Why I'm not Charlie and never will be

Thanks. I read your post and I'm glad to hear that. I have no problem with Charlie Hebdo mocking groups that people actively choose to be a part of but if they mocked people for their race or sexuality or any other quality that people don't choose for themselves then that would have been a bit disappointing.

I agree, Charlie's actions are completely inhuman! It's almost as if he's not even a human at all! Oh wait...

Rather not protect a low life who gets a hard on when drawing stupid cartoons.

I don't think you've understood what 'satire' really means.

Edit: sorry generic_man, didn't mean to quote you.

Who are you to conclude on the intent of the cartoonists? The evidence points to their intent being to, a) satirise a figure who is promoted as being perfect and who has a stranglehold over a group of people and to, b) protest against censorship. The problem being that "feelings" and "wishes" are entirely subjective and relative to the person. The Qur'an, and other religious texts, probably "attack" the feelings and wishes of people who are gay, feminist, non-believers, etc. Do you see where your logic is going?People shouldn't have to pussyfoot around when criticising ideologies, particularly harmful political ideologies (such as fascism) as one example. You are basically saying: "oh, make sure you say 'not very nice' instead of 'hate', and 'a bit physical' instead of 'violent'". Ridiculous. Many people who have left Scientology feel strongly about how harmful the ideology is. They should be free to use whatever strong language they want to condemn it.An image says a thousand words. Exercising freedom of speech "to the utmost extremes" raises awareness and lets you get across your passion for a topic. See the satirical cartoons against rulers in 18th and 19th centuries. People who were distraught over Nicholas II's rule used satire, which many found grossly offensive (to the point that the creators should be executed), as a means of raising awareness of the flaws in his rule.

I don't think you've understood what 'satire' really means.

Edit: sorry generic_man, didn't mean to quote you.

How is it remotely hypocritical to preach freedom of expression in a country that limits freedom of expression? It's absolutely *imperative* to do so.

Charlie Hebdo is not a real person lol just the name of the newspaper

All of this seems irrelevant to the original topic of why "I am not Charlie Hebdo" and your subsequent arguments are Straw man. Where did I say that the Quran shouldn't be criticised?

I'm not "basically saying" we should "pussyfoot" around criticizing Islam, I said I don't like the way that Hebdo chooses to do so. Our differing interpretations have nothing to do with the topic of conversation or the thread between me and the other user.

The only thing I agree with is the part about passion, but showing your passion about a topic does nothing but for yourself or anybody impressionable enough to let the way you give your opinion outshine the opinion itself. Which although is a good thing is again IMO irrelevant to the original thread.

When that freedom of speech is used to isolate Muslims in that community, limiting their freedom of expression. Charlie Hebdo was by no means preaching freedom of speech, it was mocking the beliefs of those who were already limited in their expression. Mockery on the grounds of race/belief is considered wilful discrimination. In a society where such controversial images are well received despite breaching a basic human right in equality, the defence is freedom of speech, though it is that very freedom of speech that has caused such an atrocity to take place.

Understand the term "straw man" before you utilise it. I said that's where your logic extends to, which is a reasonable argument to make.



It is entirely relevant to the topic. The root of the OP is the concept of subjective offence, which our debate relates to.



See above.

When that freedom of speech is used to isolate Muslims in that community, limiting their freedom of expression.

Charlie Hebdo was by no means preaching freedom of speech, it was mocking the beliefs of those who were already limited in their expression.

Mockery on the grounds of race/belief is considered wilful discrimination.

In a society where such controversial images are well received despite breaching a basic human right in equality, the defence is freedom of speech, though it is that very freedom of speech that has caused such an atrocity to take place.

If only the dead Palestinian children got this much worldwide attention.

The cartoons below are drawn by Charlie Hebdo, the french magazine which recently got attacked by gunmen.

It shows a muslim man using the Quran as (bullets going through it) with the caption "the Quran is s*** it doesn't stop bulllets" after the Rabaa massacre in Egypt. Over 1000 Egyptians were killed by their own military whilst peacefully protesting.

This is one of the reasons I am not charlie. I do not make fun of massacres.I am above that. If someone where to make fun of holocaust victims, they would be called quite a few bad names(and rightly so). It shouldn't be any different when people make fun of other atrocities.

The other cartoon shows, Mrs Taubira, a government minister, as a monkey simply because she is a black woman. I do not support racism, so yet again, I am not Charlie.

Just to add - I do not support the gunmen or anything of the like.

The images are in the spoiler, you may find them offensive, so I've given you the option whether you wish to view them or not.

Limited in their expression in what way?

Also the bold is nonsense

They do. All the time. If only the Kurds got ANY attention

Studies show Muslims applying for a job in France are 2.5 times less likely than Christians to get it. That's a pretty fundamental one I just Googled, but the one that sticks in my head was the campaign to ban veils on women a while back. You cant enforce law on the land that contradicts, for many female Muslims, the law of God.

what? the Kurds? What about the muslims in Burma being killed by "peaceful" Buddhists?

I realise that now...Went full retarded lol apologies.

Posted from TSR Mobile