|
Tatum Girlparts posted: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? I don't think people are saying "but" in that case. It implies that there is an exception. Nobody is saying "well they did lovely cartoons that I didn't, so my professed values for free speech don't apply here". In the case of "The Interview" people could totally say "hey it's a bad movie, but Sony shouldn't have censored it" without it being some kind of horrible crime. Yes, one had a violent/lethal blowback versus the other, but it's completely possible to hold free speech views while also critiquing the content itself.
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 02:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 23:07 |
|
|
The Charlie Hebdo writers did not deserve to be killed. They were most likely targeted by extremists because of their somewhat racist cartoons. These statements can coexist, and are not meant as an indictment. I believe in our mental capacity, as noble human beings, to come to the conclusion that while racism and xenophobia in France are a problem that Charlie Hebdo at times embodied, a sternly worded letter to the editor probably would have been been a more appropriate response than cold blooded murder. Attempting to understand the reasoning and motivation of the perpetrators is not "siding" with them. I recognize the logic of "i interpret these cartoons to be actively antagonizing my religion and heritage, therefore i will put a stop to them with bullets", and in that recognition I find it to be an abhorrent conclusion. I would encourage anyone who has found themselves thinking along the lines of "serves them right" to take a moment and explore why you feel that way, because it's kind of hosed up, but there do not appear to be a lot of people here who have done that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 02:02
|
|
|
Tatum Girlparts posted: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? This is possibly the most attention a political cartoonist has gotten in years. Why would we not be allowed to bring up his work right now? And if we bring up his work, can we only say positive things? Clearly some people in this thread just seem to be assuming I'm making a leap that I'm not trying to make. Saying critical things victims is not the same as victim blaming. If Kirschen was killed tomorrow by a Palestinian terrorist, we can talk about how hate filled his comics are without saying that his comics in any way mean he deserves what he got. No one deserves to die over a cartoon, but we deserve to be allowed to talk about those cartoons if we want to.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 02:02
|
|
|
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. This is a very good way of putting it. The idea of canonizing/martyr/sainthood strips away all the context, and can lead people to some hosed-up ends. It happened with Reagan, for example.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 02:04
|
|
|
Here's where the conversation aspect breaks down for me, feel free to add in. "Wow it's hosed up a bunch of people got killed for cartoons." "Yea, I agree that's a hosed up thing. Also a good amount of what they did was racist poo poo." "Kay." Like, where does that in any way change or tint 'they got killed because crazy people thought it was ok to shoot people who exercised their rights to free expression in ways they didn't like'?
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 02:04
|
|
|
If you're in this thread, you're looking for conversation in the wrong places.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 02:05
|
|
|
Man, I bet in the 50s a lot of Americans or English felt silly for saying in the 30s that not all Germans were bad. I can almost see in 1938 a proto-goon claiming with a smug face that, after all, only an extremely minuscule percentage of Germans have actually done any hurt to a Jew  silly germanophobes 
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 02:06
|
|
|
Tatum Girlparts posted:Here's where the conversation aspect breaks down for me, feel free to add in. Basically what JT said. People were trying to make this guy into a saint of free speech, a martyr against intolerance. A few people pointed out that he was intolerant himself, and somehow people think that's the same as saying "he deserved what he got." There's way to many people assuming things in this thread right now.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 02:09
|
|
|
Tatum Girlparts posted:Here's where the conversation aspect breaks down for me, feel free to add in. JT Jag posted:1. He dies.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 02:09
|
|
|
you guys should probably inform yourselves on what Charlie Hebdo is and what it represents before making these judgements, imo
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 02:10
|
|
|
Cippalippus posted:Man, I bet in the 50s a lot of Americans or English felt silly for saying in the 30s that not all Germans were bad. I can almost see in 1938 a proto-goon claiming with a smug face that, after all, only an extremely minuscule percentage of Germans have actually done any hurt to a Jew A.. a true statement? I mean even a majority of Germans were in the dark about how Jews were actually being treated.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 02:11
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:you guys should probably inform yourselves on what Charlie Hebdo is and what it represents before making these judgements, imo French Left-Wing Mad Magazine?
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 02:11
|
|
|
Charlie Hebdo is a publication, not a person. Ten journalists and cartoonists died. Please can we stop now.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 02:11
|
|
|
Cippalippus posted:Man, I bet in the 50s a lot of Americans or English felt silly for saying in the 30s that not all Germans were bad. I can almost see in 1938 a proto-goon claiming with a smug face that, after all, only an extremely minuscule percentage of Germans have actually done any hurt to a Jew You are you having fun there champ?
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 02:12
|
|
|
This is insane. I'm watching poo poo get rewritten in popular memory, right now, live. Charlie Hebdo is suddenly a racist organization publishing hate cartoons? Do you have any clue what Charlie Hebdo does or publishes, or even how they consistently oppose racism and fascism? They literally fire people for being anti-Semitic and have been sued for it. They consistently lampoon racist groups like the National Front. Have you done any research beyond the most superficial google image searches or getting your knowledge spoonfed to you? This is a publication that responded to the firebombing of their offices by publishing a cover next week showing their editor in a passionate liplock with a Muslim and the headline "Love is stronger than hate". Sure sounds Islamophobic to me!
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 02:12
|
|
|
Brannock posted:This is insane. I'm watching poo poo get rewritten in popular memory, right now, live. Charlie Hebdo is suddenly a racist organization publishing hate cartoons? please provide posts where people are claiming that this publication published hate cartoons people have described some of the cartoons as "problematic" or "insensitive" or "offensive" but i don't think there's any sort of effort to do what you're posting about
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 02:13
|
|
|
Portals posted:Jesus christ you guys. I think this is the first editorial cartoon I've seen showing Muhammed. Good on Fitzsimmons. Also, have a Banksy: 
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 02:16
|
|
|
Cpt.Americant posted:A.. a true statement? I mean even a majority of Germans were in the dark about how Jews were actually being treated. This is ahistorical nonsense. While not every German knew every detail of what was happening in the East/in the camps, most everyone at the time had a decent idea. The idea that the SS kept it all secret and the good Germans back home just didn't know is post-war whitewash those same Germans were more than happy to embrace as part of their early Cold War rehabilitation, and lasted solidly until the cultural clash of the 1960s. This is hardly the place for such a derail, however, despite how lovely the thread has gotten of late.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 02:16
|
|
|
I guess I'm just sorry that 'martyr of free speech' only applies to people you 100% agree with when they're literally killed for shamelessly exercising their right to free speech.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 02:17
|
|
|
Not My Leg posted:More important than all of this, Joe Liccar has returned after several months off. I can only assume he spent his time off on Bizarro Earth, because that's the only way his understanding of net What the Christ is this? "Nonsense, it's an election year" doesn't even begin to cover it, that parody of political cartoons was more readable than this.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 02:17
|
|
|
gently caress the writers of Charlie Hebdo. They are bad cartoonists, and they brought their deaths upon themselves. Insert political cartoon here of people being assfucked in hell. The last line of this post was satirical, and in no way expresses the actual views of this poster. I am extremely thankful for the free speech. No matter how outrageous a thing you say, no matter how obviously wrong it is, no one deserves to die for what they think, say or express.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 02:18
|
|
|
Can we please stick to posting retarded opinions in cartoon format please.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 02:18
|
|
|
Brannock posted:This is insane. I'm watching poo poo get rewritten in popular memory, right now, live. Charlie Hebdo is suddenly a racist organization publishing hate cartoons? Some anti-racist cartoons they ran were posted this morning in the thread. Like, 1st or 2nd post about it. I learned about the attack while checking this thread and one of the first things I learned was its opposition to to racism and fascism. In less than 24 hours those have apparently been swallowed don't the memory hole.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 02:20
|
|
|
Aside from there Islamic/religious cartoons do we know much about them? I think I heard from a french friend that they were normally regarded as a socialist group for the most part. On the general derail while I think it is fine to talk about their cartoons (this being the cartoon thread and all) and while I have no doubt that no one here thinks that this can be justified. It is very easy to see why people might get that impression from some posts. Especially from those that seem (even if i don't think it is intentional) to be on the lines of "This is bad but .... at least it happened to these guys not proper cartoonists that deserve free speech".
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 02:20
|
|
|
Tatum Girlparts posted:I guess I'm just sorry that 'martyr of free speech' only applies to people you 100% agree with when they're literally killed for shamelessly exercising their right to free speech. I don't disagree with calling them martyrs, I just don't think that martyrdom protects a person from discussion of their controversial works.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 02:20
|
|
|
Muir supporting Charlie Hebdo is the worst thing that has happened to them today.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 02:21
|
|
|
euclidian88 posted:On the general derail while I think it is fine to talk about their cartoons (this being the cartoon thread and all) and while I have no doubt that no one here thinks that this can be justified. It is very easy to see why people might get that impression from some posts. Especially from those that seem (even if i don't think it is intentional) to be on the lines of "This is bad but .... at least it happened to these guys not proper cartoonists that deserve free speech". I believe anyone who said "they don't deserve to be killed" but you'd think people in a thread that devotes its time to reading the subtext of other people's work would be able to pick up the subtext of their own posts.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 02:24
|
|
|
Also, just because CH is considered a leftist mag doesn't mean it's immune from problems with religion and race. Many can be keynesian and economically socialist yet promote anti-immigrant policies. Unless I'm mistaken, the French Socialist Party has taken anti-Roma stances in the past.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 02:24
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:
 A Crappy Edit Happened
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 02:25
|
|
|
Maybe someone will shoot Muir for his...whatever he makes.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 02:25
|
|
|
Ballz posted:I think this is the first editorial cartoon I've seen showing Muhammed. Good on Fitzsimmons. Fitz isn't a Bagley-style local hero or anything like that, but sometimes he makes me almost proud of my old hometown's terrible newspaper. Current editorial staff is conservative enough they'll probably run it, which is a bit of an odd coincidence.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 02:25
|
|
|
Gimnbo posted:I believe anyone who said "they don't deserve to be killed" but you'd think people in a thread that devotes its time to reading the subtext of other people's work would be able to pick up the subtext of their own posts. Maybe that's the problem after years of looking at bad cartoons posters have developed a rare disorder and can't see textual subtext.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 02:27
|
|
|
I would rather people talk about the cartoons than spend five pages arguing about whether we should or not.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 02:31
|
|
|
 1 2 3 4
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 02:33
|
|
|
Ballz posted:Also, have a Banksy:
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 02:34
|
|
|
Wales Grey posted:I don't disagree with calling them martyrs, I just don't think that martyrdom protects a person from discussion of their controversial works. Thing is, for every slightly problematic cartoons they might have done, anyone could easily post 10 cartoons in which they denounced racism or fascism. I honestly don't know what you're going for, it's a very well known fact in France that Charlie Hebdo (which is, once again, a newspaper, and not a cartoonist) is a left wing newspaper that didn't harbor any racist sympathy, even kicking out one of their cartoonists when he said racist stuff. It feels like I'm arguing with people who have no idea what the gently caress they are talking about from the beginning, and this is honestly kinda scary.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 02:34
|
|
|
beepsandboops posted:I have a difficult time believing that anything claiming to be a Banksy post like 2006 is actually Banksy. There's a lot of street art / political commentary that's credited to Banksy but honestly, is there good way to tell at this point? Banksy is a real life stand alone complex.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 02:36
|
|
|
Stellar Curiosity posted:For postarity's sake I've screencapped all the cartoons that was up on Slate.fr's tribute page.(when I visited the page) Thanks for putting that together. Funny to see American cartoonists aren't the only ones who can be laughably trite in the face of tragedy. snakeandbake posted:Can we please stick to posting retarded opinions in cartoon format please. Bweh heh heh hehheheh
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 02:36
|
|
|
I was expecting something worse from Ramirez, whew!
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 02:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 23:07 |
|
|
This should have a guillotine that's actually one of those small metal pencil sharpeners you used in grade school
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 02:37
|
|
