need to know basis and I'm not gonna yell it out to the rooftops... Well maybe if my boyfriend proposed but I'm pretty sure that's understandable.

Anyway. Yes back on topic, respect has to be earned and it can be lost, it cannot be demanded for that is the cry of insecurity or egomania rather than respectable, civil conduct.

EDIT:

Murder: was illegal, still is illegal.
Free speech: all good, not threatened.
Drawing Muhammad (Naked? Really?) and publishing it: not a joke. Not satire. Not funny. Definitely racist.
Terrorists who murder employees at a racist newspaper: assholes. Definitely people who deserve to be put in jail/prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

Seriously though, siding with free speech is great. But even when hate speech is legally protected, it's still a stupid idea.

[Also, no. I'm not team Charlie Hedbo. I just think Twilight is hilarious.]

I don't think you understand what racism is. Islam is a religion not a race. What you are trying to justify is not anti racism but a set of blasphemy laws like europe had long ago where one could be put to death for satirizing Christ or the Pope (Or, at a stretch, Royalty through the whole Divine Right Of Kings bollocks.)

All religion can be mocked and mocking it in that way? Well, you could write letters or not buy it if you find it so offensive. But being offended by something is not a reason to demand it's removal. Criticize it yes by all means, but nothing should be off limits in speech either in the saying of or the criticizing of what is said.

 

[teamcharlie]

Drawing Muhammad (Naked? Really?) and publishing it: not a joke. Not satire. Not funny. Definitely racist.

One question mate.

How is taking the piss on religion in any way "racist"?

EDIT:

And if you think it is, would this picture also be racist then?

(Sa-nip)

Yep. Much in the same way that doing something unkind to a picture of the pope and then publishing the results would be offensive to Catholics, except with the added bonus (sarcasm!) that the common conception of Muslim people is (generally dark-skinned) Arab, and that thereby publishing an image designed to offend Muslim people is also by implication an attempt to offend brown people (whether or not most Muslim people are actually of relatively darker skin tone).

So no, depicting Muhammad is not taking the piss on religion in this case. It's saying something designed to shock and offend historically oppressed people and pretending that that's a joke.

 

[V4Viewtiful]

most of the time you can only gain power if someone loses it.
What that has to do with race? Well, well you could look at the way American slavery ended.

A bunch of white guys who wanted slavery to end fought a bunch of other white guys.

true but they had the same rights as those slave owners and had prospects to become so, in order to give black people freedom they had to take THAT power away from themselves and those that used it. That's all I meant.

 

[Farther than stars]

You can safely assume that anything I haven't responded to, I accept.

Saying that you're willing to be stabbed simply isn't enough of a moral justification for stabbing other people.

Gonna have to stop you there mate.

How, in any way, is stabbing comparable with drawing a cartoon? I mean, I've heard of slippery slopes, but don't you think this is a bit much?

Well just to be absolutely certain. I don't think that's a valid argument, simply because stabbing actually hurts you, while a cartoon don't have any pathological effect save for maybe causing a bit of anger.

That was an exaggeration, to illustrate my analysis, because it applies the same to the act of insulting people. Just because anger and sorrow aren't physical wounds doesn't mean that it's fine to recklessly make statements that harm other people on an emotional level. I think calling it "a bit of anger" is just belittling to the offended party.

But I do like your argument of using ridicule to stop people becoming haughty. And I think to that end it could be useful against atheism as well. As a matter of fact, I don't think that your stance is as logical and truthful as you claim. That in itself is a zealous statement (in the same vein as calling something the "one true faith"), because it assumes that rejecting a belief due to lack of evidence is the correct stance by default.

Is it not? I'd assume that "suspending judgement until further data presents itself" would be fairly logical.

But that's my point. That's just an assumption. All I'm asking is for an explanation as to why that assumption is more valid than the assumption that God exists.

That becomes problematic when you realize that evidence itself is based on axioms (basic beliefs), namely the axioms that evidence can be gathered and is correct. If those axioms are valid in your logic, then what makes the axiom of God invalid?

Oh bugger. I suddenly remember why I found Philosophy class so tedious. Sorry mate, nothing against you. I just find these kinds of "logical arguments" a bit annoying.

But in this case, the reason I reject "God" is simply because I see him/her as an unneeded variable in the "equation of the universe" (very simplified, it's like saying (A*B)+C=(D/E)+C. It's clear that C is just an unneeded variable in that equation, given that the value C can be litterally anything, without affecting the rest of the equation)

Just because something is unnecessary doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

You are asking me to prove a negative. Something that is impossible in science. Indeed that is counter to the very mechanism of science. Science works by testing falsifiable hypothesis, and if there isn't even a mechanism by which something can be falsified the next-best thing I can do is falsify all the periphral bullshit in the holy texts.

Here's the important part: linguistically you are correct, but if we are going to tackle the question of whether or not God exists scientifically, then the concepts of existence and non-existence can be used interchangeably, the reason being that existence/nonexistence are conclusions from (non-)falsification of the hypothesis "God exists". But the problem is that if you take "God exists" as your hypothesis, then you cannot falsify it. This means that you cannot make any scientific statements about whether or not God exists, because it's not a falsifiable hypothesis (this is the same conclusion made by the philosopher who pioneered the falsification method, Karl Popper). For this, it is irrelevant whether you can technically test your hypothesis. The fact that string theory cannot be falsified due to our (current) state of technology means that we cannot know whether it exists or not, regardless of whether or not it objectively exists.
Given such a lack of technical ability to test your hypothesis, all you can do (scientifically) is table the hypothesis and let it be, but it is incredibly unscientific to prove a related hypothesis and then assume your original hypothesis to be true as well (as you are doing by disproving religious texts). For instance, a duck is an animal, like a dog. I want to prove the hypothesis "ducks lay eggs". It is then not sufficient for me to falsify the hypothesis "dogs lay eggs" and therefor assume that ducks don't lay eggs either.
The result is that awareness of God no longer becomes a question of scientific knowledge but belief, my original argument. It therefor becomes a personal matter of whether or not you believe in God, with neither side being able to disprove (falsify) the other side's belief. And because it's a matter of belief, two principles - (1) the right to religious freedom and (2) a respect for other religions/beliefs - become essential.

And basically, the reason I label myself an Atheist, rather than an Agnostic, is simply because I live under the assumption that everything in the universe can be understood to some extend. Agnosticism posits that some things simply can't be answered, and I'm simply not satisfied with that. I live for seeking answers to the unknown. And you telling me something CAN'T be known, is counter to the very reason why I think it's awesome to live.

This is also a belief, the same comforting feeling that religious people use to justify their own beliefs. That doesn't make it illegitimate, but it also doesn't make it superior to other beliefs.

 

[smowton]

*applauds

Precisely the nuance that needs drawing out here; great episode, Bob.

 

[cathou]

I see no reason for why one particular religion get's special rights that no other religion has (and to hell with punching up or down. The murderers had guns, so the cartoonists were definitely "Punching Up" on that one).

The problem with xenophobia in France is that it doesn't discriminate very well between various Muslims/Arabs/Persians/North Africans. The criticism against the cartoons isn't that they're punching up at extremists, but that they're painting in such large brushstrokes that innocent people are ridiculed and marginalized as a result, strengthening the xenophobia. And it's not just about foreigners and French Muslims. Gay people and the labour class also routinely feel marginalized by Charlie Hebdo.

wait, what ? charlie hebdo is many things. some people like what there were doing, some people dont. sometimes they trash so hard that they get sued. they go after establishement, religion, and human stupidity. You can like them or not. But, they are NOT racist, or homophobic in anyway. i dont recall any outcry from te french gay community against charlie hebdo. what they would ? charlie was defending them !

i've found the perfect site. just what people especially on the net need. i was preparing a very long post, but this explain it all


http://www.understandingcharliehebdo.com/

 

[Callate]

Well, being uncontroversial is in itself not enough to justify an action, if that action is inherently harmful. If we let society dictate what actions, beliefs and statements are just/correct based on what it finds controversial, then we (in the West) would still be living in a totalitarian society, rife with homophobia, accepting of slavery, where zealots burn people at the stake for believing the sun goes around the earth (to name just a few consequences of deficient criticism).
If the drawings created for Charlie Hebdo are harmful to social justice, then this shouldn't be emulated or encouraged, no matter how horrific the deaths of its artists.

But "harmful to social justice" is a very vague accusation on which to condemn an action, and one that can be viewed very differently by different parties. Does making fun of the prophet Mohammed encourage violence and discrimination against Muslims? Or does it encourage people to be find humor in groups the local news often suggests they should be find terrifying, humorless, and dangerous?

What about editorials about police violence? Rallying a long-persecuted group in solidarity towards reform of law enforcement? Or encouraging violence against hard-working public servants?

Until a strong consensus, preferably backed by hard evidence, can make a case that genuine harm has been done- as is the case in matters like totalitarianism and slavery- it is important that discussion continues, even if some of the tools of that discussion offend some parties. Like satirical cartoons.

 

[Farther than stars]

I see no reason for why one particular religion get's special rights that no other religion has (and to hell with punching up or down. The murderers had guns, so the cartoonists were definitely "Punching Up" on that one).

The problem with xenophobia in France is that it doesn't discriminate very well between various Muslims/Arabs/Persians/North Africans. The criticism against the cartoons isn't that they're punching up at extremists, but that they're painting in such large brushstrokes that innocent people are ridiculed and marginalized as a result, strengthening the xenophobia. And it's not just about foreigners and French Muslims. Gay people and the labour class also routinely feel marginalized by Charlie Hebdo.

wait, what ? charlie hebdo is many things. some people like what there were doing, some people dont. sometimes they trash so hard that they get sued. they go after establishement, religion, and human stupidity. You can like them or not. But, they are NOT racist, or homophobic in anyway. i dont recall any outcry from te french gay community against charlie hebdo. what they would ? charlie was defending them !

i've found the perfect site. just what people especially on the net need. i was preparing a very long post, but this explain it all


http://www.understandingcharliehebdo.com/

I suppose the general problem here is what happened during the third wave of feminism: some people within the movement are going to disagree with other people within the movement about the movement's goals and methods. Is Miley Cyrus's twerking debasement for the satisfaction of male viewers or is it a public demonstration of (female) sexual liberty? And I have to admit, the magazine has both supporters and critics from inside the gay community.
Personally, however, I feel its brand of satire is too opaque to be defending gay rights. To dig deeper for further messages that might support gay rights is possible, but those are often so far fetched as to be lost on most readers. It boils down to the argument surrounding GTA V that it's not simply enough to copy offensive stereotypes to be a satirist (hey! I briefly made it about gaming again). The depictions of Dieudonné and Jesus Christ with the Roman Soldier are a couple of perfect examples, in which the act of anal penetration is shown in a negative light. The whole depiction of a gay act being used as a punishment is perverse and juvenile, generating the subliminal suggestion that homosexuality is something to be feared. It's not even a necessary image, because it doesn't contribute to the political point being made. And very often when the magazine does defend gay rights, it's only used as a tool to take a stab at religious institutions.
Am I suggesting that any of this homophobia and racism is deliberate and malicious? No. But I do think Charlie Hebdo could be more considerate in their handling with such sensitive issues.

Well, being uncontroversial is in itself not enough to justify an action, if that action is inherently harmful. If we let society dictate what actions, beliefs and statements are just/correct based on what it finds controversial, then we (in the West) would still be living in a totalitarian society, rife with homophobia, accepting of slavery, where zealots burn people at the stake for believing the sun goes around the earth (to name just a few consequences of deficient criticism).
If the drawings created for Charlie Hebdo are harmful to social justice, then this shouldn't be emulated or encouraged, no matter how horrific the deaths of its artists.

But "harmful to social justice" is a very vague accusation on which to condemn an action, and one that can be viewed very differently by different parties. Does making fun of the prophet Mohammed encourage violence and discrimination against Muslims? Or does it encourage people to be find humor in groups the local news often suggests they should be find terrifying, humorless, and dangerous?

What about editorials about police violence? Rallying a long-persecuted group in solidarity towards reform of law enforcement? Or encouraging violence against hard-working public servants?

Until a strong consensus, preferably backed by hard evidence, can make a case that genuine harm has been done- as is the case in matters like totalitarianism and slavery- it is important that discussion continues, even if some of the tools of that discussion offend some parties. Like satirical cartoons.

I agree that "harmful to social justice" is a vague criterion and that's why I'm not arguing for a ban of Charlie Hebdo. But just because I grant someone the right to free speech that doesn't mean that they need to exercise their free speech or that it's ethical for them to do so. And I don't need to be backed by a strong consensus and/or hard evidence to be able to voice criticism about their methods of satire, because when it comes to highly subjective issues like social justice, hard evidence is difficult to obtain and therefor an unfair barrier of entry to the discussion. Do you, for instance, have any hard evidence that Charlie Hebdo has made a beneficial contribution to society? Should voters only be allowed to vote if they can justify their opinions with hard evidence?

 

[kevingarcia]

Je Suis Charlie

Super-serious episode time.

Watch Video

Is there a way to get a transcript of this episode? I really want to use it as a teaching tool in my high school class (having them identify rhetorical devices and such).

 

[MCerberus]

The most common one is that I'm free to tell you to shut the hell up.
I'm also free to tell you to go away.

The people that are countering the "we shouldn't lionize Charlie" crowd generally (subjective, personal exposure) confuse disagreement with oppression. It also shows up a lot with the recent gaming diversity arguments ("leave my games alone this argument is suppressing expression").

Doesn't that work both ways, though? You're lambasting gamers who are objecting to demands that games change to accommodate everyone, but shouldn't they too be able to tell them to shut up and go away?

Well the reason GG has been a joke for a long while is that they're trying to claim it's about ethics after a massive amount of bullying and intimidation trying to silence people going back to the "Five Guys Saga". Hell they even pulled a double-false flag, which was just plain stupid.

 

[Tinybear]

Damn this was a dumb video. I'm sorry, but Charlie Hebdo has been about one thing, and one thing only: To provoke. Their previous incarnation GOT BANNED because they picked at Charles de Gaulle after his death. Their motivation has been to refuse to let anyone set any code for what is allowed under free speech. Moviebob just trampled all over this. Charlie Hebdo was the kinda tone-deaf guy who gets up and sings a stupidly hard song on Karaoke, being so bad it's funny, so that the others dare to try as well. Criticizing the content of Charlie Hebdo is just missing the point so hard you probably landed on another planet.

And the whole "satire should punch up" argument, WRONG. Satire is making a point by exaggerating it (or an aspect of it) to a point where it gets ridiculous. Satire has no inherent alignment or goal.

I guess this was the last straw. I'm done with this website.

 

[Joseph Hutzulak]

Drawing Muhammad (Naked? Really?) and publishing it: not a joke. Not satire. Not funny. Definitely racist.

One question mate.

How is taking the piss on religion in any way "racist"?

EDIT:

And if you think it is, would this picture also be racist then?

(Sa-nip)

Yep. Much in the same way that doing something unkind to a picture of the pope and then publishing the results would be offensive to Catholics, except with the added bonus (sarcasm!) that the common conception of Muslim people is (generally dark-skinned) Arab, and that thereby publishing an image designed to offend Muslim people is also by implication an attempt to offend brown people (whether or not most Muslim people are actually of relatively darker skin tone).

So no, depicting Muhammad is not taking the piss on religion in this case. It's saying something designed to shock and offend historically oppressed people and pretending that that's a joke.

Need to read up on your history if you think Muslims were historically opressed.

 

[MrFalconfly]

Yep. Much in the same way that doing something unkind to a picture of the pope and then publishing the results would be offensive to Catholics

Which we've already established is fine and dandy. No religion is sacred from ridicule.

except with the added bonus (sarcasm!) that the common conception of Muslim people is (generally dark-skinned) Arab, and that thereby publishing an image designed to offend Muslim people is also by implication an attempt to offend brown people (whether or not most Muslim people are actually of relatively darker skin tone).

Look at the picture one more time. The only two things that seem "muslim" on the guy in the cartoon is the traditional desert hat (some might call it a turban), and a bushy beard. Taking the piss on the "must not make depictions" rule is not in any way racist.

So no, depicting Muhammad is not taking the piss on religion in this case. It's saying something designed to shock and offend historically oppressed people and pretending that that's a joke.

Mate, we're talking about people getting pissed that I might draw a stick-fig and call him "The prophet Muhammad". A fucking stick-fig. Sorry, but I don't think those kind of people are worthy of anything else than ridicule.

You can safely assume that anything I haven't responded to, I accept.

Saying that you're willing to be stabbed simply isn't enough of a moral justification for stabbing other people.

Gonna have to stop you there mate.

How, in any way, is stabbing comparable with drawing a cartoon? I mean, I've heard of slippery slopes, but don't you think this is a bit much?

Well just to be absolutely certain. I don't think that's a valid argument, simply because stabbing actually hurts you, while a cartoon don't have any pathological effect save for maybe causing a bit of anger.

That was an exaggeration, to illustrate my analysis, because it applies the same to the act of insulting people. Just because anger and sorrow aren't physical wounds doesn't mean that it's fine to recklessly make statements that harm other people on an emotional level. I think calling it "a bit of anger" is just belittling to the offended party.

Fair enough. I can only say that I disagree, and that I don't think those cases are equatable.

But I do like your argument of using ridicule to stop people becoming haughty. And I think to that end it could be useful against atheism as well. As a matter of fact, I don't think that your stance is as logical and truthful as you claim. That in itself is a zealous statement (in the same vein as calling something the "one true faith"), because it assumes that rejecting a belief due to lack of evidence is the correct stance by default.

Is it not? I'd assume that "suspending judgement until further data presents itself" would be fairly logical.

But that's my point. That's just an assumption. All I'm asking is for an explanation as to why that assumption is more valid than the assumption that God exists.

Well in that case I cannot give you one. I don't have the philosophical training to go through it. It is only my personal belief that maintaining scepticism until data is provided is a good approach

That becomes problematic when you realize that evidence itself is based on axioms (basic beliefs), namely the axioms that evidence can be gathered and is correct. If those axioms are valid in your logic, then what makes the axiom of God invalid?

Oh bugger. I suddenly remember why I found Philosophy class so tedious. Sorry mate, nothing against you. I just find these kinds of "logical arguments" a bit annoying.

But in this case, the reason I reject "God" is simply because I see him/her as an unneeded variable in the "equation of the universe" (very simplified, it's like saying (A*B)+C=(D/E)+C. It's clear that C is just an unneeded variable in that equation, given that the value C can be litterally anything, without affecting the rest of the equation)

Just because something is unnecessary doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

Maybe, but it does mean that I don't have to account for it. If it has no effect on my life, or anybody elses life, or indeed the workings of the universe, I might as well save myself some trouble and erase an unneeded variable from the "equation"

You are asking me to prove a negative. Something that is impossible in science. Indeed that is counter to the very mechanism of science. Science works by testing falsifiable hypothesis, and if there isn't even a mechanism by which something can be falsified the next-best thing I can do is falsify all the periphral bullshit in the holy texts.

Here's the important part: linguistically you are correct, but if we are going to tackle the question of whether or not God exists scientifically, then the concepts of existence and non-existence can be used interchangeably, the reason being that existence/nonexistence are conclusions from (non-)falsification of the hypothesis "God exists". But the problem is that if you take "God exists" as your hypothesis, then you cannot falsify it. This means that you cannot make any scientific statements about whether or not God exists, because it's not a falsifiable hypothesis (this is the same conclusion made by the philosopher who pioneered the falsification method, Karl Popper). For this, it is irrelevant whether you can technically test your hypothesis. The fact that string theory cannot be falsified due to our (current) state of technology means that we cannot know whether it exists or not, regardless of whether or not it objectively exists.
Given such a lack of technical ability to test your hypothesis, all you can do (scientifically) is table the hypothesis and let it be, but it is incredibly unscientific to prove a related hypothesis and then assume your original hypothesis to be true as well (as you are doing by disproving religious texts). For instance, a duck is an animal, like a dog. I want to prove the hypothesis "ducks lay eggs". It is then not sufficient for me to falsify the hypothesis "dogs lay eggs" and therefor assume that ducks don't lay eggs either.
The result is that awareness of God no longer becomes a question of scientific knowledge but belief, my original argument. It therefor becomes a personal matter of whether or not you believe in God, with neither side being able to disprove (falsify) the other side's belief. And because it's a matter of belief, two principles - (1) the right to religious freedom and (2) a respect for other religions/beliefs - become essential.

Fair enough. Again I can only say that I disagree, but such is life.

Regarding your two principles.

I don't believe that I should respect religious beliefs. Sure I'll respect the person based on his/her merits, and I wont haunt him about any religious ideas (that's none of my business, unless he/she might try to "convert me"). But I don't think a religion has earned my respect, simply for being a large social club. But that's simply my take on it.

And basically, the reason I label myself an Atheist, rather than an Agnostic, is simply because I live under the assumption that everything in the universe can be understood to some extend. Agnosticism posits that some things simply can't be answered, and I'm simply not satisfied with that. I live for seeking answers to the unknown. And you telling me something CAN'T be known, is counter to the very reason why I think it's awesome to live.

This is also a belief, the same comforting feeling that religious people use to justify their own beliefs. That doesn't make it illegitimate, but it also doesn't make it superior to other beliefs.

Yes I agree, it is a belief that there's an answer, or at least a somewhat understandable explanation for anything. But it is a belief that's independent from me being atheist. I'd still hold this particular belief even if I should one day become Christian, or Muslim.

 

[greatcheezer2021]

i think if you're going to punch the hornets nest that you've allowed to take root in your own home, you better be ready for a response.



obviously people on both sides of the party did not think it thru before executing a few decisions.

usually this culminates into "what were you thinking" and such as "they got what was coming".

 

[AgedGrunt]

i think if you're going to punch the hornets nest that you've allowed to take root in your own home, you better be ready for a response.



obviously people on both sides of the party did not think it thru before executing a few decisions.

usually this culminates into "what were you thinking" and such as "they got what was coming".

"She was asking for it" is apparently a valid defense of Islam, and by extension its regard for free speech and women.

Also ITT: people bending their morals/principles in ways they never would for any other religion, and side-stepping hypocrisy charges by labeling it hate speech and racism. Hilarity would ensue if people got their way and established precedent of protecting religion as Christian and Jewish lawsuits would come like a flood.

Everyone should be careful what they wish for about free speech rules.

 

[Nixou]

Oh that's right, because if a small number is like that, all of them are like that. Every child is destined to become a suicide bomber and every adult is simply biding their time.
Rules of engagement 101, sunshine: if your enemy is using human Shields, you stop shooting at that enemy.

Unless said human shields are your actual targets.
Role 101 of colonial powers: the civilian population is the enemy.

***

Israel has THE most effective missile defense system on the planet.

Actually their missile defense system sucks [http://www.voanews.com/content/is-israels-iron-dome-all-its-cracked-up-to-be/1958793.html]: it's just another taxpayers-money-sucking con invented by yet another parasitic military-industrial welfare queen.
Luckily for israeli civilians, their country hasn't been at war against a real modern army since... well, it's never been at war against a modern military: they fought ragtag armies equipped with hand-me-down outdated equipment then against local uprisings, so they never had to see their neighborhoods being grinded into powder by an actual heavy bombardment.
Unfortunately for everyone living in the region, this situation has led many israeli voters to delude themselves into believing that their government's bullying policies are efficient, which translates in more support for violent repression of the country's plebeian arabic majority in the short term and make Israel's downfall and the forced exile of its middle-and-working class jewish citizens a near certainty in the long term.

***

How, in any way, is stabbing comparable with drawing a cartoon? I mean, I've heard of slippery slopes, but don't you think this is a bit much?

A comparison could be drawn if said cartoon was drawn to adorn eliminationist rhetoric. Since Charlie Hebdo's employees never expressed anything but contempt toward the apostles of eliminationism, such a comparison is, at in most cases, not pertinent.

***

Islam is a religion not a race

I'm getting increasingly annoyed by this cowardly cop-out: when most immigrants in France where Poles and Italians, catholic french bitched about the immigrants' catholicism: most french Muslims are working-class immigrants: the same cause is producing the same effect: they are the most visible sub-group of plebeian, and are seen as unwanted competition by the local Whites, a sentiment which is then used by demagogues whose goal is to make sure that the white-skinned and brown-skinned plebs remain divided an don't threaten the owner class' livelihood.

Eventually, social mobility and intermarriage will lead to a point where a sizable chunk of the muslim communities in France, Germany, Britain, etc... are white skinned bourgeois indistinguishable from their christian, jewish and atheist middle-upper-class peers, and I'm willing to bet one eye and two balls that when this happens, 95% of the anti-islam rhetoric will vanish, while the self-proclaimed defenders of freethinking go after another group of poor newcomers.

***

A bunch of white guys who wanted slavery to end fought a bunch of other white guys.

And of course, the 200.000 black men who served under the Union flag, as well as the countless black spies and saboteurs who undermined the confederacy do not count at all.

 

[DerangedHobo]

It's always comforting to know that when people get murdered because some fucking yokels with guns didn't like their comics that everyone's response is to draw the same offensive comics because that is truly the embodiment of free speech. "Hey guys, fuck the billion plus people who follow this religion, let's draw mocking imagery of it in the name of free speech! That'll really get the yahoos who killed 12 people!"


To quote everyone's favourite dictator "Decided instead to join the other monkeys and start throwing his shit around". Mob mentality is a fickle and scary thing.

Not that I'm against throwing my shit around but the willingness to fear and blame the fringe extremists as the threat to our freedom instead of our *democratically* elected officials is disconcerting.

 

[Korolev]

I think the deceased artists at Charlie Hebdo would agree with anyone's right to criticize them as harshly as they want. They never shot anyone.