General Discussion

Yorktown

(2,884 posts)

53. French humor obviously does not translate in Quebecquois..

Sat Nov 28, 2015, 10:45 PM

Nov 2015

"touchez-pas a nos allocs." was typical Charlie Hebdo gallows humor.

To see it as 'racism, sexism, and deliberately foster(ing) hatred' is the equivalent of calling Mad Magazine disrespectful for mocking a standing President.

(even if that President was as dumb as GW)

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

87 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

On free speech: consider if the Charlie Hebdo episode happened here. Whose fault is it? [View all] hill2016 Nov 2015 OP

Were the Charlie Hebdo cartoons meant to be inciting? guillaumeb Nov 2015 #1

Third option: satirical riderinthestorm Nov 2015 #4

But they did NOT lampoon the tricouleur, guillaumeb Nov 2015 #8

I confess I wasn't a subscriber to Charlie Hebdo so I haven't seen everything riderinthestorm Nov 2015 #10

I have seen many of the cartoons. guillaumeb Nov 2015 #20

Ugh. Victim blaming. You couldn't be more wrong riderinthestorm Nov 2015 #25

There was a cartoon that depicted a number of black, pregnant, veiled females. guillaumeb Nov 2015 #26

French humor obviously does not translate in Quebecquois.. Yorktown Nov 2015 #53

vive les cons! Et les racistes aussi! guillaumeb Dec 2015 #60

You are like the XiXth century anthropologist shocked because the natives are naked. Yorktown Dec 2015 #64

My French ancestors immigrated to Quebec in 1605. guillaumeb Dec 2015 #66

I described a quebecquois as having anglo PCness because of the country culture obviously Yorktown Dec 2015 #68

Is this humor? guillaumeb Dec 2015 #70

No, not humor, better knowledge. Yorktown Dec 2015 #73

I have asked most of my regular correspondents about the cartoon. guillaumeb Dec 2015 #75

Well, three possibilities Yorktown Dec 2015 #83

You missed the fourth possibility, guillaumeb Dec 2015 #84

Oh, OK, past history is proof of current opinions? Such a fine basis for reasoning. Yorktown Dec 2015 #85

You actually admit to blaming victims? Where do you stand on short skirts and women who go to bars? CBGLuthier Nov 2015 #58

You have actually read what I posted? I think not, guillaumeb Dec 2015 #61

Your post #20 contradicts and answers this one Yorktown Nov 2015 #52

Mocking the Institutional Church is one thing. guillaumeb Dec 2015 #63

Doesn't matter... TipTok Dec 2015 #77

Only religious persons can be blasphemous. And most of them are, constantly. Bluenorthwest Nov 2015 #2

The person who commits the violent act - hifiguy Nov 2015 #3

...^ that 840high Nov 2015 #57

Do cartoons kill people? Rex Nov 2015 #5

It's the fault of swaggering assholes with guns, there are no exceptions Warpy Nov 2015 #6

I may not agree with what you have say. Agnosticsherbet Nov 2015 #7

Inciting is the issue... Hepburn Nov 2015 #19

Not sure how to approach this, but katsy Nov 2015 #9

Again, do cartoons kill people? Rex Nov 2015 #11

no. hill2016 Nov 2015 #12

What about Rex Nov 2015 #17

I believe hill2016 Nov 2015 #23

So do you defend people that make death threats? Rex Nov 2015 #32

no and no. hill2016 Nov 2015 #35

My point is, it is rhetoric that kills people. Rex Nov 2015 #37

In this case hill2016 Nov 2015 #43

At least you didn't get all snarky with me like the last poster. Rex Nov 2015 #45

Yes. The fault of a shooting lies only with the shooter Yorktown Nov 2015 #54

Where is the state action which gives rise to the issue of free speech? Hepburn Nov 2015 #13

some people hill2016 Nov 2015 #15

That's not the issue. Hepburn Nov 2015 #16

here's the state action hill2016 Nov 2015 #18

OMG... Hepburn Nov 2015 #21

ok hill2016 Nov 2015 #22

I did. Hepburn Nov 2015 #24

Perfectly explained. hifiguy Nov 2015 #27

Thank you... Hepburn Nov 2015 #29

as I said hill2016 Nov 2015 #33

Only if there is state action. Hepburn Nov 2015 #39

do you agree with this sentiment hill2016 Nov 2015 #31

Fiorina is an asshat. hifiguy Nov 2015 #34

I agree with what you say hill2016 Nov 2015 #36

Glad to see you got it! Hepburn Nov 2015 #41

he says hill2016 Nov 2015 #44

the question in the hypothetical is: hill2016 Nov 2015 #30

For the last time: Hepburn Nov 2015 #38

well hill2016 Nov 2015 #42

There are 4 elements to negligence, incitement is not one of them. Hepburn Nov 2015 #51

Fully legally? Hepburn Nov 2015 #40

ha ha ha... hill2016 Nov 2015 #46

Have you heard of the phrase... Hepburn Nov 2015 #50

The actual perpetrators of the violence. hobbit709 Nov 2015 #14

Indeed. ucrdem Dec 2015 #76

The gunmen. GoneOffShore Nov 2015 #28

The gunmen are responsible, fully. The same would be true if cartoonists sought out Bluenorthwest Nov 2015 #47

the correct response to a magazine cartoon u dont like is laughter and ridicule IMO nt msongs Nov 2015 #48

The gunman. Waldorf Nov 2015 #49

I find this thread enlightening NobodyHere Nov 2015 #55

Freedom of speech means people have a right to mock religion davidn3600 Nov 2015 #56

Much of DU doesn't care as long as you mock Christians only Democat Nov 2015 #59

Yep NT Ex Lurker Dec 2015 #67

I mock anyone who believes in a giant invisble sky-man who is obsessed with your private parts Warren DeMontague Dec 2015 #79

The gunman. All responsibility ultimately falls on the actor, full stop. Shandris Dec 2015 #62

The fault of the killers. No one else's. cherokeeprogressive Dec 2015 #65

The gunman and his religion Marrah_G Dec 2015 #69

The gunmen. Throd Dec 2015 #71

when you let your religion override the law, whose fault is it? hobbit709 Dec 2015 #72

The gunman. KamaAina Dec 2015 #74

Some people here really don't understand the 1st Amendment. These threads prove it. Warren DeMontague Dec 2015 #78

Fault for shooting people? Gunman. Nobody else. Action_Patrol Dec 2015 #80

Five backwoods homophobes having beers loyalsister Dec 2015 #81

The murderers, of course. There is no human right to go through life unoffended. NT Warpy Dec 2015 #82

the guns fault... ileus Dec 2015 #86

I did happen here...kinda ileus Dec 2015 #87