You realise how weak and unsatisfactory that response looks to anyone reading this, right?
Right. In the pre-9/11 episode when it was still pretty niche and tensions were nowhere near as high
they used an image of Mohammed. In other words, when they were probably not even aware that this was offensive they did it, but when there was actually something at stake, they bottled it.
You see what I'm saying about the need to exercise the right or it going into abeyance?
George is an only child, don't forget; no self-awareness whatsoever.
I imagine your infant son could count all the f**ks I give
If either the danish cartoons or the CH stuff were actually funny they would have been a lot easier to use as a debate to at least move things forward a bit. As it were they were rudimentary, crude and well, a bit ****.
I mean, look at this stuff. It wouldnt make it into the Profanasaurus end of Viz.
http://freebeacon.com/wp-content/upl...bdo-covers.png
Yes, not joining the British Army could certainly be held up as a laudable, principled act by
someone who objects to Britain’s foreign policy. Not joining the British Army and joining Isis? Not so much.
And they showed that episode up until the Copenhagen stuff kicked off
Matt and Trey, the creators of south park, threatened to - and even did - leave CC over that but they were able to find a compromise eventually.
I know. And it rather proves my point - namely that it is all too easy to rationalise such a
capitulation as anything other than cowardice (moral and physical), but ultimately that is what it comes down to. Comedy Central's decision was rational and in some lights sensible, but it ultimately meant yet another 'offensive' voice was silenced not by argument, but by the threat of violence.
And that's why it doesn't matter that Charlie Hebdo was crude and unfunny - they at least had the courage to cause offence when it was dangerous to do so. And, by doing so, they kept a freedom alive that others lacked the courage to maintain. And they should be honoured for it.
You do care. Otherwise you’d not have bothered engaging on the subject.
You simply have no explanation for why you object to the depictions on the grounds of bad taste yet do not apply this rule of thumb to any other subject.
On one hand I'm inclined to agree and I see where you're coming from
But **** satire does nobody any favours. It just makes the people agreeing with it look more like morons and those disagreeing with it look more just.
I said I dont care how weak or otherwise people thought my argument is
Like you, I'm not here to win friends and influence people. As I've said before, I object to them on the grounds they werent funny, and thus they were crass and rude.
If they were funny, and also they were crass and rude, then the crassness and rudeness would have made them funnier, a sort of shameful joy, but as it is they were ****. I mean really, really ****.