On Censorship

[politicus]

a bunch of (harmless) scatological cartoonists (and their staff) were agents of no authority.

Strange term to use in this context.

[politicus]

Dark humour is the same as racism now? Yes, Charlie Hebdo didn't care to be in bad taste and make fun of the horrors of the world (that's why I'm sure they would have enjoyed the number of humorous cartoons that have been drawn about their deaths). Feel free to clutch your pearls. This doesn't change the fact that their commitment was deeply antiracist.

(note: the second one seems to be from the early Charlie Hebdo, of which I don't know enough to judge)

It was still a post-68/leftist no respect publication and letting the Pope say "the French are as dumb as n****rs" is rather obviously part of its anti-clerical satire.

[politicus]

Dark humour is the same as racism now? Yes, Charlie Hebdo didn't care to be in bad taste and make fun of the horrors of the world (that's why I'm sure they would have enjoyed the number of humorous cartoons that have been drawn about their deaths). Feel free to clutch your pearls. This doesn't change the fact that their commitment was deeply antiracist.

(note: the second one seems to be from the early Charlie Hebdo, of which I don't know enough to judge)

this isn't reddit. "it's just 'dark humour'" isn't a get-out-of-jail-free card for racism

It is only "racism" if you choose to interpret it that way. Their line was "fight against power and oppression wherever you find it" and in the French anti-clerical tradition they had a special fondness for attacking religious leaders and reationary religious people. In a French context that meant going after a fair amount of Muslims, anything else would have been hypocritical of them.

[politicus]

To those that think Charlie Hebdo only were rude to Muslims:

[politicus]

To those that think Charlie Hebdo only were rude to Muslims:

[img]

nobody's saying that, and it's also entirely irrelevant.

If you notice I said "think", not "say" and of course it isn't irrelevant. It is central to an evaluation of Charlie Hebdo that they went after all reactionary groups.

Reactionary Muslim leaders do have power in France: Over their own communities, over the way non-Muslims living in those communities can behave without being intimidated and by their general effect on the social climate in the country by legitimizing certain views - the rise of anti-semitism is a clear example of this. It is obviously legitimate to satire them.

[politicus]

things i never thought i'd see: antonio using pegida-like claims that blacks and muslims in france are "powerful and oppressive"

what

you claimed that black-/muslim-hating cartoons were emblematic of "fighting against power and oppression wherever you find it"

To those that think Charlie Hebdo only were rude to Muslims:

[img]

nobody's saying that, and it's also entirely irrelevant.

If you notice I said "think", not "say" and of course it isn't irrelevant. It is central to an evaluation of Charlie Hebdo that they went after all reactionary groups.

Reactionary Muslim leaders do have power in France: Over their own communities, over the way non-Muslims living in those communities can behave without being intimidated and by their general effect on the social climate in the country by legitimizing certain views - the rise of anti-semitism is a clear example of this. It is obviously legitimate to satire them.

we're not talking about "reactionary muslim leaders" here

You do not get to decide what "we" are talking about.

[politicus]

things i never thought i'd see: antonio using pegida-like claims that blacks and muslims in france are "powerful and oppressive"

what

you claimed that black-/muslim-hating cartoons were emblematic of "fighting against power and oppression wherever you find it"

To those that think Charlie Hebdo only were rude to Muslims:

[img]

nobody's saying that, and it's also entirely irrelevant.

If you notice I said "think", not "say" and of course it isn't irrelevant. It is central to an evaluation of Charlie Hebdo that they went after all reactionary groups.

Reactionary Muslim leaders do have power in France: Over their own communities, over the way non-Muslims living in those communities can behave without being intimidated and by their general effect on the social climate in the country by legitimizing certain views - the rise of anti-semitism is a clear example of this. It is obviously legitimate to satire them.

we're not talking about "reactionary muslim leaders" here

You do not get to decide what "we" are talking about.

it's pretty obvious who the cartoons (especially the first one i linked) were talking about.

You did not link to any cartoons, but the ones you posted deals with Muslim men's mistreatment and disrespect of women and that is a legitimate target for a progressive magazine (and a phenomenon that is legitimized by reactionary leaders). Boko Haram fairly obviously qualify as reactionary (or backwards is more accurate) Muslim group with extensive power and the satire is on them, not the women.

I was making a general comment on Charlie Hebdo and their line towards Muslims. The things you can find on-line are not representative  for the general line of the magazine. There are more of their cruder things.