Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

uppityperson

(116,017 posts)
49. Seriously? Google christian religious violence. It is indeed by a tiny minority but not "just 1"
Thu Jan 8, 2015, 03:32 PM
Jan 2015

I seriously expected better than "just one religion" from you. Tiny minorities of many religions are busy killing others.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism

Contemporary[edit]
According to terrorism expert David C. Rapoport, a "religious wave", or cycle, of terrorism dates from approximately 1979 to the present.[20]
Anti-Muslim violence in Central Africa[edit]
Further information: Central African Republic conflict under the Djotodia administration
After the predominantly Muslim Seleka militia took control of the Central African Republic under President Michel Djotodia in 2013, a period of lawlessness and sectarian violence continued. Following warnings of "genocide" by the UN and a controversial intervention force by MISCA, Djotodia resigned. Despite neutral Catherine Samba-Panza being made president, the Anti-balaka Christian militants continued sectarian violence, including reported targeted killings, against Muslim civilians.[21]
Anti-Hindu violence in Northeast India[edit]
Christian violence arose in various contiguous states in North-East India.[22] In 2000, John Joseph, a member of India's National Minority Commission, described Christian militancy as rampant in the northeastern states.[22]
Tripura[edit]
Further information: Tripura rebellion
The National Liberation Front of Tripura (NLFT), is a rebel group that seeks the secession of Tripura, North-East India, and is a proscribed terrorist organization in India. Group activities have been described as Christian terrorists engaging in terrorist violence motivated by their Christian beliefs.[23][24] The NLFT includes in its aims the forced conversion of all tribespeople in Tripura to Christianity.[25] The NLFT says that it is fighting not only for the removal of Bengali immigrants from the tribal areas, "but also for the tribal areas of the state to become overtly Christian", and "has warned members of the tribal community that they may be attacked if they do not accept its Christian agenda".[26] The NLFT is listed as a terrorist organization in the Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002.[27] The state government contends that the Baptist Church of Tripura supplies arms and gives financial support to the NLFT.[28][29][30] Reports from the state government and Indian media describe activities such as the acquisition by the NLFT of explosives through the Noapara Baptist Church in Tripura,[30] and threats of killing Hindus celebrating religious festivals.[31] Over 20 Hindus in Tripura were reported to have been killed by the NLFT from 1999 to 2001 for resisting forced conversion to Christianity.[32] According to Hindus in the area, there have also been forced conversions of tribal villagers to Christianity by armed NLFT militants.[32] These forcible conversions, sometimes including the use of "rape as a means of intimidation", have also been noted by academics outside of India.[33] In 2000, the NLFT broke into a temple and gunned down a popular Hindu preacher popularly known as Shanti Kali.[25]
Odisha[edit]
See also: Religious violence in Odisha
In 2007 a tribal spiritual Hindu monk, Swami Lakshmanananda Saraswati, accused Radhakant Nayak, chief of a local chapter of World Vision, and a former Rajya Sabha member from Odisha in the Indian National Congress party, of plotting to assassinate him.[34] The Swami also said that World Vision was covertly pumping money into India for religious conversion during the 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami, and criticized the activities of Christian missionaries as going against tribal beliefs.[35] In 2008, he was gunned down along with four disciples on the Hindu festive day of Krishna Janmashtami by a group of 30–40 armed men.[36] Later, the Maoist terrorist leader Sabyasachi Panda admitted responsibility for the assassination, saying that the Maoists had intervened in the religious dispute on behalf of Christians and Dalits.[37][38] The non-governmental organization Justice on Trial disputed that there had been Maoist involvement, and quoted the Swami as claiming that Christian missionaries had earlier attacked him eight times.[39][40]
Nagaland[edit]
Main article: National Socialist Council of Nagaland
Nagaland is a Christian majority state in India. Many terrorist incidents have been documented there as a result of an insurgency against the government. This insurgency was originally led by the National Socialist Council of Nagaland (NSCN), who has indulged in terrorist activities varying from kidnapping, illegal drug trafficking, extortion, etc.[41] The group has committed religious violence, as a part of NSCN's described mission of forcibly converting the animist Naga to Christianity, which has been described by B. B. Kumar as Christian terrorism.[24] Other goals include the formation of a greater Nagaland. There are occasional reports of the NSCN using force to convert locals of neighboring states to Christianity.[42]
Manipur[edit]
The National Socialist Council of Nagaland, Issac-Muivah faction (slogan: "Nagaland for Christ&quot , is accused of carrying out the 1992–1993 ethnic cleansing of Kuki tribes in Manipur, said to have leave over 900 people dead. During that NSCN-IM operation, 350 Kuki villages were driven out and about 100,000 Kukis were turned into refugees.[43]
Sabra and Shatila massacre[edit]
Maronite Christian militias perpetrated the Karantina and Tel al-Zaatar massacres of Palestinians and Lebanese Muslims during Lebanon's 1975–1990 civil war. The 1982 Sabra and Shatila massacre, which targeted unarmed Palestinian refugees for rape and murder, was considered to be genocide by the United Nations General Assembly.[44] A British photographer present during the incident said that "People who committed the acts of murder that I saw that day were wearing [crucifixes] and were calling themselves Christians."[45] After the end of the civil war, Christian militias refused to disband, concentrating in the Israeli-occupied south of the country, where they terrorized Muslim and Druze villages and forcefully recruited men and boys from those communities into their groups.[46]
Northern Irish and Irish paramilitary groups[edit]
Terrorist acts, with various motives, were committed by loyalists and republicans during the Troubles in Northern Ireland. Although most loyalists were Protestant and most republicans were Catholic, it is widely seen as an ethno-nationalist conflict that was not religious in nature.[47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56][57][58][59][60] Experts who subscribe to this view, including Philip Purpura, Richard Jenkins, and John Hickey, note the importance of religious motivations in what Purpura calls an "overlap" between religious terrorism and national or ethnic terrorism.[61][62][63] However, professor Mark Juergensmeyer argues that some terrorist acts were religious terrorism or justified by religion.[64]:19–20 Professors Jonathan Matusitz, a critic of religions, and Ayla Hammond Schbley, an expert on counterterrorism, have written about the Provisional IRA as being Christian terrorists,[65][66] a characterization that is at odds with multiple other analysts.[48][49][56][57][67][68][69]
Sociology professor Steve Bruce has written that most loyalist paramilitaries and politicians are fundamentally different from Islamic organizations such as Hezbollah, in that they regard religion and politics as separate spheres and do not advocate killing on the basis of perceived heresy. He did, however, characterize three small loyalist splinter groups – the Orange Volunteers, the Loyalist Volunteer Force, and the Red Hand Defenders – as terrorist groups that were motivated by what he called "Christian imagery" preached by Protestant evangelicals.[70] The leader of the Orange Volunteers, pastor Clifford Peeples, defended their attacks on Catholic churches on the basis that they were "bastions of the Antichrist".[71][72]
Utøya Island killings[edit]
Main article: 2011 Norway attacks
In July 2011, Anders Behring Breivik was arrested and charged with terrorism after a car bombing in Oslo and a mass shooting on Utøya island that killed 77 people. Hours prior to the events, Breivik released a 1,500-page manifesto detailing his beliefs that immigrants were undermining Norway's traditional Christian values, and identifying himself as a "Christian crusader" while describing himself as not very religious.[73][74] Although initial news reports described him as a Christian fundamentalist,[75][76] subsequent analyses of his motivations have noted that he did not only display Christian terrorist inclinations, but also had non-religious, right-wing beliefs.[77][78] Mark Juergensmeyer and John Mark Reynolds have stated that the events were Christian terrorism,[79][80] whereas Brad Hirschfield has rejected the Christian terrorist label.[81]
Lord's Resistance Army[edit]
The Lord's Resistance Army, a cult and guerrilla army, was engaged in an armed rebellion against the Ugandan government in 2005. It has been accused of using child soldiers and of committing numerous crimes against humanity; including massacres, abductions, mutilation, torture, rape, and using forced child labourers as soldiers, porters, and sex slaves.[82] A quasi-religious movement that mixes some aspects of Christian beliefs with its own brand of spiritualism,[83][84] it is led by Joseph Kony, who proclaims himself the spokesperson of God and a spirit medium, primarily of the "Holy Spirit" which the Acholi believe can represent itself in many manifestations.[85][85][86][87] LRA fighters wear rosary beads and recite passages from the Bible before battle.[83][88][89][90][91][92]
Christian Identity and anti-abortion killings[edit]
See also: Anti-abortion violence in the United States and Christian terrorism in the United States
After 1981, members of groups such as the Army of God began attacking abortion clinics and doctors across the United States.[93][94][95] A number of terrorist attacks were attributed by Bruce Hoffman to individuals and groups with ties to the Christian Identity and Christian Patriot movements, including the Lambs of Christ.[96] A group called Concerned Christians was deported from Israel on suspicion of planning to attack holy sites in Jerusalem at the end of 1999; they believed that their deaths would "lead them to heaven".[97][98]
The motive for anti-abortionist Scott Roeder murdering Wichita doctor George Tiller on 31 May 2009 was the belief that abortion is not only immoral, but also a form of murder under "God's law", irrespective of "man's law" in any country, and that this belief went "hand in hand" with his religious beliefs.[99][100] The group supporting Roeder proclaimed that any force is "legitimate to protect the life of an unborn child", and called on all Christians to "rise up" and "take action" against threats to Christianity and to unborn life.[101] Eric Robert Rudolph carried out the Centennial Olympic Park bombing in 1996, as well as subsequent attacks on an abortion clinic and on a lesbian nightclub. Michael Barkun, a professor at Syracuse University, considers Rudolph to likely fit the definition of a Christian terrorist. James A. Aho, a professor at Idaho State University, argues that religious considerations inspired Rudolph only in part.[102]
Terrorism scholar Aref M. Al-Khattar has listed The Covenant, The Sword, and the Arm of the Lord, Defensive Action, The Freemen Community, and some "Christian militia" as groups that "can be placed under the category of far-right-wing terrorism" that "has a religious (Christian) component".[103]


http://www.alternet.org/tea-party-and-right/10-worst-terror-attacks-extreme-christians-and-far-right-white-men
10 of the Worst Terror Attacks by Extreme Christians and Far-Right White Men

Wisconsin Sikh Temple massacre, Aug. 5, 2012. The virulent, neocon-fueled Islamophobia that has plagued post-9/11 America has not only posed a threat to Muslims, it has had deadly consequences for people of other faiths, including Sikhs. Sikhs are not Muslims; the traditional Sikh attire, including their turbans, is different from traditional Sunni, Shiite or Sufi attire. But to a racist, a bearded Sikh looks like a Muslim. Only four days after 9/11, Balbir Singh Sodhi, a Sikh immigrant from India who owned a gas station in Mesa, Arizona, was murdered by Frank Silva Roque, a racist who obviously mistook him for a Muslim.

But Sodhi’s murder was not the last example of anti-Sikh violence in post-9/11 America. On Aug. 5, 2012, white supremacist Wade Michael Page used a semiautomatic weapon to murder six people during an attack on a Sikh temple in Oak Creek, Wisconsin. Page’s connection to the white supremacist movement was well-documented: he had been a member of the neo-Nazi rock bands End Empathy and Definite Hate. Attorney General Eric Holder described the attack as “an act of terrorism, an act of hatred.” It was good to see the nation’s top cop acknowledge that terrorist acts can, in fact, involve white males murdering people of color.

2. The murder of Dr. George Tiller, May 31, 2009. Imagine that a physician had been the victim of an attempted assassination by an Islamic jihadist in 1993, and received numerous death threats from al-Qaeda after that, before being murdered by an al-Qaeda member. Neocons, Fox News and the Christian Right would have had a field day. A physician was the victim of a terrorist killing that day, but neither the terrorist nor the people who inflamed the terrorist were Muslims. Dr. George Tiller, who was shot and killed by anti-abortion terrorist Scott Roeder on May 31, 2009, was a victim of Christian Right terrorism, not al-Qaeda....(MUCH more at link)

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Well said. Some satire is supposed to make your skin crawl. nt msanthrope Jan 2015 #1
Indeed. Satire is only effective if it angers its targets. MineralMan Jan 2015 #2
Last night I pulled out my copy of the Jerry Falwell Campari ad. It's still disgusting. And I msanthrope Jan 2015 #5
I remember that one, too. MineralMan Jan 2015 #8
So I go to law school, and in my ConLaw class, we read the case. There's no picture..... msanthrope Jan 2015 #13
The Muslim world is genuinely unfunny and unlikely to appreciate satire. randome Jan 2015 #3
All the more reason to satirize. MineralMan Jan 2015 #6
I agree completely. The more we are free to satirize and criticize, the better. For us. randome Jan 2015 #11
One sentence says it all albino65 Jan 2015 #52
Mindy Kaling is of Hindu background Bluenorthwest Jan 2015 #60
I'd forgotten all about that film. I have no idea if any conclusions were reached. randome Jan 2015 #110
Al Franken didn't do that movie geardaddy Jan 2015 #128
Dave Chappelle. He's a comedian and Muslim JonLP24 Jan 2015 #214
Exactly. Satire is not a synonym for humor. immoderate Jan 2015 #4
Rec! LostOne4Ever Jan 2015 #7
Exactly. It was decidedly not funny. MineralMan Jan 2015 #19
Sinclair Lewis. Samuel Butler Downwinder Jan 2015 #21
"Or is there some humor in suggesting people eat the children of the poor that I don't get?" F4lconF16 Jan 2015 #55
You? Satiric? No! elias49 Jan 2015 #9
WHO is "BLAMING" Charlie Hebdo for the violence that took place? Who? I'd like to know. MADem Jan 2015 #10
That inability is everywhere, too, on so many topics, and not just here at DU. arcane1 Jan 2015 #14
Bingo--you got it. MADem Jan 2015 #38
Well one poster in the religion forum pretty much said they should LostOne4Ever Jan 2015 #15
Well, I mean, really--duh. They didn't publish that stuff to have people go "Ho hum." MADem Jan 2015 #29
There are others posts blaming them all over this forum LostOne4Ever Jan 2015 #40
I agree. F4lconF16 Jan 2015 #71
Sure thing F4lconF16 LostOne4Ever Jan 2015 #95
I agree... Wgles Jan 2015 #123
Everyone keeps saying that, and they can only come up with one post that MADem Jan 2015 #145
There has definitely been victim vilifying oberliner Jan 2015 #199
Its more than one post LostOne4Ever Jan 2015 #206
TL/DR. MADem Jan 2015 #209
TLDR? LostOne4Ever Jan 2015 #211
I see you're the type of poster that snarks "classy" when someone tells you the truth MADem Jan 2015 #212
You are the one who started with the snark LostOne4Ever Jan 2015 #213
I was simply telling you the truth. It was TLDR. MADem Jan 2015 #215
Agreed. Ms. Toad Jan 2015 #16
Judging what is offensive is a personal matter. MineralMan Jan 2015 #22
My point is that no one here is saying that anyone is "entitled to respond by killing the MADem Jan 2015 #33
But a number of people have said that the victims "should have expected" MineralMan Jan 2015 #39
Well of course they "should have expected" it. For chrissake--are we expected to MADem Jan 2015 #62
Some people hide from conflict. Others do not. MineralMan Jan 2015 #65
Sure. I think the truth is always best. I favor speech as a response to speech. MADem Jan 2015 #74
Of course there is an insunuation of at least part blame on the victim LiberalLovinLug Jan 2015 #93
I cannot disagree more strongly. MADem Jan 2015 #113
Well of course she "should have expected it". Warren Stupidity Jan 2015 #137
Apparently you don't. You're confusing understanding risk with victim blaming. MADem Jan 2015 #141
No, he's not confused. you're deflecting. AtheistCrusader Jan 2015 #144
No--I'm staying right on point. MADem Jan 2015 #146
Like calling them careless, for their vile cartoons? AtheistCrusader Jan 2015 #150
Again--since you aren't taking the point, you want to censor a single DUer for stating MADem Jan 2015 #154
No, I don't want to censor him. I want him to fucking know better than to post that shit. AtheistCrusader Jan 2015 #167
No, you don't want to censor him--you want to bully him into censoring himself? MADem Jan 2015 #175
Stop right there. AtheistCrusader Jan 2015 #177
The content of the magazine is what necessitates the lock on the 'f-ing' door. MADem Jan 2015 #179
A lock on the door does the dead guy in the street a lot of good. AtheistCrusader Jan 2015 #181
You're missing the fact that the "guy on the street" wasn't the target of those guys. MADem Jan 2015 #186
Oh please. AtheistCrusader Jan 2015 #195
Oh, please, yourself. You've done nothing but try to create a false association. MADem Jan 2015 #197
In all my time on internet forums, one thing I've found to be true, every time... AtheistCrusader Jan 2015 #200
Well,golly, victory is yours, then.... MADem Jan 2015 #208
You have a 'nice day' too. AtheistCrusader Jan 2015 #210
I agree I have a right to wear whatever I want and that's no excuse for raping me treestar Jan 2015 #192
We know that men cannot control their impulses. So dress appropriately. Warren Stupidity Jan 2015 #194
You're doing just what I said treestar Jan 2015 #202
I wouldin't have a problem with it if they said they were offended, and there was no escalation AtheistCrusader Jan 2015 #205
You seem to be confused by the difference in the boundary between speech, and the sound barrier AtheistCrusader Jan 2015 #196
No, I'm not treestar Jan 2015 #203
This post is a winner! That last paragraph is a home run! nt MADem Jan 2015 #198
Actually, the OP isn't even saying that anyone is saying... Pacifist Patriot Jan 2015 #41
Thank you. I said no such thing at all, or at any time. MineralMan Jan 2015 #44
But no one is blaming the victim--and that is the point of the OP. MADem Jan 2015 #63
No one is saying it. It is always the off the handle accusation when you say the cartoons ARE Fred Sanders Jan 2015 #57
Did I say I blamed the victims? Ms. Toad Jan 2015 #47
I agree deutsey Jan 2015 #104
You are making the same distinctions I am. Ms. Toad Jan 2015 #109
I thought the same thing when I saw a similar thread earlier today... Pacifist Patriot Jan 2015 #18
Charlie Hebdo desired a strong response--that's why they published that material. MADem Jan 2015 #34
Fine line Pacifist Patriot Jan 2015 #37
They did ask for a conversation with their stuff. They weren't in the "Art for Art's Sake" MADem Jan 2015 #69
I haven't made it a point to include that. Erich Bloodaxe BSN Jan 2015 #26
Thank you. It is possible to be disgusted by images yet not be a proponent of mass murder as an expr uppityperson Jan 2015 #43
Here's some. Someone you know, no less. AtheistCrusader Jan 2015 #48
Here is a post from the main story christx30 Jan 2015 #54
Saying they were "careless" is "victim blaming?" MADem Jan 2015 #97
I said 'frantically' because, in his own words... AtheistCrusader Jan 2015 #106
It's an opinion. In a telling irony, the publisher himself "predicted" violence. MADem Jan 2015 #115
That's a ridiculous stretch. AtheistCrusader Jan 2015 #131
No, he's not. If he wanted to say they should not have done it, MADem Jan 2015 #133
It's not a cheap shot. You're defending him. And he did. AtheistCrusader Jan 2015 #134
If it's "hard to show with all those self deletes" then it is that--hard to show. MADem Jan 2015 #140
The poster below my initial objection offered more links to other posters. AtheistCrusader Jan 2015 #143
Why keep hauling out one guy and berating him? There hasn't been a great avalanche MADem Jan 2015 #151
Another interesting deflection. AtheistCrusader Jan 2015 #152
I'm sorry-- I don't "know" him like you seem to--even though you keep insisting I do. MADem Jan 2015 #156
You know him by screen name. That's as far as I meant that. AtheistCrusader Jan 2015 #168
Skip has lost his way of late. nt Codeine Jan 2015 #148
Typical DU these days treestar Jan 2015 #189
But poor satire does rather invite criticism. Orsino Jan 2015 #12
Yes, some satire is neither funny, necessary or in any sense "important" whathehell Jan 2015 #20
Interesting. How do you feel about the Charlie Hebdo MineralMan Jan 2015 #23
The few I've seen look, cursorily, puerile and mean. Orsino Jan 2015 #30
Yes, they were. That was intentional. MineralMan Jan 2015 #32
I think it all depends on HappyMe Jan 2015 #73
Those cartoons were not making fun of anyone's religious beliefs. MineralMan Jan 2015 #79
I said that I personally do not make fun of people's beliefs. HappyMe Jan 2015 #101
Here's what I think: whathehell Jan 2015 #50
In some cases, however, religion is the very core of some societies. MineralMan Jan 2015 #53
I understand, but in those cases, whathehell Jan 2015 #142
I have always thought that good satire pennylane100 Jan 2015 #17
Satire does not have to entertain. MineralMan Jan 2015 #24
I must disagree. pennylane100 Jan 2015 #42
That doesn't change the fact that there are people out there that will The2ndWheel Jan 2015 #25
I didn't imply that such things don't happen. MineralMan Jan 2015 #31
And just being deliberately offensive doesn't make what you say or draw satire, either. Erich Bloodaxe BSN Jan 2015 #27
That also. eom uppityperson Jan 2015 #45
Exactly.. whathehell Jan 2015 #166
I think that finding the Hebdo "satire" offensive ... ananda Jan 2015 #28
Oddly enough, though, it is not western societies MineralMan Jan 2015 #35
Seriously? Google christian religious violence. It is indeed by a tiny minority but not "just 1" uppityperson Jan 2015 #49
Northern Ireland, Croatia, Ukraine, domestic terror.....it just does not get the media coverage. Fred Sanders Jan 2015 #91
The conflict in Northrn Ireland involved two communities of different religions but whathehell Jan 2015 #170
Rep. Steve King agrees with you, it was politics, but quite a few dead innocents do not and of Fred Sanders Jan 2015 #183
Sure. Saying it was politically-based means Steve & I are buds & I'm good with "dead innocents" whathehell Jan 2015 #193
CAR, anti-Balaka militia, christian and animist militiasattacking Muslim Fulani herders uppityperson Jan 2015 #126
Just one religion? Only if you ignore most of the others... Violet_Crumble Jan 2015 #185
Good op. NCTraveler Jan 2015 #36
Good point. The Velveteen Ocelot Jan 2015 #46
I wouldn't use that type of satire, for many reasons, but mostly MineralMan Jan 2015 #51
satire is an extremely generous term here. Or maybe just wrong. teleharmonium Jan 2015 #56
"Satire" is the wrong word being thrown about. Does it meet the definition, because satire is Fred Sanders Jan 2015 #61
I think you misunderstand the meaning of "topical." MineralMan Jan 2015 #72
I disagree. It is satire. Not my style of satire, but MineralMan Jan 2015 #64
Why, then, poke the bear, what do you think the danger might be? Fred Sanders Jan 2015 #70
You're defining satire based on only part of the actual MineralMan Jan 2015 #75
But you could argue everything is topical then, from evolution to the theory of relativity. Fred Sanders Jan 2015 #77
Current events. MineralMan Jan 2015 #84
Then "topical" has no meaning....the theory of gravity was once topical, now it is just a topic. Fred Sanders Jan 2015 #86
At this point, your argument has become specious, so MineralMan Jan 2015 #92
and also teleharmonium Jan 2015 #100
terms and bears teleharmonium Jan 2015 #80
And no one is implying or saying the victims deserved it, quite the opposite. One can be horrified Fred Sanders Jan 2015 #85
I gave my interpretation of it in post #81 nt riderinthestorm Jan 2015 #89
The three clerics in the second comic are saying exactly what you are saying: Charlie goes to far! Bluenorthwest Jan 2015 #77
question teleharmonium Jan 2015 #90
That cartoon is about a specific event. When people kill each other and they are all claiming to be Bluenorthwest Jan 2015 #111
relevance teleharmonium Jan 2015 #114
The thing is, I get that viewpoint of the satire in that cover riderinthestorm Jan 2015 #81
perhaps teleharmonium Jan 2015 #99
You're deciding then that "someone" has to an arbiter riderinthestorm Jan 2015 #102
don't assign your arguments to me teleharmonium Jan 2015 #107
As to your analogy, its flawed because the Muslims are in France riderinthestorm Jan 2015 #116
not sure you are the spokesman teleharmonium Jan 2015 #120
I'm surely not the spokesman but I have a degree in Modern European history riderinthestorm Jan 2015 #127
this sounds like a specious argument teleharmonium Jan 2015 #129
Go read some French history and get back to me then riderinthestorm Jan 2015 #130
are you telling me teleharmonium Jan 2015 #132
Anyone who attacks people is a criminal. Period. riderinthestorm Jan 2015 #135
straw man teleharmonium Jan 2015 #204
Thanks for a very well reasoned post. Denzil_DC Jan 2015 #88
Great post! I think what bugs me the most is my sense that satirists should be going KingCharlemagne Jan 2015 #108
Thank you. yellerpup Jan 2015 #58
You're too kind. MineralMan Jan 2015 #66
Thank you for making both these points ... Scuba Jan 2015 #59
Thanks, Scuba. MineralMan Jan 2015 #67
Good Post jalan48 Jan 2015 #68
IMO, satire is most powerful/relevant when it targets ingroups, especially those with real power. Denzil_DC Jan 2015 #76
exactly teleharmonium Jan 2015 #105
Sadly, the cartoon you linked to is inaccessible, but I get the gist. Denzil_DC Jan 2015 #112
right teleharmonium Jan 2015 #117
I think it is this cartoon... MADem Jan 2015 #119
Thanks. Denzil_DC Jan 2015 #122
The most effective satire is not funny Gothmog Jan 2015 #82
Agreed. K&R nt riderinthestorm Jan 2015 #83
Well said. Example: " A Modest Proposal". riqster Jan 2015 #87
As I recall, it pissed of a lot of the right people, too. MineralMan Jan 2015 #96
S'truth. I may just pick it up again. riqster Jan 2015 #136
Well Said! cer7711 Jan 2015 #94
No need to pardon the alliteration. MineralMan Jan 2015 #98
How about just crudeness and stupidity? Brigid Jan 2015 #103
Don't get mad, get even Pantagruelsmember Jan 2015 #118
Very true! Satire can be scorn or outright mockery. Sardonic in nature. Rex Jan 2015 #121
Would you consider this cartoon satire? PADemD Jan 2015 #124
Given all the other octopus images, yes. MineralMan Jan 2015 #138
That's some anti-Semitic 'satire' if I've ever seen some.... MADem Jan 2015 #147
I agree. PADemD Jan 2015 #164
Oh, certainly, I concur. I think where people are going wrong is MADem Jan 2015 #165
Another point of view PADemD Jan 2015 #171
That link was a damn interesting read! Lots to chew on, there! nt MADem Jan 2015 #176
You would have to just about be leftynyc Jan 2015 #125
Art Buchwald wrote some powerful satire Art_from_Ark Jan 2015 #139
"Satire is a means ... NanceGreggs Jan 2015 #149
Outstanding post. Zorra Jan 2015 #153
Agreed. NanceGreggs Jan 2015 #155
Exactly. nt Zorra Jan 2015 #178
Ok. I'll bite. Modern day evangelical Christians are a circle jerk of hypocrisy riderinthestorm Jan 2015 #158
If the cartoon was meant ... NanceGreggs Jan 2015 #159
Jesus is getting fucked as well. riderinthestorm Jan 2015 #161
The actions of those ... NanceGreggs Jan 2015 #162
Exactly! Agreed! So you see what Charlie Hebdo did? riderinthestorm Jan 2015 #163
"Their satire is meant to inspire conversation." NanceGreggs Jan 2015 #169
Just as an fyi, I am Irish and no, I would never kill over that stereotype nt riderinthestorm Jan 2015 #172
And I am a Jew ... NanceGreggs Jan 2015 #174
Quit blaming the victim, Nance. LAGC Jan 2015 #184
I'm just saying, if you know your husband gets punchy when dinner isn't ready, DawgHouse Jan 2015 #157
I always like to refer people to dictionaries Dyedinthewoolliberal Jan 2015 #160
Exactly. MineralMan Jan 2015 #187
Thanks for your BPE... GReedDiamond Jan 2015 #173
Thanks. I'm nothing if not variable in post quality. MineralMan Jan 2015 #188
"A Modest Proposal" by Jonathan Swift is one of history's most outrageous examples. Mark Twain... Hekate Jan 2015 #180
Somewhere upthread, I mentioned Gulliver's Travels. MineralMan Jan 2015 #190
Fascinating thesis. MannyGoldstein Jan 2015 #182
Thinking is always a good thing, certainly. MineralMan Jan 2015 #191
K&R.... daleanime Jan 2015 #201
nota bene: A Modest Proposal annabanana Jan 2015 #207
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Satire Does Not Always In...»Reply #49