181–190 of 196 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't see the difference between incident and sentiment and why 9/11 isn't an incident.
No one walked up to a Muslim that was otherwise non-combative with them, and did a 9/11 in front of them to start a fight.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No one walked up to a Muslim that was otherwise non-combative with them, and did a 9/11 in front of them to start a fight.
But over the past 100 years their homelands have been colonized, used as proxies, puppeteered, invaded, and bombed. Isn't that a sentiment?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Obama and Clinton both wore yarmulkes when they visited the Western Wall— Obama actually complained about how he felt that Arab media used pictures of him in a yarmulke for propaganda purposes. I personally doubt that the reason that the cartoonist put a yarmulke on Trump is because he wore a yarmulke one time back in 2017.
Neither Obama nor Clinton wore it as presidents. The cartoonist finds that a relevant fact.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Could you post one of these alleged subtle and multi-layered political cartoons, with a short analysis?
I learned last month that there's a Pulitzer price in Editorial Cartooning. This is the winner of 2019 (and the runner ups), so I'd say that's as good as it gets: https://www.pulitzer.org/winners/darrin-bell-freelancer
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Back then they were seen as a defence of free speech and our democratic rights, a way of mocking the draconian regimes of the Middle East Was this an universal viewpoint in the West? As a non-Muslim teen in India I saw it as mocking Islam (I get that others' mileage varies).
Mocking is still legal in the West. But not for long. Mocking anything but white men/Christianity creates huge uproar today. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/comic-riffs/wp/2018/09/1...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If publishing a cartoon causes your death I think the mockery may well have been legitimate.
Was there some Vatican-equivalent Islamic body that commissioned a hit on the CH offices? No, it was a terrorist cell that wanted to attain both easy publicity and make life worse for European Muslims. "Legitimate" mockery would have exposed the absurdity of terrorist groups recruiting petty criminals and elevating them to a noble "jihadi" status because, well, nobody else had as little to lose. But that wouldn't get…
I don't deny that there was a lot of hypocrisy and fair weather friends surrounding CH after they were targeted, but the point about the Holocaust laws misses the mark. It's not illegal in France to make crass jokes about the Holocaust, as CH makes them in droves. In fact, they make crass jokes about almost anything related to France in some way and their first love always was the opposition to the traditional gaullist catholic establishment. You can be as crass as you want and won't get in trouble for it as long as you don't incite violence directly.
The problem highlighted by CH is that there currently is only one ideology that gives artists, filmmakers, cartoonists, etc. pause in the West when drawing up jokes or material, and that is Islam. There are few other topics in the West where there is a chance that criticism or commentary on your part will cause you great personal adversity or harm. In fact, I can't think of any off the top of my head but I'd be happy to hear some examples.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But over the past 100 years their homelands have been colonized, used as proxies, puppeteered, invaded, and bombed. Isn't that a sentiment?
How does that relate to your original comments?
There are non-Muslim states that will execute people for disrespectful depictions, so I can't see how this is a uniquely Muslim problem.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How does that relate to your original comments?
It relates because you said this distinguishes Charlie Hebdo from killing Muslims burning a flag. If they all have negative sentiment, and they all commit hate crime unprovoked, or provoked by disrespect to culture and icons, then the problem is not unique to one of them. There are non-Muslim states that will execute people for disrespectful depictions, so I can't see how this is a uniquely Muslim problem.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Except that the said newsrooms are more often than not the ones that amplify and give a legitimacy to these mobs by printing their reactions as if it was somehow the reaction of the people. The NY Times itself actively participated in many of these lynchings, like the Covington kids. To me it looks more like a newsroom that likes playing with fire, got burned itself, and decides to cut its exposure so it can keep pla…
If anything, that's the thing I hate most about Twitter. A journalist who wants to write a story with a particular angle can easily find tons of supporting viewpoints on Twitter, and usually at least a few of these are somewhat clever or snarky. So the journalist writes the article and then uses these examples from Twitter to show that "the masses" agree, or are equally outraged as the author. Since when do we start…
But if a bunch of randos make a mob on Twitter why anybody should care? I think the only reason why it has influence because the legacy press is afraid of losing its relevancy and thus tries to be "trendy" and supports those non-events and makes events out of them. They are so afraid and confused that they severely overestimate how important those are - and by that make their own fears come true. And in addition hurt the whole society by amplifying the most noisy and irresponsible voices and drowning reasonable and thoughtful ones. Maybe it's time to stop enabling that noise by refusing to take Twitter chitchat seriously.