5 ms·

> But they are racist And you're lying

• mkawia 12y ago
  If you can categorically say they didn't draw those cartoons ie a black person as a monkey , Then yes I'd wrong .
  • violoncello 12y ago
    The symbol on the left is the logo of Front national and the text says something in the lines of "Racist Assembly". I don't speak French but I think you might be missing something, sir.
  • erispoe 12y ago
    They did this cartoon to denounce the way the French Minister of Justice was mocked in some conservative demonstrations around marriage equality and access to assisted procreative technologies as a monkey. People were shouting "Taubira (the minister's name), eat your banana" at these demonstrations, and this cartoon denounces that. The name is even a wordplay on the name of the French main far-right party.
  • bronson 12y ago
    I can categorically say that you're cherry picking images and omitting context. Basically, trolling. Can you guess what the word "raciste" in that image means?
  • molyss 12y ago
    The drawing is a reference to a nationalist leader comparing a black minister to a monkey. There's a reference to the "rassemblement bleu marine", coined in reference to current nationalist leader marine le pen, transformed into a gathering of racists through charlie's game on words. Also the logo at the right bottom of the picture is that of the nationalist party As always, taking writings or caricatures out of context is not only lying but also potentially dangerous. Charlie is not racist, nor violent. Please use some critical thinking before calling people or institutions racist (or any other adjective)
    • mkawia 12y ago
      I think this one of those let's agree to disagree moment . I know of that context and I still drawing a black person as a monkey is racist.
      • Gmo 12y ago
        Charlie Hebdo is notoriously against the Front National and Marine Le Pen and has made tons of satire against them. It's totally wrong to say they would do any caricature to support any of their theses. This is misinformation and lack of context that have you talking here ...
        • erispoe 12y ago
          And a muddle of confirmation bias added to sunk cost fallacy for refusing to admit one's first assumption is incorrect.
        • Torgo 12y ago
          In the USA this is called "hipster racism" where you re-use racist slurs or caricatures to make a point about racism. But some feel that this is still unacceptable because the propagation of the racist imagery still hurts. I am not black but I suspect a black person may still take offense to the imagery of a black person as a monkey.
      • molyss 12y ago
        All black persons look like monkeys, said a crazy fascist french politician. By writing "All black persons look like monkeys", can I be qualified as a racist myself ? My point is that the only to write about racism is also to define it, and to write the ideas it "defends". The same way, the only to draw about racism is to actually draw racism. The context is what makes the difference between a racist drawing something racist and someone drawing racism to criticize it. Forgetting, or missing or removing the context is exactly what extremists do. I'm deeply troubled by the fact that you (or anyone) would so quickly consider to "agree to disagree" in such a sensitive and important issue, to be honest. I would definitely agree that monkey part of the drawing is racist, but the context should be enough to convince you that the drawing itself is not. The drawing can be shocking, but that's a whole different issue that has nothing to do with the alleged racism of its author, only to do with the sensitivity of the reader (you and I, here). Shocking is one of the definitions of charlie hebdo
  • adwf 12y ago
    Poe's law in action. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law
• isaacremuant 12y ago
  Well... Considering the word racist is thrown around so easily it's debatable when it can be applied to whom. What we do know is that they were purposely offensive, even in the fact of possible threats. That means they maybe lacked judgement or respect or other things. Orthogonal to that, we have the ideal expectation that one should be able to write/draw absolutely everything without being punished with violence. Of course, that should apply to speech no matter what the issue and, sometimes, it seems that "freedom of speech" or its prosecution is decided based on who the governments consider the enemy. Relevant: https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/01/06/police-increasingly-monitoring-criminalizing-online-speech/ https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/01/06/police-increas...
  • bronson 12y ago
    So, blame the victim?
    • gizmo 12y ago
      Nobody here is suggesting they deserved getting murdered (or that they had it coming). The pushback is against the voices turning them into heroes or champions of free speech. They're not. They're people with stupid racist opinions who nonetheless had every right to voice those opinions. We must condemn the murderers but we don't need to endorse or ally ourselves with the publication. Most people who repeat the "We are charlie" slogan are probably not aware of the publication's racist history.
      • Oletros 12y ago
        I suppose that you will provide proof of that racism don't you?
      • bronson 12y ago
        It's not necessary to agree with 100% of a publication to sympathize with one of their positions. It is not necessary to disclaim all their past transgressions (as distasteful as they may be) before supporting them in the wake of this massacre. You might be mischaracterizing what some/many/most people mean when they say, "we are charlie."
• dang 12y ago
  > And you're lying Personal attacks are not allowed on Hacker News, even when somebody says something false.