Fully Baked Left Wing Vegan Cookies

Zillah wrote: »

I agree with a lot of what you have to say about the creep of a repressive anti-offence culture, and I strongly oppose it too, but you lose a lot of credibility when you say something like the above. You can't honestly think the above paragraph is the result of rational thinking?

Turtwig wrote: »

Greenpeace activists did some bad damage to a Peruvian historical site. All in the name of the Earth and environment, oh the ironings.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/102266065

To be fair, Greenpeace said it was shamed and sorry by the stunt.

Last week was a trifecta for Cultural Marxism in the comic-book world. Archie Andrews was shot to death trying to protect a gay senator, Captain America became black, and the Mighty Thor had a sex change.

What they’re doing goes far beyond mere “cultural appropriation.” This is cultural pillaging.

Links234 wrote: »

Because something something liberal agenda when artists use their creative freedom for something I don't approve of, rabble grr

In this context, cartoons such as those published by Charlie Hedbo do nothing to advance the cause of freedom of speech. Rather, they amount to hate speech. Muslims are an oppressed and ostracized community in the Western world. They are an easy target for Western media. While we condemn these attacks they do not validate the racism of Charlie Hedbo’s Islamophobic cartoons. - See more at: http://www.swp.ie/content/statement-terror-attack-france#sthash.YU2njx4g.dpuf

The French killings are a tragedy. No journalist should be murdered. The Western ruling class bear some responsibility for this - as long as they are bombing thousands to death, maiming children and murdering civilians in the Middle East, as long as they continue to support the rotten Apartheid state of Israel, as long as they continue to scapegoat minorities to distract people from their greed - as long as all these outrages continue desperate people will commit acts of stupid cruelty in return. No victimisation of Muslims in response.

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Actually that's something that I've wondered about for a while. What is it with the lefts obsession about Islam? Especially when some of the primary tenets of Islam and how it is practiced in large parts of the world directly contradicts other core things that the left says it stands for.

In the wake of the Paris terrorist attacks, both America’s paper of record (The New York Times) and its network of record (CNN) have declined to show Charlie Hebdo’s cartoons of the Islamic Prophet Muhammad on the grounds that they might offend Muslims. The decision to forgo publication of these highly relevant news images has sparked a robust debate about free speech, religion and media ethics. One question that seems to have been glossed over is whether or not the media have any obligations to the preferences of a religious group, or any group of people, in the first place.

As previously noted, the Times has a history of publishing artwork and cartoons that have offended both Jews and Christians. See its coverage of Chris Ofili’s “The Holy Virgin Mary” in 1999, which very much offended the Catholic League; an Iranian exhibition of “anti-Jewish art” in 2006; and an Iranian cartoonist’s “anti-Jewish caricatures” in 2010. So, at least up until Dean Baquet’s tenure as executive editor, which began last year, the Times’ policy against “gratuitous insult” did not preclude offensive religious images.