Those cartoons are offensive to a group of religious people. The cartoonists had the right to freely express themselves. All of us should defend their right to express their opinions, but we don't have to agree with them and popularize something we disagree with. I think the NYT, CNN, Fox News, etc. made the right decision not showing these offensive images.
Untitled topic
31–40 of 65 posts
Re: undefined
#32I want to start an English version of Charlie Hebdo. There are tons of materials to make a bi-weekly publication. Who wants to join? I'm really serious about this.
[deleted]
Re: undefined
#33That something offended religious extremist don't mean that it didn't offended non-extremists too. But if you keep offending them some could become extremist too eventually. Is that the final motivation?
If being offended somehow turns someone into an extremist, in reality they already were one. Bombing civilians is one thing, bigoted cartoons are quite another. Claiming a religion demands, and therefore sanctifies, terrorism in response to speech is not just absurdity beyond reason, it's a path to oblivion.
Re: undefined
#34Religious provocation is uncalled for.
In this instance the pictures provide important context, to wit they should be included regardless of how offensive it might be.
Re: undefined
#35I want to start an English version of Charlie Hebdo. There are tons of materials to make a bi-weekly publication. Who wants to join? I'm really serious about this.
What exactly are you serious about? Translating Charlie Hedbo into English? Or just being involved in a satirical publication? There are a number of satirical publications that already exist in the US.
I'm not sure that the political sensibilities of Charlie Hedbo or the content will really resonate with Americans, though the content may do better among other Anglophones.
Re: undefined
#36Or, you know, they just didn't want to publish racist caricatures under the guise of satire.
Probably this. Just because most people won't go on a shooting rampage over them doesn't mean the images aren't offensive to some people. No point throwing fuel on the fire.
You don't have the right to never be offended.
Re: undefined
#37Those cartoons are offensive to a group of religious people. The cartoonists had the right to freely express themselves. All of us should defend their right to express their opinions, but we don't have to agree with them and popularize something we disagree with. I think the NYT, CNN, Fox News, etc. made the right decision not showing these offensive images.
It's definitely their decision but here is my thought:
A news story just broke in which people were killed because of certain images. Is it not good journalism to show the images that caused the attack?
Re: undefined
#38Earlier quoted context omitted.
Of course they are offensive to some people. That's the point. Offend and ridicule views which are ridiculous.
Does that apply to all views, or just those which you find ridiculous?
All of them. Go on, make a comic about some view I hold you think is ridiculous, maybe it spawns a good discussion.
Re: undefined
#39That something offended religious extremist don't mean that it didn't offended non-extremists too. But if you keep offending them some could become extremist too eventually. Is that the final motivation?
Living in a given society requires that one either accepts the norms of that society or works with the society to change them. Terrorists work AGAINST the society by use of force to try and elicit a change out of fear. Most times it backfires.
The use of the word extremism is not ideal here. One can hold extreme views on the subject and still function normally within a society, provided he or she respects societal views and voices disagreement within societal norms. Terrorists resort to terror and violence to voice disagreement.
In western societies personal freedoms are valued higher than a given religion. Islam does not value personal freedoms in the same way, but if Islam is to peacefully fit in with western norms, it has to adapt or continuous conflict is inevitable.
Re: undefined
#40When we allow others to dictate what we can write simply because it might offend them, where's it going to end.
Pretty soon they'll start insisting that women should not sit next to them in a public bus because they find it offensive.
Give then an inch, they ask for a mile!