11–20 of 292 posts
I wonder if the debate in the media will focus on religious fanaticism or if they'll start victim blaming by arguing that Charlie Hebdo was asking for it, being provocative.
The FT already started with the latter: http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2015/01/07/financial...
Can someone explain what this is suppose to mean? I know there were attacks in Paris.
It reads "I am Charlie", and there are bunch of translations in the PDF. I don't know what the site is about. Edit: Alright, the domain is the actual domain of Charlie Hebdo. This isn't some kind of political message by a third party but most likely a message by the people of Charlie Hebdo. I don't know any more.
Can someone explain what this is suppose to mean? I know there were attacks in Paris.
It reads "I am Charlie", and there are bunch of translations in the PDF. I don't know what the site is about. Edit: Alright, the domain is the actual domain of Charlie Hebdo. This isn't some kind of political message by a third party but most likely a message by the people of Charlie Hebdo. I don't know any more.
I wonder if the debate in the media will focus on religious fanaticism or if they'll start victim blaming by arguing that Charlie Hebdo was asking for it, being provocative.
> or if they'll start victim blaming by arguing that Charlie Hebdo was asking for it, being provocative. Not going to happen. French people value satire and freedom of expression.
Can someone explain what this is suppose to mean? I know there were attacks in Paris.
It reads "I am Charlie", and there are bunch of translations in the PDF. I don't know what the site is about. Edit: Alright, the domain is the actual domain of Charlie Hebdo. This isn't some kind of political message by a third party but most likely a message by the people of Charlie Hebdo. I don't know any more.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The FT already started with the latter: http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2015/01/07/financial...
Ridiculous, cowardly, and wrong. Charlie Hebdo is left-wing, and is fairly even handed when it comes to mockery.
I'm not entirely sure why we coddle religious fanatics as we do, but it needs to stop for us to progress as a society.
Can someone explain what this is suppose to mean? I know there were attacks in Paris.
They were notorious for mocking all religions and have posted content offensive to all.
Right now it is thought that this was the work on islamist terrorists (I have not seen reliable info though, and crazy is cross religion)
Now to make matters worse the right is on the rise in Europe and the interfaith tensions are high due to complex reasons (being in economic depression for a decade helps little).
In a sense this was attack against the core values of what lots of Europe believes. And there are a lot of people for which anti muslim sentiment is a godsend ...
I wonder if the debate in the media will focus on religious fanaticism or if they'll start victim blaming by arguing that Charlie Hebdo was asking for it, being provocative.