Whilst I agree with you, Al, isn't it somewhat odd that Logiko can churn out allegories that insinuates that laughing at Christians is fair game, but nobody can make jokes about his illness?
I am not saying it is fine to make a mockery of his condition; but it feels as if there is a double-standard there.
he is trying to debate based on his beliefs and whatnot rather then mocking the religion itself if you look closely so it can't be helped even we disagree with his point of views
They don’t always make me laugh and sometimes I think they’re being rude but getting mad at a caricature is extreme. And the left is full of people like that who hate drawings. I see that so often from me lefty surrounding that keeps being appalled by a drawing every single time Charlie Hebdo gets a minute of glory
he is trying to debate based on his beliefs and whatnot rather then mocking the religion itself if you look closely so it can't be helped even we disagree with his point of views
If I see a woman being harassed by 5 men, what would I do? I'd obviously step in - as I have done in my personal life before. Almost got my ass beat for it as well (no way can I take 5 blokes lmao).
They don’t always make me laugh and sometimes I think they’re being rude but getting mad at a caricature is extreme. And the left is full of people like that who hate drawings. I see that so often from me lefty surrounding that keeps being appalled by a drawing every single time Charlie Hebdo gets a minute of glory
The problem is not the caricature in itself (even if it is islamophobic), the problem is the context and how this caricature can help spread reactionnary ideas.
There are ways to make dark humor without taking a dump on the oppressed while we are at it. Good humor laughs at the power and the system, not at those who are suffering.
The mindset never stops at anyone, lmao. What a fucking reach, my dude.
When I see someone being abused I step in. I don't act like their saviour in all moments of life. I don't advocate for them. I will simply assist when it's valid, and criticise when it is not.
Nope. I agree that we must protect anybody who is being attacked physically or verbally when it is unjust. The issue with your argument is that you are creating divisions between people through highlighting specific groups.
My "justice" so to speak is not reserved for one group - it is based on morality, not oppression politics. If a man is being assaulted by four others, I'll likely step in. It doesn't matter if he is brown, black, white, Asian. It doesn't matter if he has markers of the Islamic faith or Christianity. It is the right thing to do.
Did you not read what I wrote in response about what I'd do if someone was being attacked? Or are you still stung that I called you out for being a contrarian?
I may be a Christian, but that does not mean I believe prayer will suffice when someone is in danger.
Nope. I agree that we must protect anybody who is being attacked physically or verbally when it is unjust. The issue with your argument is that you are creating divisions between people through highlighting specific groups.
So you agree that we must protect anyone who is being attacked verbally or physically when it is unjust... but this mindset stops at muslims's oppression.
So you agree that we must protect anyone who is being attacked verbally or physically when it is unjust... but this mindset stops at muslims's oppression.
If you say so dude. I just said I'd step in for a Muslim? Way to rewrite reality.
The difference is the axioms upon which I act. I don't believe all Muslims are disadvantaged. I will help a struggling man or woman (so long as they accept my help). You believe all of them are, so you think it's important to drum about oppression all day.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.