|
|
The discussion between WhiteDog and Biff is quite interesting. I have nothing to add because I never read CH, but the information both of them have brought up really brings more light to this issue.
Although, if CH was 'more' equally opportunity mudslinger, as WhiteDog believes they are not, it still wouldn't have changed the decision of the 2 brothers and the other guy (sorry names have slipped me). I doubt they cared if CH mocked priests or rabbis.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On January 11 2015 01:48 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2015 01:44 oneofthem wrote:
whitedoge that seems like a personal point against them. Not really. I'm just trying to be objective. When I see how they treat the national front, it's great, but please don't tell me they treat the other parties the same way because it's false.
does that have to do with the immediacy or prominence of these particular extremists though? if some jewish organization made big waves in france then perhaps they'll commentate on that more heavily.
seems like they also commented on the palestinian situation.
|
On January 11 2015 01:43 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2015 01:36 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 11 2015 01:31 WhiteDog wrote:On January 11 2015 01:22 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 11 2015 01:20 WhiteDog wrote:On January 11 2015 01:17 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 11 2015 01:05 WhiteDog wrote:On January 11 2015 01:03 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 11 2015 00:45 ImFromPortugal wrote:On January 11 2015 00:38 farvacola wrote:[quote] Literally took me 5 seconds. + Show Spoiler + i bet the anti-semite card was used somewhere Well actually, Christian and Muslim organization have been much, much, much more aggressive than Jewish ones when it comes to Charlie. I don't remember of a Jewish organization suing Charlie, while Catholics and Muslim organization were suing it every 6 month (and were losing systematically). One drawing of Charlie was actually racist, and it targeted people and not their religion. It happened once, and Siné, who drew it, actually got fired. It was playing on stereotypes of Jews in that case, but it would have been the same if he had made a joke about muslims. It's very important to understand that Charlie was never attacking people for their faith, but only religion themselves or people for what they were doing. You have countless caricatures making fun of Jewish extremists, but never one of random Jews because Jews have money / a big nose / all the power in the media, or any bullshit like that. Charlie never criticized the jewish community like it did with muslims and christians. For exemple, none of the caricature regarding Israel refer to judaism in any way. Charlie never made fun of Christians or Muslims. It made fun of extremists, and it made fun of Christianity, and of Islam. And plenty of caricature made fun of Judaism too. You had a shitload of Moses and Abrahams, and rabbis being ridicules absolutely everywhere. I mean seriously, have you ever read Charlie? + Show Spoiler +I did. Yes? And? Personally I see everyone in the same basket Yes and that's the two only front page you can find on jews and it's about all religions. Charlie barely ever joked about the Shoah or about jews specifically, which explains why the jewish political groups barely ever criticized them. But the front page with "the Quran is shit", or all the cardinal butt fucking each other, all those are way more frontal. Why would they laugh about the Shoah? That has nothing to do with religion. And there is nothing to laugh about really. What I am trying to tell you is that Charlie didn't laugh about "the jews", because it never laughed about people for what they are, because they were not racist. It didn't laugh about "christians" or "muslims" either. It was anti-clerical, so it laughed about the Pope, about rabbis EVERYWHERE, about imams. It was anti extremists so it laughed about christian bigots, orthodox Jews and muslim fundamentalists. It was anti religion so it laughed about Moses, about Jesus, about Muhammad, about Abraham and so on. But it didn't laugh about generic muslims, generic jews and generic christians. Charlie was fighting against IDEAS not against people. Laughing about the Shoah is not laughing against ideas. Laughing about jews because they are rich or have a bug nose or control the world is not laughing about ideas. Charlie was not Dieudonné How is saying the coran is shit not against muslim ? Where are the ideas ? I liked Charlie, I see great qualities in them and they were, individually great people. I also loved their most offensive stuff, against anyone. But this idea that they criticized exactly everybody in the same way is, in my opinion, going a little too far : they had their own wars, mainly against the FN and anything related (soral, dieudonné), for total sexual freedom (because they loved it really), and against extremism (mostly muslim and christian extremism). They never really criticized the CRIF, despite its role in france in the last few years, or never made any relationship between what happen in Israel and the jewish religion.
Laughing about the Quran is laughing about Islam. Not about muslim. Islam is an idea. Muslim are people.
If I say "Jews have big nose and are conspiring to take over the world" I am targeting people and I'm actually being racist.
If I say "Abraham can get fucked in the ass by Moses and use the Torah as a condom", I am targeting Judaism. People can get offended if they wish, but I only talk about what they are thinking, not about what they are.
It's a huge difference.
I saw pictures of rabbi in every Charlie I read and I never saw them talking about religions in general without mentioning Judaism. And their Israel cartoons ALWAYS featured jewish extremist. You know, lots of settlers and far right guys in Israel are not Orthodox. But Charlie always showed orthodox and religious extremists when talking about Israeli screwing up.
I don't remember any picture about the CRIF, but then I don't remember any picture about many many things. Maybe they didn't make fun of the CRIF. And what? They made fun of the religion itself, of its holy book, of its priests, and of its extremists. That's what they were doing with every religion.
There is no jewish exception with Charlie. That's just factually not true. Maybe they lacked balls with the CRIF I don't know. That's really a detail though, and they had balls in armored steal for everything else. It's not that obvious to draw the Torah as toilet paper and say Judaism should go down the toilets in france nowadays.
|
The problem is there is already a lot of people in this thread that do not understand Charlie.
Knowing that, why would you assume the rest of the world does? Especially when even statistically speaking 50% of the people are dumber than the rest (yes that's a fact) and usually the people who actually commit terrorist attacks aren't the brightest people, and the leaders of such groups are just lunatics.
|
On January 11 2015 01:52 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2015 01:43 WhiteDog wrote:On January 11 2015 01:36 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 11 2015 01:31 WhiteDog wrote:On January 11 2015 01:22 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 11 2015 01:20 WhiteDog wrote:On January 11 2015 01:17 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 11 2015 01:05 WhiteDog wrote:On January 11 2015 01:03 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 11 2015 00:45 ImFromPortugal wrote:
[quote]
i bet the anti-semite card was used somewhere
Well actually, Christian and Muslim organization have been much, much, much more aggressive than Jewish ones when it comes to Charlie. I don't remember of a Jewish organization suing Charlie, while Catholics and Muslim organization were suing it every 6 month (and were losing systematically). One drawing of Charlie was actually racist, and it targeted people and not their religion. It happened once, and Siné, who drew it, actually got fired. It was playing on stereotypes of Jews in that case, but it would have been the same if he had made a joke about muslims. It's very important to understand that Charlie was never attacking people for their faith, but only religion themselves or people for what they were doing. You have countless caricatures making fun of Jewish extremists, but never one of random Jews because Jews have money / a big nose / all the power in the media, or any bullshit like that. Charlie never criticized the jewish community like it did with muslims and christians. For exemple, none of the caricature regarding Israel refer to judaism in any way. Charlie never made fun of Christians or Muslims. It made fun of extremists, and it made fun of Christianity, and of Islam. And plenty of caricature made fun of Judaism too. You had a shitload of Moses and Abrahams, and rabbis being ridicules absolutely everywhere. I mean seriously, have you ever read Charlie? + Show Spoiler +I did. Yes? And? Personally I see everyone in the same basket Yes and that's the two only front page you can find on jews and it's about all religions. Charlie barely ever joked about the Shoah or about jews specifically, which explains why the jewish political groups barely ever criticized them. But the front page with "the Quran is shit", or all the cardinal butt fucking each other, all those are way more frontal. Why would they laugh about the Shoah? That has nothing to do with religion. And there is nothing to laugh about really. What I am trying to tell you is that Charlie didn't laugh about "the jews", because it never laughed about people for what they are, because they were not racist. It didn't laugh about "christians" or "muslims" either. It was anti-clerical, so it laughed about the Pope, about rabbis EVERYWHERE, about imams. It was anti extremists so it laughed about christian bigots, orthodox Jews and muslim fundamentalists. It was anti religion so it laughed about Moses, about Jesus, about Muhammad, about Abraham and so on. But it didn't laugh about generic muslims, generic jews and generic christians. Charlie was fighting against IDEAS not against people. Laughing about the Shoah is not laughing against ideas. Laughing about jews because they are rich or have a bug nose or control the world is not laughing about ideas. Charlie was not Dieudonné How is saying the coran is shit not against muslim ? Where are the ideas ? I liked Charlie, I see great qualities in them and they were, individually great people. I also loved their most offensive stuff, against anyone. But this idea that they criticized exactly everybody in the same way is, in my opinion, going a little too far : they had their own wars, mainly against the FN and anything related (soral, dieudonné), for total sexual freedom (because they loved it really), and against extremism (mostly muslim and christian extremism). They never really criticized the CRIF, despite its role in france in the last few years, or never made any relationship between what happen in Israel and the jewish religion. Laughing about the Quran is laughing about Islam. Not about muslim. Islam is an idea. Muslim are people. If I say "Jews have big nose and are conspiring to take over the world" I am targeting people and I'm actually being racist.
If I say "Abraham can get fucked in the ass by Moses and use the Torah as a condom", I am targeting Judaism. People can get offended if they wish, but I only talk about what they are thinking, not about what they are.It's a huge difference. I saw pictures of rabbi in every Charlie I read and I never saw them talking about religions in general without mentioning Judaism. And their Israel cartoons ALWAYS featured jewish extremist. You know, lots of settlers and far right guys in Israel are not Orthodox. But Charlie always showed orthodox and religious extremists when talking about Israeli screwing up. I don't remember any picture about the CRIF, but then I don't remember any picture about many many things. Maybe they didn't make fun of the CRIF. And what? They made fun of the religion itself, of its holy book, of its priests, and of its extremists. That's what they were doing with every religion. There is no jewish exception with Charlie. That's just factually not true. Maybe they lacked balls with the CRIF I don't know. That's really a detail though.
Implying Benoit XVI is a pedophile is not attacking people ?
Charlie were hard and I loved it, but they had their wars that's all. They were not all neutral, and it's perfectly normal.
|
On January 11 2015 02:02 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2015 01:52 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 11 2015 01:43 WhiteDog wrote:On January 11 2015 01:36 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 11 2015 01:31 WhiteDog wrote:On January 11 2015 01:22 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 11 2015 01:20 WhiteDog wrote:On January 11 2015 01:17 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 11 2015 01:05 WhiteDog wrote:On January 11 2015 01:03 Biff The Understudy wrote:
[quote]
Well actually, Christian and Muslim organization have been much, much, much more aggressive than Jewish ones when it comes to Charlie. I don't remember of a Jewish organization suing Charlie, while Catholics and Muslim organization were suing it every 6 month (and were losing systematically).
One drawing of Charlie was actually racist, and it targeted people and not their religion. It happened once, and Siné, who drew it, actually got fired. It was playing on stereotypes of Jews in that case, but it would have been the same if he had made a joke about muslims.
It's very important to understand that Charlie was never attacking people for their faith, but only religion themselves or people for what they were doing. You have countless caricatures making fun of Jewish extremists, but never one of random Jews because Jews have money / a big nose / all the power in the media, or any bullshit like that. Charlie never criticized the jewish community like it did with muslims and christians. For exemple, none of the caricature regarding Israel refer to judaism in any way. Charlie never made fun of Christians or Muslims. It made fun of extremists, and it made fun of Christianity, and of Islam. And plenty of caricature made fun of Judaism too. You had a shitload of Moses and Abrahams, and rabbis being ridicules absolutely everywhere. I mean seriously, have you ever read Charlie? + Show Spoiler +I did. Yes? And? Personally I see everyone in the same basket Yes and that's the two only front page you can find on jews and it's about all religions. Charlie barely ever joked about the Shoah or about jews specifically, which explains why the jewish political groups barely ever criticized them. But the front page with "the Quran is shit", or all the cardinal butt fucking each other, all those are way more frontal. Why would they laugh about the Shoah? That has nothing to do with religion. And there is nothing to laugh about really. What I am trying to tell you is that Charlie didn't laugh about "the jews", because it never laughed about people for what they are, because they were not racist. It didn't laugh about "christians" or "muslims" either. It was anti-clerical, so it laughed about the Pope, about rabbis EVERYWHERE, about imams. It was anti extremists so it laughed about christian bigots, orthodox Jews and muslim fundamentalists. It was anti religion so it laughed about Moses, about Jesus, about Muhammad, about Abraham and so on. But it didn't laugh about generic muslims, generic jews and generic christians. Charlie was fighting against IDEAS not against people. Laughing about the Shoah is not laughing against ideas. Laughing about jews because they are rich or have a bug nose or control the world is not laughing about ideas. Charlie was not Dieudonné How is saying the coran is shit not against muslim ? Where are the ideas ? I liked Charlie, I see great qualities in them and they were, individually great people. I also loved their most offensive stuff, against anyone. But this idea that they criticized exactly everybody in the same way is, in my opinion, going a little too far : they had their own wars, mainly against the FN and anything related (soral, dieudonné), for total sexual freedom (because they loved it really), and against extremism (mostly muslim and christian extremism). They never really criticized the CRIF, despite its role in france in the last few years, or never made any relationship between what happen in Israel and the jewish religion. Laughing about the Quran is laughing about Islam. Not about muslim. Islam is an idea. Muslim are people. If I say "Jews have big nose and are conspiring to take over the world" I am targeting people and I'm actually being racist.
If I say "Abraham can get fucked in the ass by Moses and use the Torah as a condom", I am targeting Judaism. People can get offended if they wish, but I only talk about what they are thinking, not about what they are.It's a huge difference. I saw pictures of rabbi in every Charlie I read and I never saw them talking about religions in general without mentioning Judaism. And their Israel cartoons ALWAYS featured jewish extremist. You know, lots of settlers and far right guys in Israel are not Orthodox. But Charlie always showed orthodox and religious extremists when talking about Israeli screwing up. I don't remember any picture about the CRIF, but then I don't remember any picture about many many things. Maybe they didn't make fun of the CRIF. And what? They made fun of the religion itself, of its holy book, of its priests, and of its extremists. That's what they were doing with every religion. There is no jewish exception with Charlie. That's just factually not true. Maybe they lacked balls with the CRIF I don't know. That's really a detail though. Saying Benoit XVI is a pedophile is not attacking people ?
It's attacking Benoit XVI (and not generic christians), for what he does. Being the Pope, and a high ranked priest. If I make a really hardcore caricature of Kim Jong Un, I am not targeting North Korean as a group. I am targeting Kim, for what he does: being a dictator.
It's really different from attacking a group of people for what they are. Like Jews, because they are Jews and are (... fill with any antisemitic stereotype).
The same that drawing rabbis and priests is not attacking Jews and Christians. It's anti-clericalism, not racism.
I'm not trying to argue for the sake of it. There is a distinction, which is extraordinarily important, because it's the distinction between what they were doing and racism / bigotry.
|
On January 11 2015 01:53 raynpelikoneet wrote:
The problem is there is already a lot of people in this thread that do not understand Charlie.
Knowing that, why would you assume the rest of the world does? Especially when even statistically speaking 50% of the people are dumber than the rest (yes that's a fact) and usually the people who actually commit terrorist attacks aren't the brightest people, and the leaders of such groups are just lunatics.
i don't think we expect the rest of the world to understand charlie, we just expect them to not kill 12 innocent people when they are just doing their job
|
On January 11 2015 02:04 Undead1993 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2015 01:53 raynpelikoneet wrote:
The problem is there is already a lot of people in this thread that do not understand Charlie.
Knowing that, why would you assume the rest of the world does? Especially when even statistically speaking 50% of the people are dumber than the rest (yes that's a fact) and usually the people who actually commit terrorist attacks aren't the brightest people, and the leaders of such groups are just lunatics. i don't think we expect the rest of the world to understand charlie, we just expect them to not kill 12 innocent people when they are just doing their job
Except you CAN expect some day one of those people flips out.
There are like 17 million other things to "make fun" of. Why does it have to be the one that can kill you?
|
On January 11 2015 02:04 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2015 02:02 WhiteDog wrote:On January 11 2015 01:52 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 11 2015 01:43 WhiteDog wrote:On January 11 2015 01:36 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 11 2015 01:31 WhiteDog wrote:On January 11 2015 01:22 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 11 2015 01:20 WhiteDog wrote:On January 11 2015 01:17 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 11 2015 01:05 WhiteDog wrote:
[quote]
Charlie never criticized the jewish community like it did with muslims and christians. For exemple, none of the caricature regarding Israel refer to judaism in any way. Charlie never made fun of Christians or Muslims. It made fun of extremists, and it made fun of Christianity, and of Islam. And plenty of caricature made fun of Judaism too. You had a shitload of Moses and Abrahams, and rabbis being ridicules absolutely everywhere. I mean seriously, have you ever read Charlie? + Show Spoiler +I did. Yes? And? Personally I see everyone in the same basket Yes and that's the two only front page you can find on jews and it's about all religions. Charlie barely ever joked about the Shoah or about jews specifically, which explains why the jewish political groups barely ever criticized them. But the front page with "the Quran is shit", or all the cardinal butt fucking each other, all those are way more frontal. Why would they laugh about the Shoah? That has nothing to do with religion. And there is nothing to laugh about really. What I am trying to tell you is that Charlie didn't laugh about "the jews", because it never laughed about people for what they are, because they were not racist. It didn't laugh about "christians" or "muslims" either. It was anti-clerical, so it laughed about the Pope, about rabbis EVERYWHERE, about imams. It was anti extremists so it laughed about christian bigots, orthodox Jews and muslim fundamentalists. It was anti religion so it laughed about Moses, about Jesus, about Muhammad, about Abraham and so on. But it didn't laugh about generic muslims, generic jews and generic christians. Charlie was fighting against IDEAS not against people. Laughing about the Shoah is not laughing against ideas. Laughing about jews because they are rich or have a bug nose or control the world is not laughing about ideas. Charlie was not Dieudonné How is saying the coran is shit not against muslim ? Where are the ideas ? I liked Charlie, I see great qualities in them and they were, individually great people. I also loved their most offensive stuff, against anyone. But this idea that they criticized exactly everybody in the same way is, in my opinion, going a little too far : they had their own wars, mainly against the FN and anything related (soral, dieudonné), for total sexual freedom (because they loved it really), and against extremism (mostly muslim and christian extremism). They never really criticized the CRIF, despite its role in france in the last few years, or never made any relationship between what happen in Israel and the jewish religion. Laughing about the Quran is laughing about Islam. Not about muslim. Islam is an idea. Muslim are people. If I say "Jews have big nose and are conspiring to take over the world" I am targeting people and I'm actually being racist.
If I say "Abraham can get fucked in the ass by Moses and use the Torah as a condom", I am targeting Judaism. People can get offended if they wish, but I only talk about what they are thinking, not about what they are.It's a huge difference. I saw pictures of rabbi in every Charlie I read and I never saw them talking about religions in general without mentioning Judaism. And their Israel cartoons ALWAYS featured jewish extremist. You know, lots of settlers and far right guys in Israel are not Orthodox. But Charlie always showed orthodox and religious extremists when talking about Israeli screwing up. I don't remember any picture about the CRIF, but then I don't remember any picture about many many things. Maybe they didn't make fun of the CRIF. And what? They made fun of the religion itself, of its holy book, of its priests, and of its extremists. That's what they were doing with every religion. There is no jewish exception with Charlie. That's just factually not true. Maybe they lacked balls with the CRIF I don't know. That's really a detail though. Saying Benoit XVI is a pedophile is not attacking people ? It's attacking Benoit XVI, for what he does. Being the Pope, and a high ranked priest. Not attacking a group of people for what they are. Like Jews, because they are Jews. The same that drawing rabbis and priests is not attacking Jews and Christians. It's anti-clericalism, not racism.
Don't you think there is a little double standard considering Siné got fired for a caricature about the kid Sarkozy saying "He just declared his desire to convert to judaïsm before marrying his fiancee, jewish, and heiress of the funders of Darty. He will go a long way this boy !". It's just critcisizing a rich kid to me.
And by implying Benoit XVI is a pedophile, they imply all christian priest are pedophile.
|
On January 11 2015 02:07 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2015 02:04 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 11 2015 02:02 WhiteDog wrote:On January 11 2015 01:52 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 11 2015 01:43 WhiteDog wrote:On January 11 2015 01:36 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 11 2015 01:31 WhiteDog wrote:On January 11 2015 01:22 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 11 2015 01:20 WhiteDog wrote:On January 11 2015 01:17 Biff The Understudy wrote:
[quote]
Charlie never made fun of Christians or Muslims. It made fun of extremists, and it made fun of Christianity, and of Islam. And plenty of caricature made fun of Judaism too. You had a shitload of Moses and Abrahams, and rabbis being ridicules absolutely everywhere. I mean seriously, have you ever read Charlie? + Show Spoiler +I did. Yes? And? Personally I see everyone in the same basket Yes and that's the two only front page you can find on jews and it's about all religions. Charlie barely ever joked about the Shoah or about jews specifically, which explains why the jewish political groups barely ever criticized them. But the front page with "the Quran is shit", or all the cardinal butt fucking each other, all those are way more frontal. Why would they laugh about the Shoah? That has nothing to do with religion. And there is nothing to laugh about really. What I am trying to tell you is that Charlie didn't laugh about "the jews", because it never laughed about people for what they are, because they were not racist. It didn't laugh about "christians" or "muslims" either. It was anti-clerical, so it laughed about the Pope, about rabbis EVERYWHERE, about imams. It was anti extremists so it laughed about christian bigots, orthodox Jews and muslim fundamentalists. It was anti religion so it laughed about Moses, about Jesus, about Muhammad, about Abraham and so on. But it didn't laugh about generic muslims, generic jews and generic christians. Charlie was fighting against IDEAS not against people. Laughing about the Shoah is not laughing against ideas. Laughing about jews because they are rich or have a bug nose or control the world is not laughing about ideas. Charlie was not Dieudonné How is saying the coran is shit not against muslim ? Where are the ideas ? I liked Charlie, I see great qualities in them and they were, individually great people. I also loved their most offensive stuff, against anyone. But this idea that they criticized exactly everybody in the same way is, in my opinion, going a little too far : they had their own wars, mainly against the FN and anything related (soral, dieudonné), for total sexual freedom (because they loved it really), and against extremism (mostly muslim and christian extremism). They never really criticized the CRIF, despite its role in france in the last few years, or never made any relationship between what happen in Israel and the jewish religion. Laughing about the Quran is laughing about Islam. Not about muslim. Islam is an idea. Muslim are people. If I say "Jews have big nose and are conspiring to take over the world" I am targeting people and I'm actually being racist.
If I say "Abraham can get fucked in the ass by Moses and use the Torah as a condom", I am targeting Judaism. People can get offended if they wish, but I only talk about what they are thinking, not about what they are.It's a huge difference. I saw pictures of rabbi in every Charlie I read and I never saw them talking about religions in general without mentioning Judaism. And their Israel cartoons ALWAYS featured jewish extremist. You know, lots of settlers and far right guys in Israel are not Orthodox. But Charlie always showed orthodox and religious extremists when talking about Israeli screwing up. I don't remember any picture about the CRIF, but then I don't remember any picture about many many things. Maybe they didn't make fun of the CRIF. And what? They made fun of the religion itself, of its holy book, of its priests, and of its extremists. That's what they were doing with every religion. There is no jewish exception with Charlie. That's just factually not true. Maybe they lacked balls with the CRIF I don't know. That's really a detail though. Saying Benoit XVI is a pedophile is not attacking people ? It's attacking Benoit XVI, for what he does. Being the Pope, and a high ranked priest. Not attacking a group of people for what they are. Like Jews, because they are Jews. The same that drawing rabbis and priests is not attacking Jews and Christians. It's anti-clericalism, not racism. Don't you think there is a little double standard considering Siné got fired for basically saying "He just declared his desire to convert to judaïsm before marrying his fiancee, jewish, and heiress of Darty. He will go a long way this boy !". It's just critcisizing a rich kid to me.
No, there is no double standard.
What Siné did, was targeting a group of people for what they are based on racist stereotype: the Jews have money. That's VERY different, and Siné, that time, crossed a red line by actually making a racist drawing, which Charlie NEVER did.
I can bet you that if he had drawn a picture implying muslims were stealing in supermarket, just because, it would have been the same, he would have been fired also.
|
Biff The Understudy is spot-on in this discussion. Charlie Hebdo attacked religions, religious symbols, extremists, institutions and figures of authority, never groups of people for their faith.
|
On January 11 2015 02:08 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2015 02:07 WhiteDog wrote:On January 11 2015 02:04 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 11 2015 02:02 WhiteDog wrote:On January 11 2015 01:52 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 11 2015 01:43 WhiteDog wrote:On January 11 2015 01:36 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 11 2015 01:31 WhiteDog wrote:On January 11 2015 01:22 Biff The Understudy wrote:Yes? And? Personally I see everyone in the same basket Yes and that's the two only front page you can find on jews and it's about all religions. Charlie barely ever joked about the Shoah or about jews specifically, which explains why the jewish political groups barely ever criticized them. But the front page with "the Quran is shit", or all the cardinal butt fucking each other, all those are way more frontal. Why would they laugh about the Shoah? That has nothing to do with religion. And there is nothing to laugh about really. What I am trying to tell you is that Charlie didn't laugh about "the jews", because it never laughed about people for what they are, because they were not racist. It didn't laugh about "christians" or "muslims" either. It was anti-clerical, so it laughed about the Pope, about rabbis EVERYWHERE, about imams. It was anti extremists so it laughed about christian bigots, orthodox Jews and muslim fundamentalists. It was anti religion so it laughed about Moses, about Jesus, about Muhammad, about Abraham and so on. But it didn't laugh about generic muslims, generic jews and generic christians. Charlie was fighting against IDEAS not against people. Laughing about the Shoah is not laughing against ideas. Laughing about jews because they are rich or have a bug nose or control the world is not laughing about ideas. Charlie was not Dieudonné How is saying the coran is shit not against muslim ? Where are the ideas ? I liked Charlie, I see great qualities in them and they were, individually great people. I also loved their most offensive stuff, against anyone. But this idea that they criticized exactly everybody in the same way is, in my opinion, going a little too far : they had their own wars, mainly against the FN and anything related (soral, dieudonné), for total sexual freedom (because they loved it really), and against extremism (mostly muslim and christian extremism). They never really criticized the CRIF, despite its role in france in the last few years, or never made any relationship between what happen in Israel and the jewish religion. Laughing about the Quran is laughing about Islam. Not about muslim. Islam is an idea. Muslim are people. If I say "Jews have big nose and are conspiring to take over the world" I am targeting people and I'm actually being racist.
If I say "Abraham can get fucked in the ass by Moses and use the Torah as a condom", I am targeting Judaism. People can get offended if they wish, but I only talk about what they are thinking, not about what they are.It's a huge difference. I saw pictures of rabbi in every Charlie I read and I never saw them talking about religions in general without mentioning Judaism. And their Israel cartoons ALWAYS featured jewish extremist. You know, lots of settlers and far right guys in Israel are not Orthodox. But Charlie always showed orthodox and religious extremists when talking about Israeli screwing up. I don't remember any picture about the CRIF, but then I don't remember any picture about many many things. Maybe they didn't make fun of the CRIF. And what? They made fun of the religion itself, of its holy book, of its priests, and of its extremists. That's what they were doing with every religion. There is no jewish exception with Charlie. That's just factually not true. Maybe they lacked balls with the CRIF I don't know. That's really a detail though. Saying Benoit XVI is a pedophile is not attacking people ? It's attacking Benoit XVI, for what he does. Being the Pope, and a high ranked priest. Not attacking a group of people for what they are. Like Jews, because they are Jews. The same that drawing rabbis and priests is not attacking Jews and Christians. It's anti-clericalism, not racism. Don't you think there is a little double standard considering Siné got fired for basically saying "He just declared his desire to convert to judaïsm before marrying his fiancee, jewish, and heiress of Darty. He will go a long way this boy !". It's just critcisizing a rich kid to me. No, there is no double standard. What Siné did, was targeting a group of people for what they are based on racist stereotype: the Jews have money. That's VERY different, and Siné, that time, crossed a red line by actually making a racist drawing, which Charlie NEVER did.
That's your interpretation of the joke. The jury decided differently and Siné got 90 000 € from Charlie Hebdo as a compensation.
![[image loading]](http://www.crepegeorgette.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/1.jpg)
Following your point of view, this caricature imply all muslim fathers are wankers.
(for those who don't understand french it is written : "School will teach kids how to masturbate. At least, he won't be like his father who is a wanker".
|
On January 11 2015 02:11 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2015 02:08 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 11 2015 02:07 WhiteDog wrote:On January 11 2015 02:04 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 11 2015 02:02 WhiteDog wrote:On January 11 2015 01:52 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 11 2015 01:43 WhiteDog wrote:On January 11 2015 01:36 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 11 2015 01:31 WhiteDog wrote:On January 11 2015 01:22 Biff The Understudy wrote:
[quote]
Yes? And?
[quote]
[quote]
Personally I see everyone in the same basket Yes and that's the two only front page you can find on jews and it's about all religions. Charlie barely ever joked about the Shoah or about jews specifically, which explains why the jewish political groups barely ever criticized them. But the front page with "the Quran is shit", or all the cardinal butt fucking each other, all those are way more frontal. Why would they laugh about the Shoah? That has nothing to do with religion. And there is nothing to laugh about really. What I am trying to tell you is that Charlie didn't laugh about "the jews", because it never laughed about people for what they are, because they were not racist. It didn't laugh about "christians" or "muslims" either. It was anti-clerical, so it laughed about the Pope, about rabbis EVERYWHERE, about imams. It was anti extremists so it laughed about christian bigots, orthodox Jews and muslim fundamentalists. It was anti religion so it laughed about Moses, about Jesus, about Muhammad, about Abraham and so on. But it didn't laugh about generic muslims, generic jews and generic christians. Charlie was fighting against IDEAS not against people. Laughing about the Shoah is not laughing against ideas. Laughing about jews because they are rich or have a bug nose or control the world is not laughing about ideas. Charlie was not Dieudonné How is saying the coran is shit not against muslim ? Where are the ideas ? I liked Charlie, I see great qualities in them and they were, individually great people. I also loved their most offensive stuff, against anyone. But this idea that they criticized exactly everybody in the same way is, in my opinion, going a little too far : they had their own wars, mainly against the FN and anything related (soral, dieudonné), for total sexual freedom (because they loved it really), and against extremism (mostly muslim and christian extremism). They never really criticized the CRIF, despite its role in france in the last few years, or never made any relationship between what happen in Israel and the jewish religion. Laughing about the Quran is laughing about Islam. Not about muslim. Islam is an idea. Muslim are people. If I say "Jews have big nose and are conspiring to take over the world" I am targeting people and I'm actually being racist.
If I say "Abraham can get fucked in the ass by Moses and use the Torah as a condom", I am targeting Judaism. People can get offended if they wish, but I only talk about what they are thinking, not about what they are.It's a huge difference. I saw pictures of rabbi in every Charlie I read and I never saw them talking about religions in general without mentioning Judaism. And their Israel cartoons ALWAYS featured jewish extremist. You know, lots of settlers and far right guys in Israel are not Orthodox. But Charlie always showed orthodox and religious extremists when talking about Israeli screwing up. I don't remember any picture about the CRIF, but then I don't remember any picture about many many things. Maybe they didn't make fun of the CRIF. And what? They made fun of the religion itself, of its holy book, of its priests, and of its extremists. That's what they were doing with every religion. There is no jewish exception with Charlie. That's just factually not true. Maybe they lacked balls with the CRIF I don't know. That's really a detail though. Saying Benoit XVI is a pedophile is not attacking people ? It's attacking Benoit XVI, for what he does. Being the Pope, and a high ranked priest. Not attacking a group of people for what they are. Like Jews, because they are Jews. The same that drawing rabbis and priests is not attacking Jews and Christians. It's anti-clericalism, not racism. Don't you think there is a little double standard considering Siné got fired for basically saying "He just declared his desire to convert to judaïsm before marrying his fiancee, jewish, and heiress of Darty. He will go a long way this boy !". It's just critcisizing a rich kid to me. No, there is no double standard. What Siné did, was targeting a group of people for what they are based on racist stereotype: the Jews have money. That's VERY different, and Siné, that time, crossed a red line by actually making a racist drawing, which Charlie NEVER did. That's your interpretation of the joke. The jury decided differently and Siné got 90 000 € from Charlie Hebdo as a compensation.
Fine. But it's on this interpretation that he got fires.
We can argue about whether it was right or not, and maybe it was not, because after all the drawing didn't target jews as a group. Have to say the message of the drawing was extremely ambiguous. But that's how Val understood it, and he took action because of that. Not because he was targeting Judaism or something. They did it all the fucking time.
|
On January 11 2015 01:53 raynpelikoneet wrote:
Especially when even statistically speaking 50% of the people are dumber than the rest (yes that's a fact)
This isn't a fact in any statistically (or otherwise) meaningful way. 99% of people are also dumber than the rest. 5% of people are dumber than the rest.
60% of numbers 1-10 are less than the other 40% (choose a subset of 1-6). 20% of numbers are less than the other 80% (choose a subset of 1-2). 4 out of 5 giraffes are taller than the baby giraffe in the family.
What you may have been trying to touch on was to say 50% of people are dumber than average, but this tacitly assumes that dumbness is distributed such that the median is the same as the mean (or in other words the distribution is symmetric). If you can demonstrate that I would like to see it so I can use this information in the future but it definitely requires a little more than saying the equivalent of 50% of trees are greener than the rest.
|
On January 11 2015 02:11 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2015 02:08 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 11 2015 02:07 WhiteDog wrote:On January 11 2015 02:04 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 11 2015 02:02 WhiteDog wrote:On January 11 2015 01:52 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 11 2015 01:43 WhiteDog wrote:On January 11 2015 01:36 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 11 2015 01:31 WhiteDog wrote:On January 11 2015 01:22 Biff The Understudy wrote:
[quote]
Yes? And?
[quote]
[quote]
Personally I see everyone in the same basket Yes and that's the two only front page you can find on jews and it's about all religions. Charlie barely ever joked about the Shoah or about jews specifically, which explains why the jewish political groups barely ever criticized them. But the front page with "the Quran is shit", or all the cardinal butt fucking each other, all those are way more frontal. Why would they laugh about the Shoah? That has nothing to do with religion. And there is nothing to laugh about really. What I am trying to tell you is that Charlie didn't laugh about "the jews", because it never laughed about people for what they are, because they were not racist. It didn't laugh about "christians" or "muslims" either. It was anti-clerical, so it laughed about the Pope, about rabbis EVERYWHERE, about imams. It was anti extremists so it laughed about christian bigots, orthodox Jews and muslim fundamentalists. It was anti religion so it laughed about Moses, about Jesus, about Muhammad, about Abraham and so on. But it didn't laugh about generic muslims, generic jews and generic christians. Charlie was fighting against IDEAS not against people. Laughing about the Shoah is not laughing against ideas. Laughing about jews because they are rich or have a bug nose or control the world is not laughing about ideas. Charlie was not Dieudonné How is saying the coran is shit not against muslim ? Where are the ideas ? I liked Charlie, I see great qualities in them and they were, individually great people. I also loved their most offensive stuff, against anyone. But this idea that they criticized exactly everybody in the same way is, in my opinion, going a little too far : they had their own wars, mainly against the FN and anything related (soral, dieudonné), for total sexual freedom (because they loved it really), and against extremism (mostly muslim and christian extremism). They never really criticized the CRIF, despite its role in france in the last few years, or never made any relationship between what happen in Israel and the jewish religion. Laughing about the Quran is laughing about Islam. Not about muslim. Islam is an idea. Muslim are people. If I say "Jews have big nose and are conspiring to take over the world" I am targeting people and I'm actually being racist.
If I say "Abraham can get fucked in the ass by Moses and use the Torah as a condom", I am targeting Judaism. People can get offended if they wish, but I only talk about what they are thinking, not about what they are.It's a huge difference. I saw pictures of rabbi in every Charlie I read and I never saw them talking about religions in general without mentioning Judaism. And their Israel cartoons ALWAYS featured jewish extremist. You know, lots of settlers and far right guys in Israel are not Orthodox. But Charlie always showed orthodox and religious extremists when talking about Israeli screwing up. I don't remember any picture about the CRIF, but then I don't remember any picture about many many things. Maybe they didn't make fun of the CRIF. And what? They made fun of the religion itself, of its holy book, of its priests, and of its extremists. That's what they were doing with every religion. There is no jewish exception with Charlie. That's just factually not true. Maybe they lacked balls with the CRIF I don't know. That's really a detail though. Saying Benoit XVI is a pedophile is not attacking people ? It's attacking Benoit XVI, for what he does. Being the Pope, and a high ranked priest. Not attacking a group of people for what they are. Like Jews, because they are Jews. The same that drawing rabbis and priests is not attacking Jews and Christians. It's anti-clericalism, not racism. Don't you think there is a little double standard considering Siné got fired for basically saying "He just declared his desire to convert to judaïsm before marrying his fiancee, jewish, and heiress of Darty. He will go a long way this boy !". It's just critcisizing a rich kid to me. No, there is no double standard. What Siné did, was targeting a group of people for what they are based on racist stereotype: the Jews have money. That's VERY different, and Siné, that time, crossed a red line by actually making a racist drawing, which Charlie NEVER did. That's your interpretation of the joke. The jury decided differently and Siné got 90 000 € from Charlie Hebdo as a compensation. Following your point of view, this caricature imply all muslim father are wankers.
Makes fun of bigots who are against sexual education at school. There were muslim and christian two years ago. This one is muslim. They made plenty about christian bigots too.
|
So the female suspect traveled to Syria less than a week ago?
|
On January 11 2015 02:08 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2015 02:07 WhiteDog wrote:On January 11 2015 02:04 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 11 2015 02:02 WhiteDog wrote:On January 11 2015 01:52 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 11 2015 01:43 WhiteDog wrote:On January 11 2015 01:36 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 11 2015 01:31 WhiteDog wrote:On January 11 2015 01:22 Biff The Understudy wrote:Yes? And? Personally I see everyone in the same basket Yes and that's the two only front page you can find on jews and it's about all religions. Charlie barely ever joked about the Shoah or about jews specifically, which explains why the jewish political groups barely ever criticized them. But the front page with "the Quran is shit", or all the cardinal butt fucking each other, all those are way more frontal. Why would they laugh about the Shoah? That has nothing to do with religion. And there is nothing to laugh about really. What I am trying to tell you is that Charlie didn't laugh about "the jews", because it never laughed about people for what they are, because they were not racist. It didn't laugh about "christians" or "muslims" either. It was anti-clerical, so it laughed about the Pope, about rabbis EVERYWHERE, about imams. It was anti extremists so it laughed about christian bigots, orthodox Jews and muslim fundamentalists. It was anti religion so it laughed about Moses, about Jesus, about Muhammad, about Abraham and so on. But it didn't laugh about generic muslims, generic jews and generic christians. Charlie was fighting against IDEAS not against people. Laughing about the Shoah is not laughing against ideas. Laughing about jews because they are rich or have a bug nose or control the world is not laughing about ideas. Charlie was not Dieudonné How is saying the coran is shit not against muslim ? Where are the ideas ? I liked Charlie, I see great qualities in them and they were, individually great people. I also loved their most offensive stuff, against anyone. But this idea that they criticized exactly everybody in the same way is, in my opinion, going a little too far : they had their own wars, mainly against the FN and anything related (soral, dieudonné), for total sexual freedom (because they loved it really), and against extremism (mostly muslim and christian extremism). They never really criticized the CRIF, despite its role in france in the last few years, or never made any relationship between what happen in Israel and the jewish religion. Laughing about the Quran is laughing about Islam. Not about muslim. Islam is an idea. Muslim are people. If I say "Jews have big nose and are conspiring to take over the world" I am targeting people and I'm actually being racist.
If I say "Abraham can get fucked in the ass by Moses and use the Torah as a condom", I am targeting Judaism. People can get offended if they wish, but I only talk about what they are thinking, not about what they are.It's a huge difference. I saw pictures of rabbi in every Charlie I read and I never saw them talking about religions in general without mentioning Judaism. And their Israel cartoons ALWAYS featured jewish extremist. You know, lots of settlers and far right guys in Israel are not Orthodox. But Charlie always showed orthodox and religious extremists when talking about Israeli screwing up. I don't remember any picture about the CRIF, but then I don't remember any picture about many many things. Maybe they didn't make fun of the CRIF. And what? They made fun of the religion itself, of its holy book, of its priests, and of its extremists. That's what they were doing with every religion. There is no jewish exception with Charlie. That's just factually not true. Maybe they lacked balls with the CRIF I don't know. That's really a detail though. Saying Benoit XVI is a pedophile is not attacking people ? It's attacking Benoit XVI, for what he does. Being the Pope, and a high ranked priest. Not attacking a group of people for what they are. Like Jews, because they are Jews. The same that drawing rabbis and priests is not attacking Jews and Christians. It's anti-clericalism, not racism. Don't you think there is a little double standard considering Siné got fired for basically saying "He just declared his desire to convert to judaïsm before marrying his fiancee, jewish, and heiress of Darty. He will go a long way this boy !". It's just critcisizing a rich kid to me. No, there is no double standard. What Siné did, was targeting a group of people for what they are based on racist stereotype: the Jews have money. That's VERY different, and Siné, that time, crossed a red line by actually making a racist drawing, which Charlie NEVER did. I can bet you that if he had drawn a picture implying muslims were stealing in supermarket, just because, it would have been the same, he would have been fired also.
And saying the pope, or other priests are pedophiles is targeting Christians. The thing about racism or any other prejudices is that saying anything negative about anyone could be considered racist. You may not see a problem with satirizing rabbis and priests like CH did, but someone else might.
Racism is in the eye of the beholder.
|
On January 11 2015 02:16 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
So the female suspect traveled to Syria less than a week ago?
She did according to Libération. I hope the very worst happens to her there.
|
On January 11 2015 02:17 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2015 02:08 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 11 2015 02:07 WhiteDog wrote:On January 11 2015 02:04 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 11 2015 02:02 WhiteDog wrote:On January 11 2015 01:52 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 11 2015 01:43 WhiteDog wrote:On January 11 2015 01:36 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 11 2015 01:31 WhiteDog wrote:On January 11 2015 01:22 Biff The Understudy wrote:
[quote]
Yes? And?
[quote]
[quote]
Personally I see everyone in the same basket Yes and that's the two only front page you can find on jews and it's about all religions. Charlie barely ever joked about the Shoah or about jews specifically, which explains why the jewish political groups barely ever criticized them. But the front page with "the Quran is shit", or all the cardinal butt fucking each other, all those are way more frontal. Why would they laugh about the Shoah? That has nothing to do with religion. And there is nothing to laugh about really. What I am trying to tell you is that Charlie didn't laugh about "the jews", because it never laughed about people for what they are, because they were not racist. It didn't laugh about "christians" or "muslims" either. It was anti-clerical, so it laughed about the Pope, about rabbis EVERYWHERE, about imams. It was anti extremists so it laughed about christian bigots, orthodox Jews and muslim fundamentalists. It was anti religion so it laughed about Moses, about Jesus, about Muhammad, about Abraham and so on. But it didn't laugh about generic muslims, generic jews and generic christians. Charlie was fighting against IDEAS not against people. Laughing about the Shoah is not laughing against ideas. Laughing about jews because they are rich or have a bug nose or control the world is not laughing about ideas. Charlie was not Dieudonné How is saying the coran is shit not against muslim ? Where are the ideas ? I liked Charlie, I see great qualities in them and they were, individually great people. I also loved their most offensive stuff, against anyone. But this idea that they criticized exactly everybody in the same way is, in my opinion, going a little too far : they had their own wars, mainly against the FN and anything related (soral, dieudonné), for total sexual freedom (because they loved it really), and against extremism (mostly muslim and christian extremism). They never really criticized the CRIF, despite its role in france in the last few years, or never made any relationship between what happen in Israel and the jewish religion. Laughing about the Quran is laughing about Islam. Not about muslim. Islam is an idea. Muslim are people. If I say "Jews have big nose and are conspiring to take over the world" I am targeting people and I'm actually being racist.
If I say "Abraham can get fucked in the ass by Moses and use the Torah as a condom", I am targeting Judaism. People can get offended if they wish, but I only talk about what they are thinking, not about what they are.It's a huge difference. I saw pictures of rabbi in every Charlie I read and I never saw them talking about religions in general without mentioning Judaism. And their Israel cartoons ALWAYS featured jewish extremist. You know, lots of settlers and far right guys in Israel are not Orthodox. But Charlie always showed orthodox and religious extremists when talking about Israeli screwing up. I don't remember any picture about the CRIF, but then I don't remember any picture about many many things. Maybe they didn't make fun of the CRIF. And what? They made fun of the religion itself, of its holy book, of its priests, and of its extremists. That's what they were doing with every religion. There is no jewish exception with Charlie. That's just factually not true. Maybe they lacked balls with the CRIF I don't know. That's really a detail though. Saying Benoit XVI is a pedophile is not attacking people ? It's attacking Benoit XVI, for what he does. Being the Pope, and a high ranked priest. Not attacking a group of people for what they are. Like Jews, because they are Jews. The same that drawing rabbis and priests is not attacking Jews and Christians. It's anti-clericalism, not racism. Don't you think there is a little double standard considering Siné got fired for basically saying "He just declared his desire to convert to judaïsm before marrying his fiancee, jewish, and heiress of Darty. He will go a long way this boy !". It's just critcisizing a rich kid to me. No, there is no double standard. What Siné did, was targeting a group of people for what they are based on racist stereotype: the Jews have money. That's VERY different, and Siné, that time, crossed a red line by actually making a racist drawing, which Charlie NEVER did. I can bet you that if he had drawn a picture implying muslims were stealing in supermarket, just because, it would have been the same, he would have been fired also. And saying the pope, or other priests are pedophiles is targeting Christians. The thing about racism or any other prejudices is that saying anything negative about anyone could be considered racist. You may not see a problem with satirizing rabbis and priests like CH did, but someone else might. Racism is in the eye of the beholder.
Well no. Otherwise racism means nothing. If I can chose that you are being racist because I don't like the fact you caricature something I think, then we have a real problem.
Racism is targeting a group of people for what they are. A religious leader or a religion is not a group of people.
|
On January 11 2015 02:17 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2015 02:08 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 11 2015 02:07 WhiteDog wrote:On January 11 2015 02:04 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 11 2015 02:02 WhiteDog wrote:On January 11 2015 01:52 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 11 2015 01:43 WhiteDog wrote:On January 11 2015 01:36 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 11 2015 01:31 WhiteDog wrote:On January 11 2015 01:22 Biff The Understudy wrote:
[quote]
Yes? And?
[quote]
[quote]
Personally I see everyone in the same basket Yes and that's the two only front page you can find on jews and it's about all religions. Charlie barely ever joked about the Shoah or about jews specifically, which explains why the jewish political groups barely ever criticized them. But the front page with "the Quran is shit", or all the cardinal butt fucking each other, all those are way more frontal. Why would they laugh about the Shoah? That has nothing to do with religion. And there is nothing to laugh about really. What I am trying to tell you is that Charlie didn't laugh about "the jews", because it never laughed about people for what they are, because they were not racist. It didn't laugh about "christians" or "muslims" either. It was anti-clerical, so it laughed about the Pope, about rabbis EVERYWHERE, about imams. It was anti extremists so it laughed about christian bigots, orthodox Jews and muslim fundamentalists. It was anti religion so it laughed about Moses, about Jesus, about Muhammad, about Abraham and so on. But it didn't laugh about generic muslims, generic jews and generic christians. Charlie was fighting against IDEAS not against people. Laughing about the Shoah is not laughing against ideas. Laughing about jews because they are rich or have a bug nose or control the world is not laughing about ideas. Charlie was not Dieudonné How is saying the coran is shit not against muslim ? Where are the ideas ? I liked Charlie, I see great qualities in them and they were, individually great people. I also loved their most offensive stuff, against anyone. But this idea that they criticized exactly everybody in the same way is, in my opinion, going a little too far : they had their own wars, mainly against the FN and anything related (soral, dieudonné), for total sexual freedom (because they loved it really), and against extremism (mostly muslim and christian extremism). They never really criticized the CRIF, despite its role in france in the last few years, or never made any relationship between what happen in Israel and the jewish religion. Laughing about the Quran is laughing about Islam. Not about muslim. Islam is an idea. Muslim are people. If I say "Jews have big nose and are conspiring to take over the world" I am targeting people and I'm actually being racist.
If I say "Abraham can get fucked in the ass by Moses and use the Torah as a condom", I am targeting Judaism. People can get offended if they wish, but I only talk about what they are thinking, not about what they are.It's a huge difference. I saw pictures of rabbi in every Charlie I read and I never saw them talking about religions in general without mentioning Judaism. And their Israel cartoons ALWAYS featured jewish extremist. You know, lots of settlers and far right guys in Israel are not Orthodox. But Charlie always showed orthodox and religious extremists when talking about Israeli screwing up. I don't remember any picture about the CRIF, but then I don't remember any picture about many many things. Maybe they didn't make fun of the CRIF. And what? They made fun of the religion itself, of its holy book, of its priests, and of its extremists. That's what they were doing with every religion. There is no jewish exception with Charlie. That's just factually not true. Maybe they lacked balls with the CRIF I don't know. That's really a detail though. Saying Benoit XVI is a pedophile is not attacking people ? It's attacking Benoit XVI, for what he does. Being the Pope, and a high ranked priest. Not attacking a group of people for what they are. Like Jews, because they are Jews. The same that drawing rabbis and priests is not attacking Jews and Christians. It's anti-clericalism, not racism. Don't you think there is a little double standard considering Siné got fired for basically saying "He just declared his desire to convert to judaïsm before marrying his fiancee, jewish, and heiress of Darty. He will go a long way this boy !". It's just critcisizing a rich kid to me. No, there is no double standard. What Siné did, was targeting a group of people for what they are based on racist stereotype: the Jews have money. That's VERY different, and Siné, that time, crossed a red line by actually making a racist drawing, which Charlie NEVER did. I can bet you that if he had drawn a picture implying muslims were stealing in supermarket, just because, it would have been the same, he would have been fired also. And saying the pope, or other priests are pedophiles is targeting Christians.
No, it's not. It's targeting religious institutions and figures of authority, not Christians as a people. The difference is there and clearly matters.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--o4L_giMf--/c_fit,fl_progressive,q_80,w_636/yi2x7bussbnxfn3sx4ub.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imworld.aufeminin.com/story/20130224/charlie-hebdo-une-14309_w1000.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://photo.gala.fr/media/cache/width_620px/upload/slideshow/charlie-hebdo-des-unes-sans-concession-9150/20-avril-2011-aux-chiottes-toutes-les-religions-159699.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://libertyunyield.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/pope.jpg)
