TiaC wrote:Prak wrote:Even at the Charlie Hebdo level of detail, you can differentiate a black person through non-exaggerated features. I'm not talk giant lips and ears, I'm talking about paying attention to the differences in facial features and giving them a hairstyle that would be reasonable for whoever you're portraying.
So, you're saying that cartoonists should draw black people with white skin because it would offend people if black people were black? Hate to break it to you, but most people would actually find your whitewashing to be worse.
No you false-equivocating fuck, I'm saying that there is more to "being black" than just dark skin, and to say otherwise (unless you're talking about race is a cultural concept and not in any real way biological) is ignorant and would probably offend a lot of people.
Kaelik wrote:Well based on his previous post, it comes down to a balancing where no one could ever have any possibly important reason to draw mohammed, so they shouldn't be allowed to. But not putting Caitlyn Jenner on Time Magazine is denying Caitlyn Jenner's identity.
Actually I was arguing that people shouldn't do it, not that they shouldn't be allowed to. My point was "yes, if you're not muslim, you can draw Muhammad. But putting him on a magazine cover (that I was under the impression had a much higher circulation) is rather impolite to your muslim neighbors who believe the prophet should not be depicted, and thus it would be polite to not do it." At no point did I argue that periodicals shouldn't be
allowed to put crap drawings of Mohammad on their covers.
And there is a line, a couple in fact. Self-censoring and not putting Mohammad on your cover because it would offend people is different from putting Caitlyn Jenner on your cover because Mohammad is a part of the religion in question, and so it's reasonable for Muslims to not want to see depictions of their prophet who they believe should not be depicted. LGBTQIA people are not part of Christianity, just something Christianity objects to, so Christianity cannot make demands about the depiction of LGBTQIA with the same legitimacy.
Christians being squicked out over LGBTQIA people is a prejudice they need to get over. The belief that their prophet should not be depicted is a perfectly reasonable tenet for Muslims, or any religion really, and it's not unreasonable to ask people be polite and at least not put him on the covers of magazines.
Again, I'm not saying they shouldn't be allowed to, I'm saying that there's no reason for periodical editors to not be polite and not put Mohammad on covers that will be seen on newstands.
But, fuck, Charlie Hebdo has a circulation of less than 300,000 so probably the only time most French Muslims "have" to see Chebdo's depictions of Mohammad is when bigger media reports on it.