> But they are racist
And you're lying
And you're lying
Personal attacks are not allowed on Hacker News, even when somebody says something false.
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)
I know of that context and I still drawing a black person as a monkey is racist.
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
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 ...
Can you guess what the word "raciste" in that image means?
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-increas...
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.
All one needs to do is enter "Charlie Hebdo" in Google Image Search. It is offensive stuff, and pushes beyond the limits (at least my limits) of parody/common decency. I would be ashamed to publish it or have my name on the masthead. I am against violence. I am for freedom of expression. It does not follow that I am for Charlie Hebdo.
To try to repair your analogy, what if the Westboro Baptist Church were to demonstrate a lot of redeeming qualities like actively opposing right-wing reactionaries, crazy leftist social graft, and (of course) radical religions? What if they were to spend most of their time exposing issues that seriously deserve ridicule, and God Hates F@s was an occasional anomaly, a result of pushing the limits too far? (I never read CH so I don't know how anomalous it is. I do know this though: google image search can be pure selection bias and is definitely not a good way to get a feel for the magazine as a whole)
I personally dislike like Charlie Hebdo the same way I dislike like Benny Hill. The occasional mild laugh just isn't worth the tedium and distaste. (and this goes for other BDs like Fluide Glacial, L'Écho, the whole style)
So, I'm not for Charlie Hebdo either, but I'm very happy to see the outpouring of support. It's clear what people mean when they say je suis charlie -- no need to parse and overanalyze it.
It's a false dichotomy set up by people with an agenda.
Who exactly are you talking about?
You might be mischaracterizing what some/many/most people mean when they say, "we are charlie."
But I find it really tough to write about it and usually refrain so (long talks are better because one can moderate the speech and clear misunderstandings right away).
Your answer that accuses/asks me if I'm blaming the victim showcases this.
I very clearly wrote
Orthogonal to that
They can be racist (not saying they are since, as I said, it's a heavily politicized word that loses meaning easily) and that doesn't make them acceptable targets. The same goes for Neo Nazis, KKK members, people who say we Iran should be bombed, people who say USA should be bombed (funnily enough, these people might get prosecuted and jailed, see article), etc.
I might have written more than it's prudent and might have been all over the place. I'm sorry, it's late.
If something feels off, give me the benefit of the doubt and ask for clarification.