6 ms·

Or, you know, they just didn't want to publish racist caricatures under the guise of satire.

by sthrs 12y ago

jlarocco 12y ago
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.
- sgift 12y ago
  Of course they are offensive to some people. That's the point. Offend and ridicule views which are ridiculous.
  - sthrs 12y ago
    Your Islamophobia is showing.
    - sgift 12y ago
      You mistake your own ignorance for my Islamophobia - Charlie Hebdo made many comics ridiculing politics, Catholicism (especially Catholicism) and religion as a whole.
    - Koahku 12y ago
      These comics were mocking any form of extremism, and one could argue that extremism needs to be ridiculed.
  - jlarocco 12y ago
    Fact of the matter is, they wouldn't publish offensive cartoons making fun of the Holocaust, Jews, Christians, 9/11 victims, women, etc., so it's not very surprising they won't publish these cartoons, either. If you want to see offensive cartoons there are plenty of websites just a google search away. It's funny how many stories are posted on HN about being sensitive to women/minorities/whatever, with comments full of people saying how open and accepting people need to be, then this comes up, and the dominant theme is "We need to publish offensive stuff everywhere, because fuck that group who's different than me."
    - kristofferR 12y ago
      > Fact of the matter is, they wouldn't publish offensive cartoons making fun of the Holocaust, Jews, Christians, 9/11 victims, women, etc., so it's not very surprising they won't publish these cartoons, either. Wrong - http://gawker.com/7-offensive-images-the-new-york-times-wasn-t-afraid-to-1678338658 http://gawker.com/7-offensive-images-the-new-york-times-wasn... It's funny how many stories are posted on HN about being sensitive to women/minorities/whatever, with comments full of people saying how open and accepting people need to be, then this comes up, and the dominant theme is "We need to publish offensive stuff everywhere, because fuck that group who's different than me." > No, fuck the group that uses terrorism to shut people up. It should be way more offensive to bow to the demands of the terrorists than to post some cartoons.
  - Squarel 12y ago
    Does that apply to all views, or just those which you find ridiculous?
    - sgift 12y ago
      All of them. Go on, make a comic about some view I hold you think is ridiculous, maybe it spawns a good discussion.
      - DanBC 12y ago
        Please would you email me a couple of pictures of your mother? Let's test your free speech ideals.
- throwa3way55555 12y ago
  Does anyone made them to read it?
- dean 12y ago
  You don't have the right to never be offended.
adamnemecek 12y ago
Go away.
throwa3way55555 12y ago
bigot not racist.
bro-kaizen 12y ago
In cattle country, the law is "fence them out," ie. if you don't want your neighbors' cows grazing on your land, it's your job to fence them out, instead of his job to fence them in. Claim: We need something analogous to "fence the out" for "being offended" if we want to construct a broadly participatory society, complete with free, open, and vibrant debate. In other words, perhaps our society should standardize on the convention that it is your job to not be offended by things, instead of other peoples' job to not offend you. Perhaps this might boil down to civilly agreeing to disagree. Given a large number of religious/ideological groups and a larger number of issues with non-negligible probabilities of offending someone, it becomes likely that many statements in the public discourse will be offensive to someone. We can model the situation binomially and compute the likelihood of at least one success (offending some group) in N trials, where N is the number of events in the public discourse per day (perhaps 10^5 in today's fractured media landscape) and the probability of offense is on average perhaps 1/(.001N). It's not hard to see that at least one success will probably happen every day. That's why I think we need a more robust system for dealing with this.
- sthrs 12y ago
  What about being bigoted and prejudiced contributes to a democracy?
jambo 12y ago
Islam isn't a race. Racist merely because many Muslims share an ethnicity in France? But then, they weren't skewering only Islam. I'm genuinely trying to understand this criticism.
- sthrs 12y ago
  Point, but the destructive views of minorities promoted by this publication is classic imperialist journalism.
  - finid 12y ago
    No, it's the destructive actions of a few twerps who were/are offended by a satirical piece that's repulsive.
doxcf434 12y ago
Could also be a touch of not wanting to get murdered in there too.
svdree 12y ago
You do realize that islam is a religion, not a race, right? Playing the racism card in situations like these is quickly becoming the new Godwin. Besides, given that most Americans wouldn't even know what kind of cartoons we're talking about, it would have actual news value to show them.

Or, you know, they just didn't want to publish racist caricatures under the guise of satire.

by sthrs 12y ago

Or, 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.

sgift 12y ago
Of course they are offensive to some people. That's the point. Offend and ridicule views which are ridiculous.
- sthrs 12y ago
  Your Islamophobia is showing.
  - sgift 12y ago
    You mistake your own ignorance for my Islamophobia - Charlie Hebdo made many comics ridiculing politics, Catholicism (especially Catholicism) and religion as a whole.
  - Koahku 12y ago
    These comics were mocking any form of extremism, and one could argue that extremism needs to be ridiculed.
- jlarocco 12y ago
  Fact of the matter is, they wouldn't publish offensive cartoons making fun of the Holocaust, Jews, Christians, 9/11 victims, women, etc., so it's not very surprising they won't publish these cartoons, either. If you want to see offensive cartoons there are plenty of websites just a google search away. It's funny how many stories are posted on HN about being sensitive to women/minorities/whatever, with comments full of people saying how open and accepting people need to be, then this comes up, and the dominant theme is "We need to publish offensive stuff everywhere, because fuck that group who's different than me."
  - kristofferR 12y ago
    > Fact of the matter is, they wouldn't publish offensive cartoons making fun of the Holocaust, Jews, Christians, 9/11 victims, women, etc., so it's not very surprising they won't publish these cartoons, either. Wrong - http://gawker.com/7-offensive-images-the-new-york-times-wasn-t-afraid-to-1678338658 http://gawker.com/7-offensive-images-the-new-york-times-wasn... It's funny how many stories are posted on HN about being sensitive to women/minorities/whatever, with comments full of people saying how open and accepting people need to be, then this comes up, and the dominant theme is "We need to publish offensive stuff everywhere, because fuck that group who's different than me." > No, fuck the group that uses terrorism to shut people up. It should be way more offensive to bow to the demands of the terrorists than to post some cartoons.
- Squarel 12y ago
  Does that apply to all views, or just those which you find ridiculous?
  - sgift 12y ago
    All of them. Go on, make a comic about some view I hold you think is ridiculous, maybe it spawns a good discussion.
    - DanBC 12y ago
      Please would you email me a couple of pictures of your mother? Let's test your free speech ideals.
throwa3way55555 12y ago
Does anyone made them to read it?
dean 12y ago
You don't have the right to never be offended.

adamnemecek 12y ago

Go away.

throwa3way55555 12y ago

bigot not racist.

bro-kaizen 12y ago

In cattle country, the law is "fence them out," ie. if you don't want your neighbors' cows grazing on your land, it's your job to fence them out, instead of his job to fence them in. Claim: We need something analogous to "fence the out" for "being offended" if we want to construct a broadly participatory society, complete with free, open, and vibrant debate. In other words, perhaps our society should standardize on the convention that it is your job to not be offended by things, instead of other peoples' job to not offend you. Perhaps this might boil down to civilly agreeing to disagree. Given a large number of religious/ideological groups and a larger number of issues with non-negligible probabilities of offending someone, it becomes likely that many statements in the public discourse will be offensive to someone. We can model the situation binomially and compute the likelihood of at least one success (offending some group) in N trials, where N is the number of events in the public discourse per day (perhaps 10^5 in today's fractured media landscape) and the probability of offense is on average perhaps 1/(.001N). It's not hard to see that at least one success will probably happen every day. That's why I think we need a more robust system for dealing with this.

sthrs 12y ago
What about being bigoted and prejudiced contributes to a democracy?

jambo 12y ago

Islam isn't a race. Racist merely because many Muslims share an ethnicity in France? But then, they weren't skewering only Islam. I'm genuinely trying to understand this criticism.

sthrs 12y ago
Point, but the destructive views of minorities promoted by this publication is classic imperialist journalism.
- finid 12y ago
  No, it's the destructive actions of a few twerps who were/are offended by a satirical piece that's repulsive.

doxcf434 12y ago

Could also be a touch of not wanting to get murdered in there too.

svdree 12y ago

You do realize that islam is a religion, not a race, right? Playing the racism card in situations like these is quickly becoming the new Godwin. Besides, given that most Americans wouldn't even know what kind of cartoons we're talking about, it would have actual news value to show them.