Charlie Hebdos latest cover...

[procon]

Ouch!

"Charlie Hebdo’s latest cover embraces the French satirical weekly’s reputation as a provocative, controversial voice. Its August 30 issue shouts, “God Exists! He Drowned All the Neo-Nazis of Texas,” referencing the devastation caused by Hurricane Harvey in the Houston area."

http://www.newsweek.com/charlie-hebdo-cover-god-exists-drowned-neo-nazis-texas-657218

[BigmanPigman]

1. Fantastique!

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

2. Alas, all of the neoNazis did not

drown in Texas. Not even all the Texas neoNazis.

[DavidDvorkin]

3. That's silly as well as unfunny.

[dalton99a]

4. Most Nazis in the news recently did not come from Texas

or the South

[shenmue]

58. Oh really?

[phylny]

66. I read about men from Ohio, California and upstate New York. n/t

[jcmaine72]

5. Such heroic courage! They're really on the cutting edge. I only hope all those drowned Nazis in....

...Texas, many of whom looked like just ordinary people to me (I guess such guises are part of Nazi cunning and deception!), don't go to their Paris offices and start shooting. They won't be able to play the same the cards as the last group who did that in order to garner sympathy.

[JonLP24]

6. Isn't Houston a Democratic area

I''d expect KKK or nazis to be in more rural parts of Texas.

[GoCubsGo]

31. Houston proper is Democratic.

It has a Democratic mayor, and its three representatives are Democrats (Gene Greene, Sheila Jackson Lee, and Al Green.) It is surrounded by republican districts, and the areas between Houston and Louisiana, which are also underwater, are republican areas. So the there is some truth to that magazine cover.

[oasis]

7. Fail. Cornyn,Cruz and Abbott remained high and dry throughout the storm.

[ucrdem]

8. Okay that's amusing.

They really need to knock off the Islamic stuff though.

[linuxman]

9. Why?

[ucrdem]

11. Because it's offensive to Muslims.

I realize that's the point, but it's an utterly stupid point.

[linuxman]

12. Why should Muslims get a pass though?

[ucrdem]

13. Because they have a right to practice their religion without persecution.

Some Enlightenment philosophes weren't so enlightened on that particular point and it's led to a lot of grief.

[linuxman]

14. You are aware they mock Christians relentlessly as well, right?

[Dreamer Tatum]

15. ridicule isn't persecution nt

[ucrdem]

18. Of course it is. Ask any victim of bullying. nt

[Warren DeMontague]

21. You're honestly saying Charlie Hebdo should "shut up" and calling them "bullies"?

You do remember what happened to them, right?

[ucrdem]

23. Yes, yes, and yes I remember. nt

[Warren DeMontague]

25. I remember when some here were arguing that "blasphemy" isn't protected by the 1st Amendment, too

[ucrdem]

28. Lots of things are legal that are offensive, wrong, and stupid.

Here read this, it touches on the point and I think you'll like it:

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/07/10/shakespeares-cure-for-xenophobia

[Warren DeMontague]

30. Sure. But any moral argument about what Charlie Hebdo "should" do went out the window

when someone killed a bunch of people in their offices.

At this point, since we're talking about propriety an' all, it's probably in far better taste to just leave them alone- even if it means suffering the fact that someone is drawing mean cartoons about magic sky-friends.

[beam me up scottie]

54. Tom Tomorrow nailed it:

?1421596502

[Dreamer Tatum]

22. like the Christians ridiculed by Hebdo, you mean?

Let me take a wild guess...

[Oneironaut]

19. The biggest mistake the left makes is coddling Islam.

Islam is equally as absurd as Christianity, and in the present day, much more violent. If they're too sensitive to have their religion criticized and satirized, then they should maybe ask why they are part of that religion? An idea that can't be criticized is useless.

Satire isn't oppression. Fundies with a victim complex will cry "oppression" because they're anti-free speech.

[Warren DeMontague]

26. derply herld relergers berlerfs

[6000eliot]

33. I think you might have wandered into the wrong discussion board.

Unless this place has suddenly become a megaphone for bigotry.

[Oneironaut]

41. A bigot hates people. Religion is an idea.

Criticizing Islam is "bigotry," but all other ideas are fair game. Islam is sacred cow to many on the left. It's just another idea that should be open to criticism, just like any belief system.

[6000eliot]

43. Bullshit! Blocked! Bye!

[Dreamer Tatum]

53. can you block me too please thanks nt

[Oneironaut]

56. Ok! See! Ya!

[tymorial]

52. Cognitive dissonance is not new to DU nt

[Codeine]

60. Religions are stupid. All of them.

Islam is no less stupid and, at the moment, is the source of considerable global violence. Religion can fuck right off.

[6000eliot]

61. And that is up to you to decide because?

I'm an atheist, but I don't try to impose my lack of belief on others, nor do I belittle them because they do believe. It would be nothing more than arrogance for me to do so.

[JonLP24]

36. The biggest mistake Americans make

is lumping all Muslims together with an ultra conservative orthodox right wing sect -- Wahabbism -- with the overall 1 billion Muslims. A sect that hasn't even started until the 18th century and was backed by British spies looking to break up the Ottoman Empire. The dominant minority sect now rules Saudi Arabia largely because we agreed to militarily defend them for oil which they use proceeds to guess what spread Wahabbism. Wahabbis are against idolatry to the point where they try to prevent idolatry which is why they bulldozed much of Mecca and relocated Muhammad's grave to an undisclosed location because no one can worship a grave if they don't know where it is meanwhile the Hajj is one of the five pillars of Islam something Wahabbis are against but they knew they would have no credibility in the region if they prohibited it so instead they highly regulate it.

As far as the present day goes there were Christian groups in the Central Africa Republic that brutalized the minority Muslim population destroying villages rapes, Even people suspected of being Muslim were killed. Wahabbis are very violent which is why 95% of their victims are actually Muslims. If we want someone to blame for Wahabbism the West shares responsibility for backing those assholes. As far as violence goes how many US made weapons are dropped in the region but I guess our weapons are "secular" so that's OK.

Americans are largely idiots when it comes to Muslims which is why so many are victims of hate crimes.

[syringis]

57. This is true

I can not answer as I would like since my english vocabulary is not very extensive.

It is not only an American mistake, mostly do the same.

At the best, some make the difference between shia and sunni.

But in each branch, there a variety of sub branches, in each sub branch different tendencies, etc.

Wahabbism is relatively recent, about 250 years or so. It was essentially a politic tool disguised in religion. Until the 30's of last century, they were much more organized as a tribu rather than an nation. The damn oil brought them wealth. Money facilitated the spread of their biased interpretation of Islam. They started by funding the Muslims brother in Egypt (50'). If you look at Mecca in the fifties, it was barely a village, no building, no roads and on, and on...
They have literally stolen the muslim holy land.

Behind all that shit, it is a matter of power in the Middle East.

In fact, they are a very small minority , or should have been. Unfortunatly, money and vicious calculations helped by the West interests in the region, gave them a huge showcase...

Sorry, it is a very short simplistic answer. I don't know if you speak french or maybe you can read it, I can make a reply much more argumented.

[beam me up scottie]

37. Criticism of homophobic, misogynistic religious ideology isn't persecution.

Even mocking such ideology isn't persecution, if it is then right wing Christians are correct that they're being persecuted in this country. And we know that's bullshit.

Liberals can protect the rights of religious people and criticize their beliefs at the same time, it's not either/or.

[anneboleyn]

35. You do know Islamic terrorists massacred Charlie Hebdo journalists? Your comment seems...odd.

[syringis]

38. Oui et non

Bonjour mon ami

Je comprends le point de vue et j'en parle d'autant plus librement que mes parents sont issus de la religion musulmane. Enfin...ils n'étaient pas super pratiquants, il faut dire...

C'est en fait plus un interdit sociétal, un mélange de sentiments qui fait que certains se sentent agressés. Mais j'en connais beaucoup qui en rient partant du principe que chacun a le droit de s'exprimer.

Cela dit, et c'est valable aussi pour la religion chrétienne, c'est vrai que parfois la limite est franchie et on tombe dans l'irrespect.

Mais du fait des évènements des dernières années, c'est plus perceptible l'Islam.

Maintenant, on sait aussi que Charlie Hebdo ne fait pas spécialement dans la dentelle non plus

[ucrdem]

55. Merci mon amie!

C'est un melange de sentiments, absolument, et probablement trop compliqué pour un reponse court, mais je vais dire plus tard . . .

[syringis]

59. De rien, votre aise

J'ai répondu #57

C'est une discussion intéressante mais que je ne pourrai pas tenir entièrement en anglais. Si ça vous dit, je propose d'ouvrir un thread avec la personne à qui j'ai répondu et qui a soulevé des points intéressants.

If it is more confortable, answer in English if you like

I don't have problems to understand. It is when it comes to draw up a argumentation that it is more difficult.

[HeartachesNhangovers]

10. Je ne suis pas Charlie.

[Dreamer Tatum]

16. That is shitty satire and lazy nt

[linuxman]

20. That's just it.

I think the part that bothers me most is just how incredibly low effort it is.

[Warren DeMontague]

50. I don't get French humor.

I'm not gonna bad-mouth the recently deceased Jerry Lewis, but case in point.

[6000eliot]

17. Remember when they said bigotted stuff about Muslims and everybody loved them?

Good times.

[Warren DeMontague]

24. You mean when someone shot up their offices and some people said they "deserved it"?

because, you know, a summary death sentence for drawing a "blasphemous" cartoon is, like, totally reasonable.

[6000eliot]

27. Not sure what your point is, but it has nothing to do with mine.

[Warren DeMontague]

29. You're "not sure" what the attacks on the Charlie Hebdo offices have to do with it?

Did anyone here know who Charlie Hebdo was before a bunch of people were killed there?

[6000eliot]

32. My point was that people who direct their "satire" at brown people"heroes,"

while people who direct it at white people="villains." Even in this enlightened space. Simple enough.

[beam me up scottie]

39. Charlie Hebdo doesn't direct all of their satire at "brown people".

They lampoon everyone, including Christians and recently Trump.

And THEY were the victims, remember? They were massacred because they exercised their freedom of speech.

[6000eliot]

40. This is the last time I will clarify. I was NOT making a point about fucking Charlie Hebdo.

I was making a point about US.

[beam me up scottie]

46. This is what you posted:

Remember when they said bigotted stuff about Muslims and everybody loved them?

Good times.

The reason people 'love' Charlie Hebdo is because they stood up to religious terrorists and were killed for it.

Je Suis Charlie wasn't about hate and bigotry, it was about tolerance and solidarity. And supporting victims of terrorism.

[Warren DeMontague]

44. Yeah, those threads were truly breathtaking.. as free speech discussions here often are.

My personal favorite is "you can't shout fire in a crowded theater"- and, by extension, you can't draw a cartoon that might make someone really mad and "force" them to get violent, because you're guilty of "incitement".

[beam me up scottie]

51. I remember. And people are still vilifying the victims.

Because religion MUST be protected from its critics and religious extremists MUST be protected from satire.

Just ask right wing Christians, they use the same tactic. It's very effective when you want to silence those uppity secular liberals who believe in silly things like the first amendment.

[Warren DeMontague]

42. No, people of any hue who kill other people over cartoons, are villains.

And people who draw any sort of moral equivalence between "offensive" speech and murder are seriously mis-calibrated in the morality department.

[6000eliot]

45. Again, I don't get your point, since I was literally saying NOTHING about Charlie Hebdo.

The point was about US. Jesus Christ!

[Warren DeMontague]

47. Who is the "they" referenced, in your post here?

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10029538474#post17

[6000eliot]

48. Goodbye.

[Warren DeMontague]

49. yeah.

thought so.

[Nevernose]

62. They've always been incredibly pro-Muslim immigrant

Since their inception. They've never been "bigoted towards Muslims." They did point out specific things now and again, or at multiple religions, and skewed heavily to absurdism. They're French.

The only thing "bigoted" towards Muslims was drawing Mohammad -- and that wasn't even directed at all Muslims, just the extremists. And the point was that the artists and writers weren't observant Muslims and were therefore entitled to draw whatever they wanted. They were illustrating the absurdity of one religious sect angry that people not in the sect weren't following the sect's rules.

The absurdity was illustrated a second time, except incredibly tragically.

And then a third time when rushed to criticize Charlie Hebdo, one of the few well-known pro-Muslim voices in France, the total and complete opposite of right wing "free expression" bigots like Pam Gellar or Geert Wilders.

[6000eliot]

63. Why does everyone assume that my post was a judgement about Charlie Hebdo,

about whom I don't care one way or the other. I was posting about all of the people HERE in the USA who loved them back when they were doing cartoons about Muslims. Now when they are doing similar cartoons about white people, people are upset. I was merely pointing out the hypocrisy. I know little about the magazine other than that they didn't deserve to be attacked violently for a satirical cartoon. It's not about who was offended then, it's rather about who is suddenly offended NOW.

[Nevernose]

64. STOP BEING INCREDIBLY REASONABLE!!!

This is the Internet, damn it, and we've got no time, and we've got no time to agree!

Seriously: my bad. You make valid points. I didn't read your thread with the other person. I just saw your first post and responded.

I made a knee-jerk response to what I assumed was the knee jerk responses I'd heard at the time of the shooting. Many people, including many good people at DU, took one look at the magazine covers and said "bigot," without ever taking the time to learn anything beyond their first assumption. Some still do. There's context to everything. I guess I'm passionate about this because CH was (and is) so much on the side of the oppressed, of the little guy, of the minorities in France, even if CH was irreverent towards others' norms.

I guess I react to this subject the same as I would when people say ridiculous shit like "Bernie Sanders is a racist" or "The Clinton family murders their enemies." It's ridiculous and offensive.

So, y'know, my bad.

[6000eliot]

65. NP. It's frustrating not to be understood.

[Goonch]

34. Donnie Hebdo