• rational_lib@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    15 days ago

    I’m all for satire, but I also think this was kind of bullying in that they did something that was offensive specifically to a particular marginalized minority group.

    So it’s not something that should be illegal or warrant a shooting, but I’m not exactly surprised. Just as if they published a story like “Fuck this one guy’s mother” showing a drawing of some random guy’s mother being fucked.* That guy doesn’t then have a right to shoot them and should go straight to prison if he does - but I wouldn’t be surprised and I don’t think we all need to identify with the paper or anything because they were being total pricks.

    *And I know the response will be along the lines of “You can’t compare that drawing with a mere drawing of mohammed”. But that betrays a failure to take another perspective. Who’s to say that in a society even more liberal than our own, “fuck your mother” might be seen as not particularly insulting? After all, take away expectations of women being pure and you basically have “fuck your dad” which really doesn’t seem too insulting, it’s like sure if that’s what you’re into weirdo, but let me check with my dad first.

      • nyctre@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        15 days ago

        What was the satire here, then? How is portraying her as a gypsy anything but racist?

        What was the satire here, then? How is portraying her as a gypsy anything but racist?

        • oce 🐆@jlai.luOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          15 days ago

          Didn’t really get the gypsy reference, so I looked it up, Charlie directly answered to the emotion it caused here: https://charliehebdo.fr/2018/06/societe/ je-ne-suis-pas-charlie-halep / (the paywall can be bypassed with reading mode). Basically, they are saying that what they did is a satire of French people prejudices against Romanian people. They often do that, they reuse the words/prejudices of the people they criticize in a satirical setting to mock it, though without knowing Charlie’s culture, it’s difficult to interpret. Consider it as the equivalent of “/s” at the end of a comment here.

          • nyctre@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            15 days ago

            They could’ve at least framed it as a “le monde” title or something to imply that it’s the media framing her as such… there’s nothing there to imply those are other people’s words…

            So I can make a comic of Obama with some fried chicken and some watermelon at a desk with a plaque that says POTUS and just be like “it’s a joke! I’m making fun of the racists!” ? That doesn’t sound right to me, but whatever.

            • oce 🐆@jlai.luOP
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              15 days ago

              The framing is having it on Charlie Hebdo and knowing what is their style. When people take it out of this context and with no knowledge of local politics, it will easily look racist. The same happens with a satirical comment here, take it out of context and present it at a family dinner, it will not be received the same.

              Let me take an up voted comment from here as an example.

              Ugh. Bougie homeless. Just sleep in your car like normal people. 🙄

  • xmunk@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    16 days ago

    Satire should be staunchly defended. Some people may find it offensive and they can go fuck themselves.

    Satirical publications are often the last free press able to publish in authoritarian governments and have often played a critical role in communication to weaken oppressive regimes.

    We can all occasionally suffer jokes in bad taste in exchange for freedom of the press.

    • jimmy90@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      16 days ago

      if it was far-right satire i would feel pretty shit about it but it should probably still be allowed (?)

      • xmunk@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        16 days ago

        Yup, far right satire should also be allowed.

        Granted, the only comedy the far right knows is the one joke so it’s a stretch to call it satire.

    • Ugurcan@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      16 days ago

      While I agree with Satire should be staunchly defended, I can’t see a way for that to happen when you hit a nerve with a greathammer repeatedly.

      So as a society we can show our full stance besides satire, but showing a stance, even with millions of people, could stop them getting killed by a two radicals? It appears not.

      So what should we do, put State Police in front of their door? I think police standing in front of every satire outlet would be a satire itself.

  • NeoNachtwaechter@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    16 days ago

    My opinion is that satire must hurt. Otherwise it may have no impact, then it is nothing else than cheap comedy. But it is possible that it hurts too much, so that some people cannot endure it. Society has a duty to protect the weak as well as the artists. It is a narrow line.

  • einkorn@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    16 days ago

    I think Charlie Hebdo comics are often in bad taste and more shock value than critic, but that’s no legitimate reason to massacre people.

    More than the attack on Charlie Hebdo itself, which I can “understand” in the twisted sense of a religious fanatic, it was the overall ruthlessness of the attackers that shocked me. I remember vividly seeing a video of one of the attackers walking up to a wounded police officer and executing him at point-blank range.

    • Takapapatapaka@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      16 days ago

      I’m with you here, satire should be protected, killing people for satire is awful, and Charlie Hebdo have a really dumb and bad taste humor.

  • NutinButNet@hilariouschaos.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    16 days ago

    We pull back too much because Islamic nutjobs will get violent because you dared draw a picture that resembled their stupid prophet. By doing that, we are giving them what they want and telling other religious groups that if they get violent enough, we’ll stop to appease them too.

    You can mock Jesus, Moses, Krishna and any other religious figure because their followers, at worse, are going to verbally protest, if they do anything at all. But draw fucking Muhammad and people will tell you to knock it off because we don’t want to upset the assholes who will riot and kill people because they can’t handle someone having a differing opinion. Society bends over backwards to not offend Islam out of fear.

    In response, we should have doubled down. Make more cartoons, get more vulgar with it…go all in, not stopped to appease them. Some people did for a while immediately after the attack, but not enough and not long enough, imo.

    • This is fine🔥🐶☕🔥@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      16 days ago

      On the other side, if you do double down and get vulgar then you’ll find lot of racists joining in with you. That’s the dilemma of criticizing or satirizing Islam while also staying away from xenophobes.

      • NutinButNet@hilariouschaos.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        16 days ago

        Why doesn’t the same happen for Hinduism? It’s mocked relentlessly and is predominately practiced by non-whites, perhaps even more so than Islam, but we never hear any worries of racism for it. Why do we worry for one religion and not another? What about Judaism? It’s perhaps the most mocked/satirized religion throughout history and the only one that actually shares its background with a race, but we never worry about racism towards it like Islam?

    • Not_mikey@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      16 days ago

      Would your response be the same if an outright racist or transphobic comic was murdered? Would you spread racist and transphobic content to assert your free speech?

      Society bends over backwards to not offend Islam out of fear.

      Not drawing cartoons is not bending over backwards. If they were trying to get women being veiled, or ban abortions or homosexuality then yeah we should tell them to fuck off. But if they’re just asking to not say a word or draw something that isn’t necessary to political dialog then it’s fair for society to respect that. It should be enforced by being ostracized not killed though.

      People shouldn’t be shot for saying the n word but if someone did get shot for saying it we shouldn’t all go around saying the n word because being intentionally offensive is still a dick move. Again not one that should be punished with death.

      • NutinButNet@hilariouschaos.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        16 days ago

        Would your response be the same if an outright racist or transphobic comic was murdered? Would you spread racist and transphobic content to assert your free speech?

        Sure, why not? I feel that way about Dave Chappelle and the crap he got for making jokes about “the t” in LGBT. We can make jokes about everyone else but as soon as it comes to transgender people, that’s off limits? No. Don’t think so. Carry on, Dave. He did exactly what I recommended here by doubling down when people made a big deal over it.

        But if they’re just asking to not say a word or draw something that isn’t necessary to political dialog then it’s fair for society to respect that. It should be enforced by being ostracized not killed though.

        There are Christians who ask for this and it is absolutely not respected. There were protests for things like “The Last Temptation of Christ” and many other media since and instead society continues to poke fun at Jesus.

        So why is it respected when it comes to Muhammad but not for Jesus despite a portion of the population asking for him to not be satirized? Is it because they’re not vocal enough? Or is it because people fear for their lives because psychos murder over a cartoon?

  • Hanrahan@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    16 days ago

    It was depressing that every newspaper in the developed world didn’t print the cartoon :(

    • Ugurcan@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      16 days ago

      In respect to their Muslim readers. Whatever you think, for Muslims, including me, it’s profane to picture Mohammad, as much it’s profane to picture Jesus fucking Peter in the ass.

      Even if there’s no reasoning behind it, respecting 1.8 billion people’s sensibilities should be the niceness I’d like to see in the world.

      • iii@mander.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        16 days ago

        Should homosexuality be banned, to respect 1.8 billion people’s sensibilities?

      • satans_methpipe@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        16 days ago

        In respect to my functioning brain it is profane to cater to babies who cry about pictures of their child rapist prophet.

      • JubilantJaguar@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        16 days ago

        The price of living in a free society is being ready to accept other people’s speech. In the West we had an Enlightenment, so blasphemy is not against the law. Christians would indeed find a picture of “Jesus fucking Peter in the ass” offensive, but they will sigh and move on. Same for all the other world religions.

        Only your religion treats offense as a justification for extreme violence. You need to think carefully about that fact.

        • Ugurcan@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          16 days ago

          Thank you very much for informing me about my religion and everyone else’s high and dwveloped society.

          But please take a moment to check what you embraced as “the” civilized fellows done in Gaza, breaking 4 years old kids ribs with their knees. You need to think careful about that fact.

          • JubilantJaguar@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            16 days ago

            The question was not about Gaza.

            I’m offended, very offended actually, when Muslims (and not only) suggest that some brutally murdered cartoonists had it coming because of their “disrespect”. At least as offended as you could possibly be offended by some picture. Your religion needs reform. It needs to learn tolerance.

            • Ugurcan@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              16 days ago

              Oh, so when we come into some other religion’s “higher stance” is just being an illusion, a propaganda to see “colonizers superior culture” is why they have free pass on crimes towards the oppressed, suddenly it wasn’t about that, huh. Like, they would never ever do such things. Except they do massacres, daily.

              I’d like to see how “developed” MAGAs or AFD people to react to Jesus and Peter published on every “developed” newspaper’s front page, as the commenter I’ve replied suggested. Run over the newspapers stands with a truck? Then step down and shoot around? Maybe they aim to kids. That’ll show’em.

              Extremism is everywhere. No belief, religion or politic stance, is exempt from it. I didn’t said a thing about Hebdo, just surprised to see how people in 2025 taking worse stances than George Bush in 2004 when it’s about Islam.

    • Valmond@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      16 days ago

      They sold millions of them here in France though but yeah you’re right. Especially the Danes who backed down then and again.

    • palordrolap@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      16 days ago

      Satire may have been instrumental in its own demise.

      People see satire and are either smart enough to understand it - maybe even find it funny, or are offended by it. Those who are offended generally become more entrenched in their beliefs and those who aren’t either don’t see the satire for the warning it is, or do, but mostly choose not to do something about the subject.

      And since people have seen what the satirised subject could be like, and they didn’t take action, the subject might take the opportunity to move a little closer to the form it took in satire.

      Given this and enough time, satire and reality can become indistinguishable.

      And here we are.

  • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    16 days ago

    The shooting wasn’t merely about the freedom of satire. Not really. Let’s complicate the story.

    The Kouachi brothers were Algerian and you can’t ignore the history of French colonialism in Algeria as the antecedent to this attack. This isn’t just about secularism and blasphemy, that’s only the surface. It’s about racism and colonialism and imperialism. Don’t think of this only as religious fanatics angry because infidels insulted the Prophet Mohammad, think of this as an oppressed racial group lashing out at a racist society and it being channeled through Islam. There’s a deeper tension here than just the religious surface.

    Now, as for my opinion?

    Racist satire should be illegal and that racists should be put into reeducation camps to be rehabilitated.

    Also! Adventurism is bad and people should get organized into a Party, not do vigilante attacks on racists.

    • oce 🐆@jlai.luOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      16 days ago

      Could you provide a source describing how the attack was related to colonialism rather than blasphemy against the prophet of Islam?
      What makes you think Charlie’s intentions are racism rather than mocking extremists?

      Edit: added second question.

      • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        16 days ago

        https://www.counterpunch.org/2015/01/14/laffaire-charlie-hebdo-and-western-colonialism/

        These men were fighting with Western-backed rebels in Syria to overthrow Assad, which is where they learned to kill.

        And it’s important to note their Algerian heritage because France occupied Algeria as recently as 1962 when it gained independence from France. Their parents didn’t immigrate from Algeria to France in a vacuum.

        This was blowback.

        • oce 🐆@jlai.luOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          16 days ago

          Do you think they fought in Syria to promote freedom and democracy or to promote an Islamist system?
          How does killing cartoonists, who are notably against conservatives, helps with decolonization? They should hit some far right journal that denies colonization crimes instead.

      • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        16 days ago

        Well we can’t just kill them!

        Crackkkers don’t know any better, we can help them overcome their racist upbringings.

        • nimpnin@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          16 days ago

          Yeah. What if we don’t take people’s right to bodily autonomy for indirectly harmful speech, or as I interpret you, beliefs they hold silently

              • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                edit-2
                16 days ago

                Which is why we need to help them, instead of just leaving them to suffer in their sickness until they hurt themselves or others.

                That means removing them from their environment, reeducating them out of bad habits and unhealthy thought patterns, and teaching them new healthier cognitive habits. You just oppose reeducation camps because the term is yucky, but there’s nothing wrong with rehabilitation facilities. We don’t have to leave racists to suffer with their afflictions. They can be helped.

                • nimpnin@sopuli.xyz
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  16 days ago

                  Those rehabilitation facilities already exist. Forced medical treatment. It is restricted to the most extreme cases, I think for a reason.

                  If you were actually concerned about people’s well-being, you’d at least be consistent about applying forced medical treatment to anybody who has some issues that cause harm to others. Sending alcoholics, narcissists, drug addicts, workplace bullies, etc. to camps? Pretty extreme but at least consistent.

                  But you are not. You just want an excuse to send people to camps. Typical red fash stuff.

    • FourPacketsOfPeanuts@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      16 days ago

      The Kouachi brothers were Algerian

      They were both French, born in Paris. Their parents were Algerian.

      You’re not saying “but where are they really from?” are you?..

      • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        16 days ago

        And why were their parents in France and not Algeria? Why did they have to leave their homes to raise their children in France?

        Because of French colonialism in Algeria! Because their country was underdeveloped and used as a source of cheap labor and resources and subjected to the horrors of a military occupation by a colonial power! You can’t just isolate immigration in a vacuum without analyzing the impacts of imperialism and colonialism on migration.

        • FourPacketsOfPeanuts@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          16 days ago

          The brothers went to Syria to train and attempt to fight in Iraq against the Americans. They stated their motivation were the atrocities carried out at Abu Ghraib by the Americans.

          Then they trained in Yemen

          They were eventually assoiated with al-Qaeda in the Arabian peninsula

          They expressed a desire to kill Jews, Chérif Kouachi specifically stating that he wanted to firebomb Jews

          Targetting Jews is what their accomplice, Amedy Coulibaly, actually did attacking a Jewish supermarket

          Kouachi stated his motivation was “avenging the prophet Muhammad” and retaliating against the “killing women and children in Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan”

          Jews, America, a media company. Not the French state. They have never cited Algeria as their motivation. You really shouldn’t be erasing their identity and narrative and substituting your own. That’s quite colonial of you…

          sources:

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Hebdo_shooting

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypercacher_kosher_supermarket_siege

          https://edition.cnn.com/2015/01/13/world/kouachi-brothers-radicalization/index.html

          https://www.thenationalnews.com/world/from-orphans-to-terrorists-journey-of-the-kouachi-brothers-1.114610

          https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/former-teacher-of-kouachi-brothers-says-they-were-not-intelligent-enough-to-resist-extremism-9973318.html

          • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            16 days ago

            I didn’t say Algeria was the motivation, I said it was the antecedent. French colonialism is the reason their parents had to leave their homes and the reason that these men were French in the first place. It’s not like this is ancient history.

            Now as for hatred for Jews and America, all that too ties back to imperialism and neocolonialism. Their hatred for Jews is obviously tied to the fact that there’s a Jewish-supremacist ethnostate in the middle east (that France supports) and which touts itself as representative of all Jews. Sadly, this results in blowback onto Jewish people who are not Israeli.

            But they’re still French so still pay their taxes to France which sends weapons to Israel. It’s only very recently that France decided to stop sending weapons to Israel, but when these attacks happened France was fully complicit in Israeli settler-colonialism.

            And most notably, France is a key American ally. America creates blowback that falls onto its allies.

            Blowback is complicated, but it’s undeniably the root cause. They even said so! My point: we have to analyze all of the context surrounding the attack. “French” Algeria, the War on Terror, Israeli settler-colonialism, etc etc it’s all connected.

            You are the one determined to erase their motivations by just making it about cartoons. It’s not.

    • a Kendrick fan@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      15 days ago

      Consistently, you always choose the repressive side as you did with China in that thread about lgbt erotica authors being arrested. As a queer socialist, this is depressive to see.

      • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        15 days ago

        Imagine not believing racists should be repressed. 🙄

        Also, in case you forgot, all I did in that thread was point out that China bans all erotica and that it isn’t specifically targeting queer authors. I just wanted to clarify something that wasn’t clear in the title. I never justified China’s outdated laws about erotic literature.

  • MudMan@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    16 days ago

    Honestly? That I would rather have Meta (and a bunch of Western countries, while we’re at it) lift restrictions on that front first before they go against LGBT people.

    I’m not on board with the idea that edgy or offensive humor is valuable in itself, but I absolutely abhor the scenario where offended conservative and traditionalist views are treated in their own terms while marginalized groups are considered needy or nagging if they ask for the same treatment.

    Also not on board with comedians assuming that noting their ignorance or bigotry is the same as not having a sense of humor, incidentally. Everybody sucks, is my point.

    • MDCCCLV@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      15 days ago

      You don’t think a sovereign country can have a state religion if everyone in the country is part of that religion and wants it that way?

      • darth_grunkus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        14 days ago

        There are exactly zero countries that are so homogenous that you can say that literally everyone is of the same religion.

      • recreationalcatheter@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        16 days ago

        So they Charlie hebdo shooting was over a cartoon of the Islamic religious figure against the artists at a French newspaper.

        The above comment is describing the state of mind and beliefs of the attacker.

        • silly goose meekah@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          16 days ago

          I am aware of the charlie hebdo shooting and why they claimed they did it. But I don’t see how the above statement relates to it, besides the loose connection of “islamists”. Are they saying there are enough violent islamists that one should fear repercussions? Or are they dismissing the islamists’ views by labeling them as paternal conservatives? It’s really just a statement about islamists, and not about the freedom of satire.

          • recreationalcatheter@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            16 days ago

            But I don’t see how the above statement relates to it

            So that is called “willful ignorance” and the weight of not being able to see the relation is YOUR burden to bear.

            It correlates quite nicely and you’re throwing a fit because you disagree emotionally.

      • VeganPizza69 Ⓥ@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        16 days ago

        The law cannot protect anyone unless it binds everyone; and it cannot bind anyone unless it protects everyone.Frank Wilhoit

        There are paradoxes in the system, but rest assured that these religions, the Abrahamic ones and other World religions, are all conservative in their construction.

        You are not going to find the answers to the paradoxes, you’re not going to find the equilibrium. I’m certainly not going to give you the solutions in some obscure comment, this kind of stuff requires shelves of books and papers.

        Note that if you think the satire magazine is some dangerous fascist organization posting their propaganda in order to recruit for an underground militia type organization, you have to prove that. It’s not too difficult to prove or disprove, but that can be a skill in of itself, something all moderators everywhere should have.

        Here’s one of their covers satirizing French racists:

    • NineMileTower@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      16 days ago

      See Hamtramck, MI. They took over the local government and banned pride flags. The mayor is an Islamic Trumper. It makes no sense to me.

      “I got mine here in the US, so fuck the rest of you all!”

    • richieadler@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      15 days ago

      Well, he may have a point there, bit this is the same guy who promotes racial screening in airports in spite of repeated refutations of the usefulness of such measures by a security expert, so…

      • intensely_human@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        15 days ago

        I’ve listened to maybe 10-15 hours of Sam Harris and I’ve never heard him say that. Can you source that?

    • triptrapper@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      16 days ago

      I’m sure there are folks here who have listened to a lot more Sam Harris than I have, but I’ve listened to several audiobooks and probably 40-50 hours of his podcast. He has some smart things to say about neuroscience and mindfulness, but my god he has some toxic, middle-school-ass takes on Islam. I haven’t heard that quote before, but I’m not surprised he said it. He’s Ben Shapiro with a PhD who makes deliberately obtuse, reductive, bad faith statements about Islam and Muslims.

      For the record, I’m a white atheist. I think religion has been the source of immeasurable violence in the world. I don’t think anyone should be shot over something they say or draw, but to declare “end of moral analysis” is ignorant.

  • j4k3@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    16 days ago

    Even a scientist on the bleeding edge deals the game of life in error bars. Absolutes do not exist anywhere except idealized fantasy. Anyone driven to violence because of belief is not human;/only primitive animal.

    • NOT_RICK@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      16 days ago

      More dehumanizing rhetoric is definitely not the answer. The attackers were human, as reprehensible as their actions were.

    • Semjaza@lemmynsfw.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      15 days ago

      Edge lords, but not even close to Nazis.

      French culture is more racist-y than US culture, and a history of trait-blindness is starting to catch up with it and having ripples across French society.