It isn’t what I intended, but I appreciate your benefit of the doubt.
Resistance to genocide and apartheid isn’t comparable with shooting up a newspaper office. Charlie Hebdo put out cartoons mocking Jesus, the Pope, and Mohammed. I’m not defending their depiction of Mohammed but I don’t think “rest in piss” to the people killed over cartoons is warranted. People should be able to mock religions without getting killed over it.
Not saying that this necessarily justifies anything, but a lot of the content put out by Charlie Hebdo was just straight up racist and could not possibly be interpreted in any other way. The idea that all they did was mock religion got heavily pushed by the media after the attack, but it simply isn’t true.
They published racist comics, and I won’t defend that. The thing is they weren’t killed cause it was racist, they were killed because they published a depiction of Mohammed. I mean look at their depiction of Jesus, God, and the Holy Spirit. If the characters depicted were brown, it would be racist too.
Yeah I just wanted to be abundantly clear that what I’m saying is not in anyway a defense of their racist comics, but more a condemnation of celebrating religious violence.
Unless I missed an edit, I don’t see anything like that being said or implied, that’s all, so it read to me as introducing the Hebdo shootings as an oddly undermining non-sequitar.
I didn’t assume that that was your intention, and I’m glad it wasn’t. Maybe my ‘between the lines’ detector is a bit oversensative today. And I didn’t mean to turn this into a tangent about the shootings (quite the opposite in fact), but oops I guess.
It isn’t what I intended, but I appreciate your benefit of the doubt.
Resistance to genocide and apartheid isn’t comparable with shooting up a newspaper office. Charlie Hebdo put out cartoons mocking Jesus, the Pope, and Mohammed. I’m not defending their depiction of Mohammed but I don’t think “rest in piss” to the people killed over cartoons is warranted. People should be able to mock religions without getting killed over it.
Not saying that this necessarily justifies anything, but a lot of the content put out by Charlie Hebdo was just straight up racist and could not possibly be interpreted in any other way. The idea that all they did was mock religion got heavily pushed by the media after the attack, but it simply isn’t true.
They published racist comics, and I won’t defend that. The thing is they weren’t killed cause it was racist, they were killed because they published a depiction of Mohammed. I mean look at their depiction of Jesus, God, and the Holy Spirit. If the characters depicted were brown, it would be racist too.
CW: Cartoon depiction of sex
Double CW
Oh, I definitely wouldn’t think you would! I just think it’s worth pointing out as there are still a lot of people who aren’t aware of it.
Yeah I just wanted to be abundantly clear that what I’m saying is not in anyway a defense of their racist comics, but more a condemnation of celebrating religious violence.
Unless I missed an edit, I don’t see anything like that being said or implied, that’s all, so it read to me as introducing the Hebdo shootings as an oddly undermining non-sequitar.
I didn’t assume that that was your intention, and I’m glad it wasn’t. Maybe my ‘between the lines’ detector is a bit oversensative today. And I didn’t mean to turn this into a tangent about the shootings (quite the opposite in fact), but oops I guess.
It’s right there
You’re completely right. I just totally blanked on it. Apologies for that. I think I’m more exhausted than I realise.