Discussion
  • Read More
    sizor_sisterMax Read
    1/07/15 10:59am

    I know a lot of people are jumping on the "free speech!" bandwagon, but this really has to be into context. It's not really so much about free speech and "blasphemy." The discourse in Europe towards Muslims/Arabs/immigrants/etc. (they're all the same for many Europeans) has taken a very uncomfortable turn for the worst and we're seeing a strong backlash against Islam and immigration in many places in Europe. Islam/Muslims/non-withes/immigration are represented are being a "problem." This is in spite of the fact that Muslims/non-whites/immigrants will face intense discrimination and lack of opportunity from the broader (white) society. So you have millions of Muslims/Arabs/Turks/immigrants/etc. seeing that the political discourse has turned to them "being a problem" when they know that a huge part of it is that they really aren't being allowed to integrate by the broader society.

    Those cartoons aren't simple drawings of Muhammad. There is a distinct political message behind them, and they border on being outright racist (the Jyllands-Posten cartoons of Muhammad are). It really doesn't matter that the magazine is an "equal opportunity" offender, Catholics aren't a disenfranchised minority in Europe. The cartoons just added flames to an already very volatile fire. They are being willfully and purposefully offensive to an already marginalized and disenfranchised group of people in Europe.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      bogart_83sizor_sister
      1/07/15 11:05am

      All that is true. Nobody deserved to die for it.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      ThePriceisWrongsizor_sister
      1/07/15 11:05am

      Please don't respond to White Guilt guy. He's probably the guy who would move to Germany and expect everyone he interacted with to speak to him in English, then preach about non-assimilation.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    schoolforantsMax Read
    1/07/15 10:42am

    Look some of these were certainly not in good taste or even that funny (I did chuckle at the Polanski one). Preaching to the choir, but I think we can all agree that we shouldn't kill people because they make off color jokes.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      America's Wangschoolforants
      1/07/15 10:49am

      That's one hell of a limb to go out on.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      benjaminalloverschoolforants
      1/07/15 10:49am

      How people respond to mockery is a pretty clear line between secularism and extremism.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    SqarrMax Read
    1/07/15 10:48am

    God, the French sense of humour is tedious.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      burlivesleftnutSqarr
      1/07/15 11:07am

      Seriously. Muslim radicals should consider that these people think Jerry Lewis is in anyway funny, do a facepalm, and spend the day doing something more constructive.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      Lingua Puraburlivesleftnut
      1/07/15 11:31am

      I mean, if you're going to go open fire in an office for cartoons like this, I think your definition of "productive" is already shot.

      Get it? Shot? Ahhh, you get it.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    allezviensMax Read
    1/07/15 10:44am

    On est tous Charlie.

    Je pense à vous, Paris, et je vous pries d'accepter mes sincères condoléances.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      MizJenkinsallezviens
      1/07/15 12:04pm

      I'm not Charlie. I don't go around pointedly mocking other people's cultures and beliefs to get my jollies.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      Max ContrarianMizJenkins
      1/07/15 12:44pm

      You would be fucking horrified if Christians did this. Or white supremacists did this. These fuckers had no better justification for shooting up Charlie Hebdo than the fuckers who shot Harvey Milk and MLK. Charlie's cause is less clear cut. Their style more tasteless. But all these people had the courage to stand up against backwards fundamentalists who had the capacity to be dangerous. Have some fucking perspective.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    MissNormaDesmondMax Read
    1/07/15 12:47pm

    It's not always the case that if one side of a conflict is clearly wrong, the other must be wholly right, much less righteous. You can perfectly well decry any violent response to political satire, while thinking the satire in question is asinine.

    I don't really know what I think about Charlie Hebdo as a magazine; I don't have a good impression of it, but I'm not sufficiently familiar with it to have a strong opinion about it as a magazine. I don't need to here, though, because I do have a really strong opinion about murdering people because they publish something someone doesn't like, and I have that opinion pretty much regardless of what's been published (I can't imagine an exception off the top of my head). So it's not necessary to pretend that this was the greatest magazine ever in order to be thoroughly sickened by what's happened, and it's equally not necessary to pretend that any criticism of the magazine constitutes blaming it for what's happened. No one is responsible for the murders at Charlie Hebdo except the people who committed murder at Charlie Hebdo. That doesn't automatically make Charlie Hebdo beyond reproach, it just makes it not responsible for the murders, because murder is an insane response to having a problem with what a magazine publishes.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      Set Fire to the Room--do it now (fiends NOT friends)MissNormaDesmond
      1/07/15 4:58pm

      So glad to see this rational, compassionate statement. Thanks, Miss Norma. Knocked it out of the park.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      MissNormaDesmondSet Fire to the Room--do it now (fiends NOT friends)
      1/07/15 7:17pm

      Very kind of you to say, thank you.

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    IAmNotADamnWriterMax Read
    1/07/15 10:55am

    Looking at this, it's no surprise Muslim terror fanatics would be pissed off, and not just for one thing or another. But still, a military-style attack (by military-trained gunmen) that kills 12 at the magazine's offices is even more excessive than Charlie Hebdo ever was. When does the Vatican retaliate?

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      meeting people is easyIAmNotADamnWriter
      1/07/15 10:58am

      Usually when I don't like magazine/newspaper I choose not to read it. That's just me, though.

      Reply
      <
    • Read More
      Tondog814IAmNotADamnWriter
      1/07/15 11:28am

      I'm down to start another crusade

      Reply
      <
  • Read More
    schoolforantsMax Read
    1/07/15 10:45am

    I may be giving the terrorists too much credit here, but if their secret plan is to actually turn all peaceful muslims in the world into radicals, this would be a good way to do it. Incidents like these fuel a vicious cycle in diverse powder keg countries like France:

    Moderates become more nervous about muslims in general. Others support crazy nationalist/fascist/anti-islam parties. Those reps eventually create laws that start to infringe on the rights on peaceful, devout muslims. Then more of them become radicals, a self-fulfilling cycle of hate and violence.

    Reply
    <
    • Read More
      Andrew MochulskyMax Read
      1/07/15 11:54am

      I'm having a lot of trouble accepting "cartoons like these also instruct the rabidly anti-Muslim elements in French and European society" when many of the people making this argument dismiss the "criticism of Israel also instructs the rabidly anti-Semitic elements in global society" argument. Both are technically true, but ultimately unsatisfactory.

      But let it be said that from both a comedic and social commentary standpoint, those cartoons are pretty much high school shock value garbage.

      Reply
      <
      • Read More
        belgiumAndrew Mochulsky
        1/07/15 8:43pm

        Criticisms of Israel may play to anti-Semitic elements just as criticisms of Muslim countries may (and do, see Bill Maher) play to anti-Muslim elements, but the Mohammed cartoons were more like hook-nosed-jews-running-the-world cartoons, which would be roundly criticised for promoting anti-semitism, than critiques of Israeli policies.

        Reply
        <
      • Read More
        Andrew Mochulskybelgium
        1/07/15 9:38pm

        I'll disagree insofar as depictions of Mohammed are heretical, but not a slur against the religion itself or its practitioners writ large: a more accurate comparison would be, say, a hypothetical cartoon mocking some element of Jewish belief or practice that is inconsistent with the actions of Israel as a state.

        Reply
        <
    • Read More
      CleverUsernameMax Read
      1/07/15 10:59am

      Geez. Did violentacrez get a new job in Paris?

      Reply
      <
      • Read More
        burlivesleftnutCleverUsername
        1/07/15 11:06am

        I forgot about that motherfucker!

        Reply
        <
      • Read More
        actualneedforburnerCleverUsername
        1/07/15 11:47am

        No barely-legal upskirt shots, so probably not his bag.

        Reply
        <
    • Read More
      allezviensMax Read
      1/07/15 10:51am

      To clarify, "des cons" means "dicks" in the sense of, "stop being such a dick." This isn't a sexual term in French.

      Reply
      <
      • Read More
        imacallezviens
        1/07/15 11:04am

        yes- I'd say it translates better as "It's hard to be loved by idiots."

        Reply
        <
      • Read More
        allezviensimac
        1/07/15 11:33am

        I myself was going to say "morons." :)

        Reply
        <