|
Brannock posted:This is actually the sort of cartoon that Charlie Hebdo used to print all the time. If Fitzsimmons is acceptable, thus is Charlie Hebdo.
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 01:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 00:21 |
|
|
Cpt.Americant posted:So my only two options then are to never mention that he made offensive cartoons or side with the killers? In your view there is no middle ground at all? Am I siding with Bin Laden if I try to find a reason why those crazy guys might have wanted to do 9/11? Okay, cool, I'm gonna have to explain it to you one last time : - killing people : bad - making fun of religion : debatable, but come on, we're grown ups - not even waiting for the blood to be cleaned to start your dumb "yes it's bad but I think the real question here is if they didn't actually totally deserved it" : absolute dick move I don't think I can make it any simpler for you. Also just in case the massive blood clot that was preventing 95% of your brain from being properly irrigated just vanished, I'm going to raise the level a bit and, to continue your analogy, it would be like if you were on standing on the ruins of the WTC, the left foot securely resting on what's left of a firefighter's corpse and the right foot on a big pile of smouldering gravel and going "you know, I'm not saying they were right, but..."
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 01:34
|
|
|
Wales Grey posted:I don't think it's contradictory to hold the position that a person can express beliefs that are awful, or at the very least deliberately express something in a puerile and repugnant fashion, while also believing that they shouldn't be murdered for that expression. This position is also not incongruous with the thought that an unjust death does not render the victim or their works immune to criticism. Agreed! All this said though, if the content of their work doesn't justify their murder (which it doesn't) then is there any reason it should be brought up at all? The only reason I can really see is as an indictment.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 01:36
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 01:39
|
|
|
Brannock posted:This is actually the sort of cartoon that Charlie Hebdo used to print all the time. If Fitzsimmons is acceptable, thus is Charlie Hebdo. Yes, respect is worthless in this postmodern world where men and women stride unfettered by the bonds of society, class, or ethnicity, and every worker receives the just fruits of their toils. All are rational individuals who strive to maximize their own gains while refraining from using force upon others, and seek nought but their own satisfaction. e: Calico Heart posted:Agreed! All this said though, if the content of their work doesn't justify their murder (which it doesn't) then is there any reason it should be brought up at all? The only reason I can really see is as an indictment. If you're going to declare a person a martyr for your cause, it helps if they are a saint. (Yes, I know that sainthood is posthumous for most martyrs.) Wales Grey fucked around with this message at 01:41 on Jan 8, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 01:39
|
|
|
What you THINK they are saying https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QzVFugFcUto What they are ACTUALLY saying "He made offensive cartoons for a living and was targeted as a result. People shouldn't murder others for what they say. That's bad."
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 01:40
|
|
|
Bush caused 9/11. While I believe that the way it was initially brought up was extremely tactless, this is the political cartoon thread and commenting on how good/bad/racist/whatever the cartoons were is a valid subject. Talking about cartoons relation to the murders, however, is not. Even if we say that they were murdered because those people didn't like their cartoons, then what? There's literally no further discussion, unless you want to start talking about regulating free speech or victim blaming. There is no route that the conversation can possibly take that doesn't lead down those paths.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 01:40
|
|
|
Cpt.Americant posted:So my only two options then are to never mention that he made offensive cartoons or side with the killers? In your view there is no middle ground at all? Am I siding with Bin Laden if I try to find a reason why those crazy guys might have wanted to do 9/11? Or, crazy, you could show the barest minimum respect for the dead by keeping your dumb rear end 'well yea but if you think about it' fake concern as inside thoughts for like, I dunno, couple days after a bunch of people got loving murdered because they used their rights to free expression even in ways that you may personally think are tasteless? Like, is this really a crazy concept? Maybe the literal day it happened isn't actually a great time to say 'well you know they kinda sucked though'?
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 01:41
|
|
|
Calico Heart posted:Agreed! All this said though, if the content of their work doesn't justify their murder (which it doesn't) then is there any reason it should be brought up at all? The only reason I can really see is as an indictment. Or perhaps people want to discuss political cartoons in the political cartoons thread. In fact, can we go back to doing that instead of continuing this spiral of willful misunderstanding of each other?
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 01:42
|
|
|
WitchFetish posted:Okay, cool, I'm gonna have to explain it to you one last time : I'm also going to see if I can make this any simpler. I agree killing people bad. I agree, making fun of religion is fine. But where in any of my posts did I say he totally deserved death? Seriously. Where? I am not standing on anyones corpse, I'm on the internet. In a discussion thread. About political cartoons. And what I'm saying is that this political cartoon was targeted for his work. He should not have been. In any way. I honestly don't know how much clearer I can be about that. The analogy would be, on 9/11 I'm on the internet as we try to talk about why al Qaeda did this. Maybe if more Americans asked that question we wouldn't have gone into Iraq. You can contemplate someone's reasons without endorsing them gently caress! Do you honestly not understand that you can try to understand someone's resoning without agreeing with it? Is that really so hard? If I say John Wilkes Booth killed Lincoln in part for Lincoln's opposition to slavery and how he treated Maryland during the war, does that mean I agree with John Wilkes Booth?
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 01:42
|
|
|
JT Jag posted:What you THINK they are saying The thing is, why even bring up the lovely racism in this context unless you're going for a condemnation of the cartoonists?
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 01:42
|
|
|
Tatum Girlparts posted:Like, is this really a crazy concept? Maybe the literal day it happened isn't actually a great time to say 'well you know they kinda sucked though'? Unless you're Ted Rall.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 01:43
|
|
|
^^^Yea that's a better way to put it. You're being Ted Rall when you do this poo poo, and not even Ted Rall probably really wants to be Ted Rall. I agree rape is bad, no one is saying rape is good, but I'm also saying drinking a lot at a party isn't a good thing to do. Woah why's everyone getting mad at me I clearly said rape is bad first.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 01:44
|
|
|
If Latuff got murdered by a Israeli fascist or something like that would people be talking about how Latuff pissed off people with his cartoons and maybe if he didn't want to get murdered he should have been more respectful or, perhaps, even, not draw those cartoons in the first place?
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 01:44
|
|
|
Comparing racism to drinking is pretty gently caress up IMO.Brannock posted:If Latuff got murdered by a Israeli fascist or something like that would people be talking about how Latuff pissed off people with his cartoons and maybe if he didn't want to get murdered he should have been more respectful or, perhaps, even, not draw those cartoons in the first place? Wouldn't be shocked if that happened really.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 01:45
|
|
|
Brannock posted:If Latuff got murdered by a Israeli fascist or something like that would people be talking about how Latuff pissed off people with his cartoons and maybe if he didn't want to get murdered he should have been more respectful or, perhaps, even, not draw those cartoons in the first place? Absolutely, yes, if only to be a contrarian.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 01:45
|
|
|
Brannock posted:If Latuff got murdered by a Israeli fascist or something like that would people be talking about how Latuff pissed off people with his cartoons and maybe if he didn't want to get murdered he should have been more respectful or, perhaps, even, not draw those cartoons in the first place? Pretty sure that's Latuff's dream way of getting killed.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 01:45
|
|
|
Tatum Girlparts posted:Or, crazy, you could show the barest minimum respect for the dead by keeping your dumb rear end 'well yea but if you think about it' fake concern as inside thoughts for like, I dunno, couple days after a bunch of people got loving murdered because they used their rights to free expression even in ways that you may personally think are tasteless? So you're saying if a Palestinian killed Kirschen that there'd be an embargo over talking about his cartoons?
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 01:46
|
|
|
Gimnbo posted:The thing is, why even bring up the lovely racism in this context unless you're going for a condemnation of the cartoonists? Peoples' perceptions tend to view things as black and white in light of a crisis. It's a sort of "with us or against us" mentality that emerges when there appears to be some sort of threat, the largest modern example would be 9/11.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 01:46
|
|
|
Cpt.Americant posted:So you're saying if a Palestinian killed Kirschen that there'd be an embargo over talking about his cartoons? I don't think lovely racist cartoons are valid reasons to kill someone, no. I think it would be less hosed up maybe if someone did this to Dry Bones if that happened, but yea it'd still be a hosed up thing to do.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 01:48
|
|
|
Gimnbo posted:The thing is, why even bring up the lovely racism in this context unless you're going for a condemnation of the cartoonists? Why bring up racist political cartoons.. in a political cartoons thread?
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 01:48
|
|
|
Tatum Girlparts posted:^^^Yea that's a better way to put it. You're being Ted Rall when you do this poo poo, and not even Ted Rall probably really wants to be Ted Rall. This is a horrible analogy. You could have done a one to one swap and suggested it would be like if someone said racist stuff at a party and pissed off people beat him to death on the way home. Just some sloppy work there.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 01:48
|
|
|
Zombie Samurai posted:Ted Rall. Oh! Now I get it. I get political cartoons.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 01:49
|
|
|
GhostofJohnMuir posted:This is a horrible analogy. You could have done a one to one swap and suggested it would be like if someone said racist stuff at a party and pissed off people beat him to death on the way home. Just some sloppy work there. Not my best work, I agree. Hope no one shoots me in the face over it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 01:50
|
|
|
Cpt.Americant posted:I'm also going to see if I can make this any simpler. I agree killing people bad. I agree, making fun of religion is fine. But where in any of my posts did I say he totally deserved death? Seriously. Where? Okay, obviously you must be getting some sort of sexual pleasure from being this willfully dense so I guess the only way for me to win is to quit the conversation before you cream your pants. I guess you win by literally being too socially retarded to understand basic human interaction stuff like "there is a time and a place to discuss thing", congrats. El Scotch posted:Pretty sure that's Latuff's dream way of getting killed. That or a menage à trois.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 01:51
|
|
|
Tatum Girlparts posted:I don't think lovely racist cartoons are valid reasons to kill someone, no. I think it would be less hosed up maybe if someone did this to Dry Bones if that happened, but yea it'd still be a hosed up thing to do. I never said it was a valid reason to kill! There is no cartoon any human is capable of drawing that is a valid reason to kill. But are you saying we would not be allowed to mention that Dry Bones really doesn't like Palestinians? Out of some kind of respect for the dead.. on an internet forum? I'm not talking aobut crashing someone's funeral or anything. Is there some kind of chart to tell men for how long I'd be banned from mentioning the comics hatred?
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 01:51
|
|
|
Brannock posted:If Latuff got murdered by a Israeli fascist or something like that would people be talking about how Latuff pissed off people with his cartoons and maybe if he didn't want to get murdered he should have been more respectful or, perhaps, even, not draw those cartoons in the first place? Are you sure people are saying "they shouldn't have drawn them because that caused them to be murdered"? Because I don't see people in this thread saying that the killing was justified or that people who draw cartoons like that should expect to have that kind of poo poo happen to them. Because that's not how a just society should function. Essentially they are saying that "yeah they had a right to say it, and they shouldn't face death over it" and "the cartoons happen to be lovely" as separate ideas.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 01:52
|
|
|
Tatum Girlparts posted:Not my best work, I agree. Hope no one shoots me in the face over it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 01:52
|
|
|
JT Jag posted:If they do, then in my opinion that's wrong, people shouldn't be shot in the face because they make bad analogies. Very true, but it was a pretty bad analogy...
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 01:53
|
|
|
Garrand posted:Very true, but it was a pretty bad analogy...
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 01:54
|
|
|
Cpt.Americant posted:I never said it was a valid reason to kill! There is no cartoon any human is capable of drawing that is a valid reason to kill. But are you saying we would not be allowed to mention that Dry Bones really doesn't like Palestinians? Out of some kind of respect for the dead.. on an internet forum? I'm not talking aobut crashing someone's funeral or anything. Is there some kind of chart to tell men for how long I'd be banned from mentioning the comics hatred? I guess my question is what the point of bringing up their dumb racist cartoons is at this time then. Like, the dudes who fuckin did this were pretty clear why they did it, there's no real mystery you're solving, what discussion did you imagine would come from this? Walk me through it, tell me exactly how you expected the debate to go in a non victim blaming way by going 'yea but they were pretty racist' right after they got murdered.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 01:54
|
|
|
JT Jag posted:No matter how offended people get by analogies I think it is morally wrong to murder over it. Why even bring up analogies then? Checkmate, libatard.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 01:55
|
|
|
WitchFetish posted:Okay, obviously you must be getting some sort of sexual pleasure from being this willfully dense so I guess the only way for me to win is to quit the conversation before you cream your pants. I guess you win by literally being too socially retarded to understand basic human interaction stuff like "there is a time and a place to discuss thing", congrats. I don't know what I'm doing to deserve your insults but I assure you I'm not trying to "win" anything. If your problem is "there is a time and place" that's fine. Say that. Don't accuse me of defending the killers. There is a difference between social tact and saying someone "had it coming" and I just don't see where in my responses I ever gave you the impression that I thought he had it coming. And it's troubling to me that I'm giving you that impression so please, help me understand. Where do I try to say that killing over a cartoon is acceptable?
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 01:55
|
|
|
Gimnbo posted:The thing is, why even bring up the lovely racism in this context unless you're going for a condemnation of the cartoonists? Because, as has been said, bald faced and often violent Islamophobia has been a growing issue in France for some time. The fact that people are identifying with Charlie Hebdo as iconic of free speech vs. extremism in the wake of the attack bodes ill for the way things could continue to play out. I don't think anyone in this thread intends it as a reflection on the character of the people who were murdered. Some people on social media are already raising the cartoons themselves up as heroic for daring to offend, and it's not unreasonable to question that. It's possible to mourn and memorialise the victims without treating their work as a rallying cry for the free peoples of the world.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 01:56
|
|
|
Tatum Girlparts posted:Walk me through it, tell me exactly how you expected the debate to go in a non victim blaming way by going 'yea but they were pretty racist' right after they got murdered. JT did it better.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 01:56
|
|
|
Tatum Girlparts posted:Walk me through it, tell me exactly how you expected the debate to go in a non victim blaming way by going 'yea but they were pretty racist' right after they got murdered. 2. People were talking the guy up like he was some great crusader against racism and and for free speech. 3. Other people actually look up and post some of his cartoons, solely to question this premise. 4. Group number one accuses group number two of thinking he deserved to die. 5. Circlejerk.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 01:57
|
|
|
Kismet posted:Because, as has been said, bald faced and often violent Islamophobia has been a growing issue in France for some time. The fact that people are identifying with Charlie Hebdo as iconic of free speech vs. extremism in the wake of the attack bodes ill for the way things could continue to play out. I don't think anyone in this thread intends it as a reflection on the character of the people who were murdered. Some people on social media are already raising the cartoons themselves up as heroic for daring to offend, and it's not unreasonable to question that. It's possible to mourn and memorialise the victims without treating their work as a rallying cry for the free peoples of the world. That's a reasonable point.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 01:58
|
|
|
Cpt.Americant posted:I don't know what I'm doing to deserve your insults but I assure you I'm not trying to "win" anything. If your problem is "there is a time and place" that's fine. Say that. Don't accuse me of defending the killers. There is a difference between social tact and saying someone "had it coming" and I just don't see where in my responses I ever gave you the impression that I thought he had it coming. And it's troubling to me that I'm giving you that impression so please, help me understand. Where do I try to say that killing over a cartoon is acceptable? WitchFetish has some sort of weird complex regarding this thread, don't be surprised they're not conversing with you in the most reasonable fashion.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 01:58
|
|
|
Wales Grey posted:"These cartoonists do not merit being canonized as martyrs for free speech". Why not?
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 01:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 00:21 |
|
|
Tatum Girlparts posted:Why not? Because being canonized for anything strips away the person and leaves behind the saint. A less contentious phrasing would be "Canonizing anyone for anything is foolish." Wales Grey fucked around with this message at 02:03 on Jan 8, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 02:00
|
|