The Student Room Group
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>

Why I'm not Charlie and never will be

Scroll to see replies

Original post by paradoxicalme
The monkey picture on the first page looks rather racist to me.


it might look racist to you, but in reality it is the exact opposite. It is in fact attacking racists.
So is there an example of racism anybody? If not, then I suggest refraining from libelling these cartoonists.
Original post by Plantagenet Crown
It's a statement of solidarity, those who say they're Charlie are saying they stand up for the magazine's actions, in other words, they support freedom of expression and the ability to mock and criticise belief systems.


That's more of a reason for me to not be Charlie, by standing with this magazine people are depending bigotry and xenophobia. How stupid is this hashtag?


Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by paradoxicalme
The monkey picture on the first page looks rather racist to me.


The context for that has been stated numerous times.

The thing about satire is that you kind of have to know the context...

Original post by CJKay

The cartoon, titled "Rassemblement bleu Raciste" ("Racist Blue Gathering"), was a satirical attack on Marine le Pen, the leader of France's far right wing party and part of the "Rassemblement bleu Marine" ("Marine Blue Gathering"), who described Christiane Taubira, the French Minister of Justice, as a monkey.
Original post by amenahussein
That's more of a reason for me to not be Charlie, by standing with this magazine people are depending bigotry and xenophobia. How stupid is this hashtag?


Posted from TSR Mobile


You've done it too many times for it to be a typo; do you mean 'defending'?

Where is the bigotry and xenophobia by the way?
Although I may not agree with some of the cartoons I defend others' rights to make them.

There is no right not to be offended.
Original post by h3isenberg
You've done it too many times for it to be a typo; do you mean 'defending'?

Where is the bigotry and xenophobia by the way?


LOL! I am honestly sorry, it's my keyboard -_-


Oh, it's front page. On every page, have you seen the magazine?


Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by amenahussein
That's more of a reason for me to not be Charlie, by standing with this magazine people are depending bigotry and xenophobia. How stupid is this hashtag?


Posted from TSR Mobile


Quote me in when you can explain how it is defending 'bigotry and xenophobia'.
Original post by amenahussein

Oh, it's front page. On every page, have you seen the magazine?


Posted from TSR Mobile


Yes and I am yet to see any cartoons purposefully in bigoted and/or xenophobic nature, can you enlighten me?
Original post by h3isenberg
Yes and I am yet to see any cartoons purposefully in bigoted and/or xenophobic nature, can you enlighten me?


Insulting any religion is a very senseless and intolerant quality to have.


Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by amenahussein
Insulting any religion is a very senseless and intolerant quality to have.


Posted from TSR Mobile


So that's a "no" then.

Unfortunately, religions are merely systems of ideas or thoughts. The reason you get to freely practise your religion is because of freedom of expression. This freedom of expression also entails being able to call out these ideas for being ridiculous.

By the way, I think a particular religion is very insulting and intolerant towards homosexuals and apostates.
Original post by h3isenberg
So that's a "no" then.

Unfortunately, religions are merely systems of ideas or thoughts. The reason you get to freely practise your religion is because of freedom of expression. This freedom of expression also entails being able to call out these ideas for being ridiculous.

By the way, I think a particular religion is very insulting and intolerant towards homosexuals and apostates.


That's absolutely fine! I definitely am for freedom of speech!! And I think the Paris shooting was a disgusting act and an attack on democracy. But.. Let's not act stupid, it didn't happen for no reason. The magazine tormented extremists and radicals.. Which is probably not the greatest thing to do, they have every right to do it! But they knew what danger they were putting themselves into when publishing such offensive cartoons.


Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by paradoxicalme
The monkey picture on the first page looks rather racist to me.


Nope, it is satire

It was making fun of right wing groups that called the justice minister a monkey
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by amenahussein
But they knew what danger they were putting themselves into when publishing such offensive cartoons.
Posted from TSR Mobile


The 'she was asking for it' argument.

The only danger was from nut case Muslim fundamentalists. Maybe you should spend more time concentrating on them rather than the victim
Original post by DorianGrayism
The 'she was asking for it' argument.

The only danger was from nut case Muslim fundamentalists. Maybe you should spend more time concentrating on them rather than the victim


I never said they were asking for it at all. Don't put words into my mouth, I am actually very sympathetic towards the cartoonists, nobody deserves that.


Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by amenahussein
That's absolutely fine! I definitely am for freedom of speech!! And I think the Paris shooting was a disgusting act and an attack on democracy. But.. Let's not act stupid, it didn't happen for no reason. The magazine tormented extremists and radicals.. Which is probably not the greatest thing to do, they have every right to do it! But they knew what danger they were putting themselves into when publishing such offensive cartoons.


Posted from TSR Mobile


This sort of logic is disgusting. The people who simply drew cartoons deserve not the tiniest bit of responsibility for what happened to them. The responsibility lies entirely on the people who walked into their offices and shot them with machine guns.

By suggesting the victims had any complicity in their murder, you implicitly denigrate free speech and absolve (at least in part) the murderers.
Original post by DorianGrayism
Mmm not really. It has nothing to do with the IS.

They didn't like the Mohammed cartoons because it is blasphemous, so they murdered him.

No need to try to make it more complex than it actually is



How is it complicated? What part of that is complicated or are you just a bit stupid? They said they were representing Al Qaeda ffs who are at war with the west. But, the gunman had links to both IS and Al Qaeda.

I think you're guilty of an oversimplification. And what about all of the other killings that have been going on re Muslim terrorist attacks, are those all murders because they did not like a picture? It's all linked. They don't really need an excuse, they were just looking for one. Did 9/11 happen because of a cartoon?
Original post by Rinsed
This sort of logic is disgusting. The people who simply drew cartoons deserve not the tiniest bit of responsibility for what happened to them. The responsibility lies entirely on the people who walked into their offices and shot them with machine guns.

By suggesting the victims had any complicity in their murder, you implicitly denigrate free speech and absolve (at least in part) the murderers.


Of-course they are not responsible for their deaths, they never shot themselves did they?

Not at all, I just said I'm sure they were aware of the danger they were putting themselves into, the danger of extremists and radicals rebelling in the way they did. Which was a terrible act. I STATE AGAIN.


Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by drsloth
it might look racist to you, but in reality it is the exact opposite. It is in fact attacking racists.
So is there an example of racism anybody? If not, then I suggest refraining from libelling these cartoonists.

I understand the context of the picture. However, it still depicts a black woman as a monkey. There is a fine line between satirising racism and reappropriating it and I can still see black people being offended by that picture.
Original post by Tom_Ford
How is it complicated? What part of that is complicated or are you just a bit stupid? They said they were representing Al Qaeda ffs who are at war with the west. But, the gunman had links to both IS and Al Qaeda.

I think you're guilty of an oversimplification. And what about all of the other killings that have been going on re Muslim terrorist attacks, are those all murders because they did not like a picture? It's all linked. They donj't really need an excuse, they were just looking for one. Did 9/11 happen because of a cartoon?


Not really. They killed those people because of a cartoon.

Whether Al Qaeda was at war with the West or Not, something would have happened.

It was exactly the Same with Rusdie.

The only reason why you made this silly argument up was because you were called out on your victim blaming
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by amenahussein
I never said they were asking for it at all. Don't put words into my mouth, I am actually very sympathetic towards the cartoonists, nobody deserves that.
Posted from TSR Mobile


Pretty much. They were putting themselves in danger and etc. It only sounds ridiculous because you wouldn't say that about a rape victim.

You are nit that sympathetic considering you were calling them racist, which is completely false
(edited 9 years ago)

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you