/lit/ - Literature

>>6473378
>joyce carol oates
>junot diaz
fuckin kekd

>>6473378

Muslim, Muslim, Schornsteinfeger.

God people really won't read anything with out the promise of explosions. >>>/tv/ I'm blaming them.

May 5? I'll be there.

>>6473387
höchst kek

Charlie Hebdo has spewed so much vitriol toward Muslims that they had what was coming.

>>6473439
B8

>>6473439
To be fair, I'm pretty surprised Civitas hadn't burnt them down.

why won't joyce carol oates just die

>>6473439
nice try my man!

>>6473439
How much vitriol have you spewed on this very website? Are you ready for the retribution?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyoOfRog1EM

>>6473445
>>6473450
If you're living someone were there is a large muslim minority, you should at least show some courtesy. What Charlie Hebdo did was like burning down a mosque to France's muslims.

>>6473456
I know the risk of speaking truth to power, but sometimes you have to say and do what's right.

>>6473462
>drawing cartoons is like burning down mosques to France's muslims

Sounds like the problem is France's muslims.

>>6473462
How about Muslims stop being such insensitive little babies and learn about free speech? Or better yet they can go to Iraq or Syria and live under Sharia where they won't have to suffer their pedophile prophet being cartooned.

>>6473462

That doesn't change the fact that civilized societies don't allow you to murder people for merely insulting you. If you think that what the Muslims did to those writers was justified, you support terrorism, murder, etc.

Ah, America: land of the poorly distilled remake.

Treating Hebdo like an honest to god intellectual and not on the level of Matt Stone and Trey Parker was their first mistake.

>>6473462

i just hope Hobbes will become popular again so this bullshit can stop for once

>>6473462
You're that dreary leftist - as suspension of common courtesy warranted death

>>6473478
Whose mistake? The Muslims or the award people?

>>6473480
as if*

>>6473479
What should I read by Hobbes if I've never read anything by him?

>>6473478
Where did they call Hedbo honest to god intellectuals?

I can't believe there are honest to goodness Muslim terrorist apologists on this board. Holy fucking shit. How do you people lose your moral bearings so completely? How can anyone seriously not see that Islamism is a cancer that needs to be destroyed at any cost? And you people call yourselves progressives! AHHHHHHHHHHHH!

>>6473483

The award people. Spouting bullshit to test the limits of freedom of expression. It's not intelectual, everybody had an entire phase (many here are still going through, apparently) testing the limits of what you can say without consequence.

So the inevitable happened, and now they're being treated as martyrs for just knowing/preforming good marketing.

Hell, I don't even believe in freedom of speech as a concept.

The whole situation is stupid as fuck.

>>6473500
You're stupid as fuck

>>6473493

Islam is a cancer to The West and I see The West as a cancer, the irony isn't lost on me. That said, you agree more than you disagree, both the fundamentalists and the nationalists agree on more than they disagree.

>>6473504

It's like saying South Park deserves an emmy nomination, shut the fuck up.

>>6473500

So what's your assessment of the terrorist dudes? Do you agree with me that they are criminals or do you defend them?

I'm just testing the waters of how reactionary pseudo-leftist you are.

>>6473500

>doesn't like might makes right

>hates on oppressive endeavours (using power as the solution)

>likes being right rather than being in the power

>but approves all the above if it's done by minorities

I bet you hate muslims in their own country but not the one in France amirite?

>>6473511
>>6473511
You're a total dumbass and you should stop embarrassing yourself on this board

>>6473511
but you could say south park is one of the better contemporary tv shows. i'd rather watch south park than some schlock like mad men.

Man ever since I discovered /lit/ I feel like I'm in the belly of the beast or some shit. So many things that are going on in the world start to make sense once you realize the deeply reactionary place that the the SJW movement is truly coming from. Bone chilling!

On the other hand being here does give me this feeling like I'm a spy stealthing around under their noses or something so there is a kick to be had in all this gruesome stuff.

>>6473512

They're reactionaries. They differ in philosophy little from the militarism typical of most nationalists.

I hardly see the difference between the two. Both are unbearable and violent and totally void of meaning besides the identity of freedom fighter they put on themselves.

>>6473515

>I bet you hate muslims in their own country but not the one in France amirite?

No, I support them in their own countries more, actually.

>>6473520

Stop cursing on a christian image board.

>>6473528

>south park is one of the better contemporary tv shows.
>south park is one of the better contemporary tv shows.
>south park is one of the better contemporary tv shows.

>>6473536

>conflating anything vaguely leftist with reactionary thought when there are white nationalists everywhere

Truly you've outdone yourself.

Why is it that leftists are, besides religious people, always the most blinded by their ideology?

>>6473539

So your view to see things is this "If it's west it's automatically bad"

This is your dogma? You can't judge things outside of this? Is this your ethical code? lel

>>6473544

>white nationalists
>not blinded by their ideology

Again, truly you've outdone yourself.

>>6473539
breaking bad got 16 emmys. do you think south park is undeserving of an emmy? its better than breaking bad.

>>6473539
>They differ in philosophy little from the militarism typical of most nationalists.
>
>I hardly see the difference between the two. Both are unbearable and violent and totally void of meaning besides the identity of freedom fighter they put on themselves.
The best and brightest of the left, everyone

>>6473539
Kill urself my man

>>6473546

>So your view to see things is this "If it's west it's automatically bad"

Pretty much. It's blinded by the subtext of older ways of thinking not to uncommon from those muslims you seem to hate. In the end, it's on the right track, and did well enough, but well enough isn't good enough. Give it a few centuries or more.

>This is your dogma? You can't judge things outside of this? Is this your ethical code? lel

No. No. Yes.

>>6473550

>do you think south park is undeserving of an emmy?

Yes

>>6473555

Most White Nationalists hardly differ ideologically from the most zealous muslim radical. Both are motivated from the same place. There is hardly any difference and both involve a sense of identity rather than ideology.

>>6473559

Excuse me?

>>6473478
>not on the level of Matt Stone and Trey Parker

Yes, let's turn this into a matter of cultural elitism rather than discuss that these nimrods are blowing up cartoon artists.

>we support the right to free expression!
>writers disagree with you on something
>fuck you scumbags how dare you express that opinion!

Liberals are the fucking worst man, someday you naive cunts will actually realise that free expression is a total fantasy and maybe then you'll stop going on about "muh right to offend" and isn't it telling that for liberals free speech doesn't exist to be subversive, empathetic or challenging to power but to offend minorities.

literally who and who?

>>6473570

They always expected violence so who the fuck cares. Both are moronic fuckers bent on some sort of bullshit culture war premise. Reactionaries killing off reactionaries, if only it was always so easy.

>>6473573

I actually don't support the right to free expression. I am anti freedom of speech. It's bullshit let's be honest here.

>>6473564
>Most White Nationalists hardly differ ideologically from the most zealous muslim radical. Both are motivated from the same place. There is hardly any difference and both involve a sense of identity rather than ideology.
Aside from how stupid that is, who the fuck is even talking about white nationalists?
How can you pretend your ideology is anything but pants-on-head retarded when you don't even have the moral sense to condemn the murder of men for nothing but a cartoon? There is no excuse. LITERALLY killed for the arrangement of ink on a page.

>>6473474
>being this jealous

>>6473449
As long as she keeps being a bangable cougar and writing crap that slightly hints at what she used to be in her pinnacle, she's okay with me.

Remember when those tireless defenders of free speech at Charlie Hebdo celebrated the egyptian military slaughtering political dissidents?

Fuckers got what they deserved imo

>>6473613
Irrelevant

>>6473617
The fact that they supported military governments murdering their opponents is irrelevant in a debate about whether they deserve an award for defending freedom of speech?

>>6473539
>conflating anything vaguely leftist with reactionary thought when there are white nationalists everywhere

> Truly you've outdone yourself.

The only thing I see from the radical left these days is fawning support of thuggish leaders, equally fawning support of any street gang that calls itself Maoist or communist, and a whole lot of anti-semitism. These are pretty classic markings of fascism. Maybe it's time you learn to start looking at things for what they *ARE*, not what marketing brand they operate under.

> INB4 DURR THERE ARE WHITE NATIONALISTS AROUND BRO

I don't understand what this even has to do with anything... You think anyone who isn't some kind of hardcore Maoist is a white nationalist? Do you have a brain? You do understand that if you are not good at thinking you should probably commit to learning more about logic and whatnot before offering your opinions in a public forum, right?

>>6473630
Irrelevant when considering if they "got what they deserved."
Free speech isn't reserved for people who consistently defend free speech.

>>6473593

>Aside from how stupid that is, who the fuck is even talking about white nationalists?

I am. And you are, you just don't know you are. The problem is you seem to think the ethnic religious zealousy from Muslims has a strict different sense of merit than the ethnic religious zealousy from White Nationalist pagan, Christian, whatever have you. Both are from the same place, and yet the target is the other because they exist in an area where a war ages with no end in sight because of the US funding militants within area during the Cold War to counter the Soviets.

And this wasn't a mistake on their part, the military, as an industry, always seeks to find a profit. Enormous profit. Profit to keep itself balanced within the economy. In that sense, The Middle East has been engineered to be in constant conflict through geopolitical maneuvering since the Shah came to power.

Why? War, oil, and religion. You combine the three and in a historically unstable region and you have enough lasting chaos for them to get violent enough through reactionaries you funded like Saddam and Al Qaeda so you can engage in this sort of war of resources they cannot use in crumbling economies and radical thinkers.

Everyone finds Muslims alien enough so they can become an honest enemy while Israel seems like an honest ally and you have a constant market strength because of this you wouldn't have before. I'd guess such an idea was planned around the Reagan-era if not slightly before.

That is why, there happens to be increased radicalism within the Middle East. They're just easier to show their reactionary colors. When you see the Middle East, you see a reflection of White Nationalists who can't even see themselves in the mirror.

>>6473617

Not really.

>>6473632

>You think anyone who isn't some kind of hardcore Maoist is a white nationalist?

No? I'm not even a Maoist.

>Do you have a brain?

Larger than yours, apparently.

>>6473613
Edgemaster.

>>6473573
>liberal
>against offensive speech

>>6473643
so Rei leaves and we're left with this semen guzzler?

>>6473643
Damn, cool irrelevant paragraphs you massive retarded masochistic faggot. I wasn't talking about any of that. If you can't condemn someone for murdering someone based on a cartoon you are a moral idiot. I don't care if the other retarded sects of religions are killing each other in the middle east.

>>6473643
>>Do you have a brain?
>Larger than yours, apparently.

No, you have a very small brain. All your posts show an inability to use basic critical thinking skills. You should just realize you aren't smart enough for this critical thought stuff and focus on something more your speed like hitting your head against a brick wall.

>>6473487
Leviathan
It's the Euclid's Elements of political theory. I've never seen such a well-organized philosophical work.

Teju Cole, one of the first protesters wrote this shortly after the charlie hebdo incident:

"Western societies are not, even now, the paradise of skepticism and rationalism that they believe themselves to be. The West is a variegated space, in which both freedom of thought and tightly regulated speech exist, and in which disavowals of deadly violence happen at the same time as clandestine torture. But, at moments when Western societies consider themselves under attack, the discourse is quickly dominated by an ahistorical fantasy of long-suffering serenity and fortitude in the face of provocation. Yet European and American history are so strongly marked by efforts to control speech that the persecution of rebellious thought must be considered among the foundational buttresses of these societies. Witch burnings, heresy trials, and the untiring work of the Inquisition shaped Europe, and these ideas extended into American history and took on American modes, from the breaking of slaves to the censuring of critics of Operation Iraqi Freedom.

[...] Charlie [Hebdo] has often been aimed at Muslims, and it’s taken particular joy in flouting the Islamic ban on depictions of the Prophet Muhammad. It’s done more than that, too, including taking on political targets, as well as Christian and Jewish ones. The magazine depicted the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost in a sexual threesome. Illustrations such as this have been cited as evidence of Charlie Hebdo’s willingness to offend everyone. But in recent years the magazine has gone specifically for racist and Islamophobic provocations, and its numerous anti-Islam images have been inventively perverse, featuring hook-nosed Arabs, bullet-ridden Korans, variations on the theme of sodomy, and mockery of the victims of a massacre. It is not always easy to see the difference between a certain witty dissent from religion and a bullyingly racist agenda, but it is necessary to try. Even Voltaire, a hero to many who extol free speech, got it wrong. His sparkling and courageous anti-clericalism can be a joy to read, but he was also a committed anti-Semite, whose criticisms of Judaism were accompanied by calumnies about the innate character of Jews."

http://www.newyorker.com/culture/cultural-comment/unmournable-bodies

I agree with most of where he is going, but I would add that Charie Hebdo simpy failed at doing sincere Satire. Satire in my opinion always holds a subversive politica motive and the coherent motive in what Charlie Hebdo caricatured was a.) beeing safe of actual criticism because of attacking an established enemy stereotype and b.) beeing proactively conformative to the political stream of thougt that was dominant in their target audience.

I think what they did was cheap and easy and far from actual satire. It wasn't aimed to evoke substantial controversy against dominant political tropes, it was a lazy affirmation of the status quo. Opportunists cloaked as Freedom fighters.

>>6473660

Yes.

>>6473663

They're hardly irrelevant. To claim European culture is anything superior to the rest of the world morally and intelectually (when it entirely borrowed from the East anyways) is total bullshit.

You've had White Nationalists murdering people for years, mostly other whites, and where the fuck were you?

You were sitting laughing eating the European equivalent of South Park with a tub of ice cream between your thighs thinking you were getting intellectually stimulated from a marketing ploy. And you don't want to be wrong about it because it hurts your feelings.

>>6473665

No I have a large brain and you have a small brain.

>>6473378

I think PEN is kind of retarded giving them the award based on the fact Charlie Hebdo cartoonists died. I think there are better candidates. Remember PEN didn't award them because of the quality of their content, but out of emotional sentiment. The last independent television channel in Russia is forced to work out of an apartment. Chinese activists are still being disappeared into black vans. Women in Saudi Arabia can't even drive. These guys were just unlikely enough to actually be shot. They got this award out of mere sentimentalism.

>>6473676
Nothing says "safely upholding the status quo" like being murdered for your cartoon and having legions of progressives support your murder

>>6473686

The more newspaper/magazine political cartoonists get murdered the better off mankind is, let's just be honest here.

>>6473684
>They're hardly irrelevant. To claim European culture is anything superior to the rest of the world morally and intelectually (when it entirely borrowed from the East anyways) is total bullshit.
>
>You've had White Nationalists murdering people for years, mostly other whites, and where the fuck were you?
>
>You were sitting laughing eating the European equivalent of South Park with a tub of ice cream between your thighs thinking you were getting intellectually stimulated from a marketing ploy. And you don't want to be wrong about it because it hurts your feelings.
Jesus Christ, I think you may be actually retarded. I have never seen someone fail so fantastically to stay on the point. How about taking your face out of your fat white ass and realize you're posting on an American image board and that you are exercising your right to free speech? And after you realize that, go ahead and killl yourself.

>>6473686
Surely nothing says "safely upholding the status quo" like being murdered and having every significant world leader parade around paris in your honour.

>>6473694
This is true tbh

Just because some idiots bombed the dick cartoon factory is not a reason to pretend the dick cartoon factory was an important bastion of free speech.

>>6473706

> How about taking your face out of your fat white ass

*black ass

>an American image board

This is a Taiwanese Manga board, where do you think you are?

>your right to free speech?

I'm trying to limit your speech on the contrary and clear your mind of all that anxiety that seems to trouble you! I'm only trying to help.

>And after you realize that, go ahead and killl yourself.

Broeh

>>6473694
>>6473713
>le cultural elitism is more important than life meme

Adorno would be spitting in your faces.

>>6473684
>No I have a large brain and you have a small brain.

Look up the red herring fallacy.

Your claim that "the radical left can't be reactionary because there are white nationalists around" is patently a logical fallacy. I don't think you realize how badly you stumbled in your argumentation by saying this, nor how juvenile and facile your broken logic is. This isn't some thing you can wriggle out of by reference to "social constructs" or anything like that; the logic you employed is so poor that it is almost comparable to a mathematical error. Anybody with an education in argumentation theory would look at your posts and conclude that you don't know how to evaluate the elementary logic of statements. Your lame attempt to justify this red-herring by reference to U.S. military adventurism in the middle east only highlights further your essentially busted logic: the U.S. government is not run by white nationalists, so referencing this particular set of historical case studies is totally irrelevant to the discussion we were having. I'm not kidding man. Anybody who knows how to construct an argument would look at your posts and laugh. Your logic is *extremely* poor.

>>6473717
lol classic nigger

>>6473676

I want to add something:

Attacking Muslims the way they did, a minority in their country struggling against growing discrimination is nothing that holds the torch for free speech.
It is the easiest thing in the world, everybody can do that and everybody did and does that. It serves no purpose except for peasing everyone, liberals for their superior ideoogy of justice and rationality, right wings for their oh so true reservations. And everybody cousd sit there, read their stuff and feel affirmation while feeling somehow unique and supperior to everyone else. That is the opposite of subversive writing and controversy, that is not satire. They never really made something controversial, because therefore you need to get people into contradictions with their believes, give them things in your writing they identify with and a causal implication into a context they utterly despise.
Charlie Hebdo never did this and therefore there is no reason to actually think they did anything worthwhile for the cause of free speech. They were literally pleb tier.
All the narrative around this tragic event is just foul ideology and the fun thin is, it can please left wing, liberal and right wing ideology, it just needs to be dumb enough.

>>6473718
*dean martin voice* That's Adorno

>>6473603
France is not mine to be jealous of her, and you meant envious.

>>6473718

I'm just being real. Political cartoonists for magazines, deserve to die. All I'm saying.

>>6473721

>the radical left can't be reactionary because there are white nationalists around

The radical left can't be reactionary simply because the left is more organized. Even if it weren't, who the fuck do you think is more reactionary, and similar to the very people you're criticizing?

>the U.S. government is not run by white nationalists, so referencing this particular set of historical case studies is totally irrelevant to the discussion we were having.

Do you think history occurs in a vacuum and does not have an affect on the public? Do you think everything isn't planned, when the Rand corporation and other conglomerates benefit the most from this?

You're ideology is the consequence of think tank maneuvering, nothing more, nothing less.

That's not the government. That's just Capitalism.

My brain, is still magnificently large, and your brain remains a puny little shell.

>>6473723

Why try and say what's already expected of you?

Man this thread has really convinced me that the radical left is shit. They're really not that different from their white nationalist/fascist cousins in terms of their total disdain for anything civilized.

>>6473741
FYI brains actually get slightly smaller when you have more knowledge since knowledge wrinkles your brain

this thread is what happens when you discuss politics on /lit/

The mods tried to warn you, but you wouldn't listen and now look.

>>6473686

They did. What happened was tragic, but it has nothing to do with free speech versus islam. The narrative was spun that way, because it makes pointing the figner on victim and establishing a clear enemy so easy. Is it tragic? Yes. is it used like 9/11 on an ideological level? Yes.
Of course everybody supports Charlie hebdo, rightfuly so, they are the victims. But what they are made to be is just false and manipuation for the right narrative.

>>6473746

The mods are probably as tired of the /news/ /pol/ bullshit as Moot was.

>>6473745

Cool.

>>6473751
>it has nothing to do with free speech versus islam.
>newspaper editors exercise free speech and are murdered for offending some Islamists
>nothing to do with free speech versus Islam
nice meme

>Of course everybody supports Charlie hebdo
Are you even reading the thread, and did you read news coverage of it around the time of the attack? PLENTY of people, mostly on the left (although some people on the right such as the Pope) said they got what they deserved, freedom of speech doesn't mean the right to hate/offend, etc.

>>6473766

They got what they deserved because they were political cartoonists. It's the nature of things nature selects them for extinction. It is pretty much God's will all political cartoonists suffer the consequences for drawing so fucking similar to one another in the most obnoxious way imaginable.

>>6473780
/pol/'s fake Ben Garrison political cartoons have more substance than your opinions

>he believes in universal freedom of speech
>he's against censorship

>>6473790

#S H O T S F I R E D

>>6473793

I'm against freedom of speech and love me some fucking censorship actually.

>>6473780
Your shitposting is spiraling out of control, m8. Political cartoons are shite, yeah, but that doesn't warrant this Lewis Black tier hatred for them.

>>6473766
Who cares about deserved? They got what was obviously going to happen when you bait nut jobs. It's not like with Swift where he thought eating babies seemed like a ridiculous solution to the Irish question, and the villagers thought it was perfectly cromulent. It's more like Rushdie writing a book few Westerners understand the fatwas against something tame, because you have to know religious law to get how trolled nut jobs can be.

>>6473807
>I'm against freedom of speech and love me some fucking censorship actually.

Good man

>>6473809

Ok. I'll rephrase. I don't live in France, but Hebdo seemed like a bottom of the barrel political cartoonists who was edgy for the sake of sales and died and I see nothing wrong with that. World gets justice as hack frauds die in fire more news at 11.

>>6473814

Thanks.

>>6473766
Where is the free speech for Dieudonne M'bala M'bala or for people jailed for tweets in Europe? Seems like an entirely one sided version of free speech which isn't free speech.

>>6473766

To be frank. Free speech is not touched by this event, not in Europe, not in the US. It will never be by terrorist attacks, it never has been. That is what I mean with the event is not a free speech issue, because free speech is not threatened by terrorism in the west and it won't be in the near future.
Did Charlie Hebdo make use of their freedom of speech? Yes. Did they get killed for what they said while making use of their freedom of speech? Yes.
Does that mean that this is the dominant theme for what happened? No.
Let me cite again:

"Western societies are not, even now, the paradise of skepticism and rationalism that they believe themselves to be. The West is a variegated space, in which both freedom of thought and tightly regulated speech exist, and in which disavowals of deadly violence happen at the same time as clandestine torture. But, at moments when Western societies consider themselves under attack, the discourse is quickly dominated by an ahistorical fantasy of long-suffering serenity and fortitude in the face of provocation."

>Of course everybody supports Charlie hebdo

Not in germany. And sure those arguments you cite are utter bullshit. That also isn't my point.

Is radical islam a problem? Yes. Is this the way to work agaisnt it? No.

>>6473818
The hint would be that the bill of "rights" you are reading has the designation "US" before it, not "UN".

Why are so many people in this thread against the freedom of speech? If you don't like what someone is saying then argue with them, don't just cry and tattle to the police.

It's like you're all a bunch of overly sensitive Europeans or something.

>>6473818
When did I defend that?

>>6473819
>because free speech is not threatened by terrorism in the west and it won't be in the near future.
How many newspaper published the Danish cartoons in 2005? How many newspapers ran stories all about a cartoon while in a very image-centered culture, but never actually showed the cartoons in question? How many did the same things with Hedbo cartoons? This is how it starts.

>>6473830

I have seen the Charlie hebdo cartoons everywhere.

>>6473852
On the internet. Not on most U.S. news stations or in print. It was even worse in 2005 with the Danish cartoons.

>>6473830
>When did I defend that?

Yeah, let's overlook the obvious and more odious suppression of free speech suppression by France and European governments than by completely marginal terrorists. I don't think your arguments are in good faith with such omissions.

>>6473864
I'm staying on the topic of the thread you imbecile

>>6473857

No I mean in print media. In europe you saw it everywhere. U.S. is a little bit more hysterical in that regard I guess. Schizophreinc foreign policy is kind of your nick name everywhere.

>>6473830
>How many newspaper published the Danish cartoons in 2005
0. He self published his cartoon. It's a depth I hope none of us see, and I tell people to get raped regularly.

>>6473613
That cover wasn't celebrating the egyptian military you idiot. It was derailing the Muslim Brothers, that's not quite the same thing.

>>6473676
> a.) beeing safe of actual criticism because of attacking an established enemy stereotype

Your post is mostly legit, but here you're mistaken. Charlie Hebdo's target of choice these day was Islamism, but before that they had derailed everyone from far-righters to leftists to nationalists to progressists.
Likewise for you b) point. Derailing Muslims, covertly or openly, is something many French media outlet were doing, but Charlie was quite exceptional in the range and variety of what they made fun of.

Also

>Witch burnings, heresy trials, and the untiring work of the Inquisition shaped Europe

No. The Inquisition and Witch Huntings are much less central to European history than people make it out to be.

>I think what they did was cheap

Yes

> and easy

Not always. They haven't only been criticised by Muslim extremists

> far from actual satire.

It depends on issues and cartoonist, but mostly they've been doing satire, which isn't particularly the less cheap or hardest genre.

>It wasn't aimed to evoke substantial controversy against dominant political tropes

It was certainly aimed to evoke controversy, if not always in a substantial way.

>it was a lazy affirmation of the status quo

The lead cartoonist were anti-capitalist, anti-nationalists, anti-wage-jobs. They were very much against the French status quo which, despite what people might believe, is essentially a liberal industrial profit-oriented society like the US simply with more emphasis on social benefits.

>>6473708
>wat is recuperation
Anything popular can be made into something world leader can parade about. Get with the times. I don't even like Charlie Hebdo, but that comment is a bit silly when at least 3/4 of the leaders in Paris were people that Charlie Hebdo wrote against.

>>6473818
Europeans don't understand how free speech is supposed to work. Once they get too offended, it all goes out the window.

>>6473872
Well, any talk of defending free speech makes little sense in this context. The so-called defenders in solidarity with Charlie Hedo don't defend it in their societies. Like I said I don't think those referencing free speech are doing it in good faith.

>>6473881
At least European have a right to blasphemy.

Understandably, no country has complete freedom of speech. The sensitive spots are always very telling.

>>6473889
>The so-called defenders in solidarity with Charlie Hedo don't defend it in their societies.
Plenty of people are consistent. Yes, there are people who criticize the killings but don't realize that France also has other free speech problems. That doesn't mean it isn't a free speech problem in itself.

>>6473889
>Like I said I don't think those referencing free speech are doing it in good faith.

Most of them are, they're just not thinking very thoroughly on the issue. And it's not like there hasn't been controversy over the way Dieudonné has been handled.

Can someone please explain to me how saying that Charlie Hebdo kind of deserved to have its employees murdered for mocking muslims, who they knew were violent, is any different than saying black americans kind of deserve to be shot by cops for committing petty crimes when they know American police are militarized and pretty racist? It's literally blaming the victim, which is something I thought these "socially conscious" morons upheld as more important than life itself?

>>6473878

>Charlie Hebdo's target of choice these day was Islamism, but before that they had derailed everyone from far-righters to leftists to nationalists to progressists.

which are all enemy stereotypes, easy tropes, always have been there and you use them when the compass of general focus swings in that direction, because then you won't get actual criticism, just some obscure law suit you can use for your cause of beeing established while acting like a major "edgelord"

>Derailing Muslims, covertly or openly, is something many French media outlet were doing, but Charlie was quite exceptional in the range and variety of what they made fun of.

Yes, beeing safe in your established role while acting as the major edgelord. All calculated, nothing really subversive. i discussed the "variety" above, I don't see it as variety, just facile use of common tropes.

>No. The Inquisition and Witch Huntings are much less central to European history than people make it out to be.

Fair point. Beats me at my knowledge.

>Not always. They haven't only been criticised by Muslim extremists

But who did it outside from an obscure position, probably more before the incident, but what about now? There is no real critic except from those retarded obscure edgelord or left sperglords.

>It depends on issues and cartoonist, but mostly they've been doing satire, which isn't particularly the less cheap or hardest genre.

Well atleast in german tradition it really used to have a stron subversive political impetus.

>The lead cartoonist were anti-capitalist, anti-nationalists, anti-wage-jobs. They were very much against the French status quo which, despite what people might believe, is essentially a liberal industrial profit-oriented society like the US simply with more emphasis on social benefits.

What you describe as far from status quo is actually the liberal status quo par excellence and that was their target audience and the overall narration of the events I critizise.

>>6473939
Just trying to believe in a just world where you get mouthraped :3

>>6473816
>edgy for the sake of sales

reminds me a certain tripfag who's edgy for the sake of replies