Edit: Damn, did not expect this to turn into today’s struggle sesh.
Here’s my both sides/both sides take. Should people be executed for drawing, publishing or showing hateful cartoons? Probably not.
What grosses me out is how Enlightened Secular France has spent centuries colonizing and brutalizing muslims and continues to oppress them with discriminatory laws while acting like the entire point of Free Speech TM is the right to degrade a profoundly marginalized minority.
As someone brought up in this thread, the whole Mohammad cartoon controversy reminds me of the perennial debate “why would a black person get violent if you call them the n-word, it’s just a word.” Context matters, when you purposely provoke an oppressed minority by shoving the thing they find most offensive in their face, you may get a violent reaction.
I don’t think this guy deserves to die at all, but Charlie Hebdo is very racist and it’s gross how people rally around it like it’s this bastion of free speech.
That said, death to A Wyatt Mann. Inshallah.
This is the stupidest shit
For a supposed secular, rational nation, the government giving the go-ahead to broadcast a dumb cartoon and then say "we will break the will of the Islamists" is complete fucking posturing
What does this accomplish? "Let's alienate our most important population in this struggle--the ordinary Muslims that can act as informants or the voice of reason for the maniacs in their community. Let's treat this like a huge cultural attack as opposed to a conventional crime. Let's show that their attacks will cause our entire country to stop what it's doing and freak out. Look at us, look at us"
It's the idealized victimhood narrative of Christendom writ onto a state
Good lord do I hate Christian Aggrievement. They've had nothing but softballs lobbed at them since the fall of the Roman Empire and they do nothing but bitch about it.
Good points on Ottomans and Mongols, though I'll contest Umayyad Caliphate and say they were a softball too. Their expansion largely wasn't into Christendom, and they treated non-muslim citizens WAY better than you would expect for the time.
Their expansion largely wasn’t into Christendom
Apparently they were still majority christian.
and they treated non-muslim citizens WAY better than you would expect for the time.
And in return the Muslims were ethnically cleaned from Spain. Loads after they converted.
I think the "Majority Christian" claim depends on what point in history you are looking at. In the height their empire was basically Persia + Arabia + North Africa + Andalusia which I am skeptical of being majority Christian, however later on when their territory dwindled to just Andalusia I would certainly believe they were a majority Christian state. If you have something I can read to convince me otherwise I'd love to have at it, though!
And in return the Muslims were ethnically cleaned from Spain. Loads after they converted.
Yeah this part really pisses me off.
Just wiki, but wouldn't it be the opposite?
An expanding empire would be adding people of other religions, so wouldn't their greatest extent be when they were likely to have more christians?
Those are historically Muslim or pagan* regions, with Andalusia being the exception. I don't think they were moving christians into these areas because non-muslims were still second-class citizens of sorts and even though Christians would be a protected class there would still be cultural prejudices. Wikipedia doesn't have a source for that claim, so while I look into it more I am going to assume they are referring to post-Abassid-Rebellion Umayyad Caliphate when they lost much of their African/Arabian territories.
*Pagan meaning any religion not of the Islam/Christianity dichotomy we're talking about
Good points, I forgot that Byzantines held Egypt, Syria, and Northern Africa prior to Umayyad rule.
Was it the government who did this or was it private citizens projecting onto government buildings?
From what I've seen, it was regional governments who either organised this, or gave the go ahead for it to be projected onto their buildings.
I get that it's supposed to be a demonstration of liberal values, but shouldn't they demonstrate free speech in a way that makes it look good? The message here seems to be, "We love liberal values because it lets us be rude to minorities."
atheism or agnosticism - both are consistent with a leftist perspective. I can also see how a religious framework could lead way to agreeing with socialism or communism. There are religious texts and then there are religious institutions. Often there are readings of texts that are fundamentally at odds with many of the institutions that inhabit and lay claim to a specific territory. Think of your local church or religion you or someone you know grew up in. One can be religious and not be beholden to an institution. This is the way that opposition to religion can make sense. Do not oppose essentially any religious text that adheres to spiritual matters. Oppose institutions that seek to impose their interpretations of religious texts upon the world by force or through dubious authority.
This is my actual and honest position on religion
Shit take. If I make a tasteless joke and someone punches me in the mouth, they're (arguably) wrong to escalate into violence. But this doesn't somehow make it all right for me to be rude to all the other people who are upset with the joke but otherwise peaceful.
A tasteless joke in who's opinion? I'm sure you wouldn't be saying it's righteous if some white supremacist punched you in the face for making a joke about white people. Their white supremacist beliefs are rooted into the same thing as islam, and all religions. The common ground between them is that they're all based on absolutely nothing objective.
"You care about this? LET ME USE IT TO WIPE MY ASS!!!" is an objectively tasteless joke.
"Lol. Muhammad GAY!!!" is an objectively tasteless joke.
the wise man bowed his head solemnly and spoke: "theres actually zero difference between good & bad things. you imbecile. you fucking moron"
You're right. I don't see offending a white supremacist the same as a white supremacist colonialist government offending the religious sensibilities of an oppressed minority. Do you?
The common ground between them is that they’re all based on absolutely nothing objective.
Honestly the main reason I have qualms about being overtly against Islam is that for many people it's not a choice at all.
Islam like many other religions can be very unkind to its defectors.I'll gladly criticize specific Islamic leaders, how the religion mistreats its own people, and its reactionary doctrines.
But resorting to mockery, not even aimed at any specific religious apologist, just no thanks.There are too many people stuck in the middle: derided by a racist and Islamophobic society, but unable to simply leave that religion even if they have long rejected its doctrines.
posting a nazi cartoon on the wall of a synagogue to show our commitment to western values
Not only does the initial attack reek of being an op (seriously, dude is from Chechen? he's both Muslim AND Russian? barely any criminal record or backstory to speak of? couldn't get more perfect but i could be wrong on this too) but also everybody seems to forget that two girls literally just stabbed brown ppl under the Eiffel Tower while screaming "dirty Arabs!" literally a few days after the news broke. Where are their consequences?
I was arguing with somone on Reddit today about this. They insist the stabbling in Paris was not a hate crime. The women just happened to be stabbing Muslims for unrelated reasons while shouting racial slurs.
That's absolutely batshit insane. I do not fucking know why the French continue to decide that the hill they want to die on is hating refugees and Muslims, instead of something more noble like humiliating Macron and getting him kicked out of office
It's the clearest example of Hegelian dialectics in play.
Thesis: Conservatives who hate Muslims for not being Christian.
Antithesis: Radlibs who hate Muslims for not embodying European Enlightenment values
Synthesis: Pretending to be opposed to all religion, but only caring when its Muslims.
Mmh... idk, maybe because your vision of what « the French » is is wrong?
The (((french))) are those people in Europe that cooka da meatball, right?
do not fucking know why the French continue to decide that the hill they want to die on is hating refugees and Muslims
Well they are mostly white...
Yo, this was cool as fuck. Thank you for sharing. :cat-vibing:
Chechens apparantly suffered a lot under Stalin.
I'm guessing the CIA probably drew a lot of them into Afghanistan based on these grievances.
Then you have the wars in Chechnya, which only contribute to radicalisation, especially with the extent of destruction the Russians caused.
But I'm not well read in the subject.
Nah. Don't expose people (including kids) to pornography without obtaining their prior consent.
Don't care if its gay or not, which religious figures are depicted... Just don't do it.
What if it's just kissing? Anything short of handholding ought to be fine, I think.
I'm not going to defend a dude beheading a teacher. Fuck any religious extremism.
It's possible to consider two things to be bad at the same time
It's also possible not to lib things up to the point where you are equating terrorist attacks and murders with cartoons.
That's like say it's acceptable for chuds to headshot someone who burns the flag.
Then that's like saying the scantily dressed woman walking on a dark street in the bad part of the city shouldn't complain about getting raped because it was predictable.
Like, I’m not saying that the dude was justified but the whole thing was fucking predictable
Like, I’m not saying that the dude was justified but the whole thing was fucking predictable just look at what she was wearing.
I don't think you're a rape apologist, I think your statements sound like a rape apologist.
A teacher taught about these cartoons, in response terrorists went this home and beheaded him.
Your comment
Like, I’m not saying that the dude was justified but the whole thing was fucking predictable
You deserved the comparison.
There was a way for the woman to walk down the street clad in armour from head to toe.
Well I explained why I find your statement gross and you doubled down in response.
Yup he deserved it. Thanks.
Oh are you done with telling teachers what subjects will get them murdered?
Bad take. They went from prosecuting the guy who did the crime to attempting to piss off literally every other muslim as well
Which has little to do with irony poisoned overly online leftists not being able to realize that a teacher shouldn't be beheaded for teaching.
if muslim parents want to complain, want to do some action to get him fired because they think he went too far then I'm 100% for hearing their arguments and making a reasonable choice.
Instead some assholes beheaded the guy. He didn't deserve that, stop implying that he did.
If your take is "beheading is bad" then what the fuck are you arguing on the internet. Nobody disagrees with you.
I'm criticizing the action in the post-- the projecting of dumb cartoons in a bizzare, antagonistic stance towards other muslims.
https://hexbear.net/post/42015/comment/364841
Beheading is bad, but those racist cartoons though.
Satire, when done from a position of power, is just bullying.
All mass media satire is done from a position of power.
Take notice that people's issue isn't work the cartoon, it's with the government response and rhetoric.
I don't know anything about France and I haven't seen anything approaching a leftist analysis of the situation either here or on reddit. When the news of beheading were discussed on news subs the only leftist voices among the right-wing bullshit were going "well, that's what France gets for centuries of colonialism and imperialism" which doesn't seem like a useful take.
The correct leftist take is:
The murder was wrong. Respect religious minorities and their beliefs. These cartoons are an outgrowth of French Islamaphobia, rooted in centuries of racism and imperialism. The murderer got what he deserved. The government should not be promoting propaganda against minority religions, especially if it has a long history of oppressing them.
I could agree with "Respect religious minorities and their rights to have different beliefs."
But I cannot respect the contents of those beliefs.
And it is absurd to ask that of anyone.
To an Islamist, an attack on Algeria is an attack on all Muslims.
"Akshully, France intervened in the Russian Civil War. Also Napoleon."
I mean, even he was Arab it wouldn't be a good take.
Yes, that is what's going on here. Lots of takes in the vein of "he was asking to be beheaded"
People pretty much go there when pushed.
Case in point: https://hexbear.net/post/42015/comment/364373
yep, the good old muslim opressing colonial state is back again to piss in the eye of every one of their muslim second class citizen because an amped up psycho chopped off a neck. its liberalism time
My understanding is that context here is that a teacher taught about this in his classroom and in return he got hunted down and beheaded.
Please feel free to correct me.
edit: Yeah, all of french history. That's fair.
All murderers. Murder is justified in every situation ever and this is a perfect example.
My big issue here is not that they're publishing Islamaphobic cartoons, but that a Secular TM government is republishing and distributing them. Free Speech is a right of the citizen. The government should not be insulting any religion or culture.
I get that but ultimately this will be the least problematic part of their response.
"To prove how much I don't believe in God, I'm gonna call you a (racist invective), it's the only way"
One of the covers shows an ISIS member about to behead Muhammad, who protests that he is the prophet and is told "silence infidel" in response.
I can see why ISIS members would want to kill over that. Making the argument that their ideology has no basis in the religion they claim and would destroy it as much as anything else.
Magazine also puts out things shitting on christians and the pope.
Do you want to live in a world where criticism of power is met with death? Even if the content is offensive, that hardly seems like a good place to be.
The terrorists didn’t walk, and France is upping their anti terrorism. But this posturing by the government is alarming to all Muslims not just extremists
France is upping their anti terrorism
Which is probably going to end up causing more problems than this.
Yeah let's walk on eggshells then. Dog forbid we offend any religious folks.
I don't give a fuck about Charlie Crapdo, for what it's worth their doodles are neither clever nor funny, nor have any artistic merit. But if you're saying that mocking religion - any religion - is an offence punishable by death then you're a reactionary, pure and simple.
Yeah, it's what they do. What are you even arguing? Now you're just victim blaming, Charlie Hebdo says shitty things so people deserved to die?
Is South Park awful because they tried to offend an entire religion by simply having Muhammad stand there for a minute?
No one deserved to die but all the peaceful Muslims don't deserve this display as a response to what this one murderer did either.
Yeah I guess.
I do think they should be shown, not all of them perhaps, but I think it's important. Government shouldn't do it.
Yes. Herein lies the problem.
Government is essentially encouraging something that bothers all muslims on account of the murderers. The result of this? Will be more murdering, but also the complete alienation of the peaceful muslims that might help. That alienation and lack of willingness to help will be noticed by other people and will turn into anti-muslim racism. That anti-muslim racism will create more sympathisers and extremists.
The result here is an incredibly divisive action that throws all muslims under the bus for the sake of stirring nationalist rhetoric and dividing the left between the people who are able to rationally work through why this is bad and the people who are having a reactionary emotion of "fuck them I support making this grand stand against it".
I am actually deeply suspicious that this is an op. It doesn't feel right.
They shouldn't be shown. These are quite frankly terrible. They won't convince anyone, they won't deracidalise or convert anyone. They're crude jokes, not part of a constructive dialogue.
If you shows these to innocent people you thing may be offended by it, you're an asshole. Laugh at them if you like, but once you start displaying them publically you're only making people's lives slightly worse.
Should it be illegal? No, but it ranges from insulting at best to racist and homophobic at worst.
Please point to where I said anyone deserved to die.
It's the fairly obvious implication when you start shitting on the murder victims and justifying the motive.
Again, the title goes out it's way to call them racist.
I understand taking a punch because it's for the greater good, but a teacher taught about this years later and in response he was hunted down and beheaded.
I’m not saying anybody deserves death for racist cartoons, but it’s a very provocative response to broadcast the racist cartoons. It’s kind of a “fuck you” to all Muslims and is not helpful.
Were it Chuds doing this, it would be a "fuck you". When it's the government, it's more of a threat.
I get that, and france has been horrible to those people for a long time.
You can't?
It's a pretty effective condemnation of their entire bullshit ideology.
I don't think it's reasonable, I think it's understandable why they would target Charlie Hebdo for these cartoons.
The cartoon is just another way of making the point that "Islamic" extremists really don't in any way represent Islam and are just as dangerous to Muslims as anybody else, they would even kill the Prophet Muhammad.
Oh and I said ISIS because the source where I was reading more about the comic said that. That's all.
Probably the same thing as if Jesus presented himself to a fundamentalist christian in America.
