I don't think its remotely relevant to the underlying issue period.
Charlie Hebdo being a racist, bigoted and prejudiced publication is not relevant to why they were attacked?
Are you serious?
But then, I'm not the one who brought it up in the first place.
Brought
what up?
As I said upthread, I think it's a complete red herring given that the bombing was expressly motivated by the alleged "blasphemy" of Muhammed.
Where has this been "expressed??" You're straight up lying with your "quote" because the attackers made no public statement.
The CIA has publicly stated they believe this was motivated by insulting and mocking the religion of Islam.
No one said this was retribution for "blasphemy."
Mocking a religion is indeed a discriminatory and prejudiced action.
This is commonly considered racist. But it doesn't depict a "race" of people does it?
Is this guy Polish? Is he Russian? Is German? Is he FRENCH?
What is his race? Who knows... All we know is, he is Jewish. "Jews" are not a race, it's a religion.
Some might say well, it's antisemitic then, if not racist; but again, that's more than likely not true. The person depicted historically would have been of Ashkenazi descent (European) and thus not Semites.
Now, would you say the above picture is not racist??
The problem with Charlie Hebdo is they routinely depicted Muslims as savages and barbarians. Yes, they also ridiculed the prophet Muhammad. Dehumanizing Muslims is the exact same form of racism as dehumanizing Jews. That's the point.
Call it prejudice, call it bigotry, both terms I used to begin with, which are surely more accurate terms - but at least be consistent; and personally, I don't give a shit which term you decide, but the point is that if someone were to say "that's racist," you know what they're referring to...
And who might say it's racist? Well Der Spiegel, the Register, the New York Times, Al Jazeera have all referred to Charlie Hebdo's cartoons as racist, especially with respect to their depictions of Arabs and Muslims.
And I believe the reason race was brought in the first place was precisely to shift the discussion to something other than the core underlying issue. I just didn't think the claim that Charlie Hebdo is "no doubt" racist should be left hanging without anyone questioning it. I've read enough on it to think that's an unjustified expansion of the meaning of the term.
Q-Tip, I don't give two flying fucks if you want to defend Charlie Hebdo and claim that they aren't racist..
I don't care. Nate posted their cartoons, and I'm quite sure (even in the thread) many others perceive their work as racist and offensive.
I mean, is this one of those asinine conversations about the scope of the definition of the term "racism?" As in, is 'antisemitism' or bigotry towards Jews racist or not? Because if it is, I'm not interested.
And with that; I really don't get your point.
In any case, the underlying context in which "racism" was raised was the reprinting of the cartoon at issue. That reprinting idea was responded to with a classic "attack the messenger" response of calling Charlie Hebod racist, as if that somehow invalidated everything else they may have said or done.
I don't know what you're talking about.... This has nothing to do with me or any point I've made in this thread.
It's a strawman.
Reprinting? WTF??
I personally think there is an extremely important issue at stake, which is why I support the reprinting of the cartoon in question.
WHEN DID I EVER SAY ANYTHING ABOUT REPRINTING THE CARTOONS?!!?!
The principle that free speech -- especially political/social/religious commentary of public interest -- should not be barred simply because someone else deems it offensive is too important to be left undefended.
Strawman much?
Who the fuck said they should be censored??? Me?!
Why are you quoting me, implying that I'm against their rights to publication??
But, with that said, their publication is indeed illegal under French law (laws that I do not support btw), and speaks to the racist second-class stature of non-Whites in France; but that's another matter entirely.
I think it is particularly important because Islamic radicals have attempted to force people in other contexts to abide by their rules of religious propriety, or face violence or even death. the point needs to be made -- repeatedly -- that membership in civilized society requires recognition of the rights of others to engage in behavior that offends you. That is particularly true where you have some self=professed adherents of a religious minority attempting to impose its beliefs upon a majority.
What is the point of any of this?
Who is saying that Charlie Hebdo should be prevented from doing what they are doing?
Has anyone in this thread suggested printing their cartoons should be "banned?"
You're arguing with no one as far as I can tell....
No one is going to backup these murders.