Erik Larsen on the Charlie Hebdo cartoon murders
3 Comments Published by Avi Green on Thursday, January 22, 2015 at 6:16 AM.
Larsen was another comics writer/artist who commented on the case of the jihadists who murdered several Charlie Hebdo staff and 4 people in a kosher supermarket a few weeks ago in France, and he sure doesn't seem to grasp the situation well. Here's his list of tweets:
Here's where he makes his first mistake - comparing the tragedy of humans who murder to animals who can only walk on four legs and have no vocality, and thus aren't held to the same standards as humans are expected. Does he also think Denmark's cartoonists for Jyllands-Posten are scapegoats?
That's right, so why can't he unambiguously condemn the terrorists for their act of savagery, whose victims also included 4 Jewish men in a supermarket that very week by a man who attacked them just for being part of a race/ethnicity, which he doesn't seem to mention?
But he seems to suggest the cartoonists are the ones who have to bear the burden of responsibility, not the jihadists who committed the violent crime. Don't criminals also have to be held to any standards of accountability? It makes no difference whether they listen or not, they have to be told their barbarism is wrong, plain and simple.
No, we get the point, and it's a very unchallenging one. Even if cartoonist Crumb grasps the situation better than Larsen, the latter is still making very weak arguments.
Okay, this is going too far. If Simon, Kirby, Stan Lee and other writers during the Golden Age were attacked by nazi sympathisers during WW2, would he say responsibility is entirely on their shoulders, and not a single bit on those of the enemy? This comes very close to the kind of blame-the-victim tactics used to say a rape victim brought it on by wearing skimpy clothes and/or because she's beautiful. Some Muslim rapists have even defended their obscene acts by saying the victim wasn't wearing a headscarf, even though there's been Muslim women wearing burkas/niqabs who've also been attacked, both physically and sexually.
Oh, now he tells us? But then, how come he hadn't said it before about Charlie Hebdo's cartoonists? Or do just American artists like Simon & Kirby count? Interestingly, Larsen drew a Savage Dragon cover where he portrayed Osama as the filth he was:
But what are the odds he'll ever be willing to draw Mohammed? I guess they're close to zip.
Why should we be bothered? Zoroastrians certainly wouldn't - it reflects their take on life, that there's God and a Devil.
Even if conservatives were offended, the majority know better than to take things to extremes. Besides, Bush was no saint, and he did things that turned off some conservatives too.
The analogy with cars is poor too. Drivers come in many forms, and usually, if somebody gets hit by a car while wading into traffic, it's accidental on the driver's part. A hit-and-run attack, on the other hand, can be very deliberate, and this one definitely was. Seeley's right. And suppose Will Eisner got attacked over his last GN from 2004, The Plot, which was critical of Muslim anti-Semitism? Would he be the scapegoat, and not the jihadists?
And neither should the jihad at the kosher supermarket. But if Larsen doesn't think these tragedies should've taken place, why doesn't he say a word about how abominable the ideologies are that the jihadists are following? Why doesn't he say that a religion that supports murder, slavery, underaged marriage and other sex offenses is something no sane person should associate themselves with? His approach is super-cheap, and epically fails to tackle more challenging issues and facts.
After reading what R. Crumb thinks about the #CharlieHebdo situation I was reminded of a situation at the San Francisco Zoo...
— Erik Larsen (@ErikJLarsen) January 11, 2015
A couple obnoxious kids were throwing things at a tiger in a cage and at some point it had enough--it jumped over the fence and killed them.
— Erik Larsen (@ErikJLarsen) January 11, 2015
Which is not to say it's okay for tigers to kill kids but if you keep throwing shit at tigers don't be surprised if you piss them off.
— Erik Larsen (@ErikJLarsen) January 11, 2015
Here's where he makes his first mistake - comparing the tragedy of humans who murder to animals who can only walk on four legs and have no vocality, and thus aren't held to the same standards as humans are expected. Does he also think Denmark's cartoonists for Jyllands-Posten are scapegoats?
@ErikJLarsen Don't provoke Islamists, keep your head down and stay quiet? These people don't determine what we can & cannot publish Erik!
— Jerry lay II (@Jerry_lay_II) January 11, 2015
That's right, so why can't he unambiguously condemn the terrorists for their act of savagery, whose victims also included 4 Jewish men in a supermarket that very week by a man who attacked them just for being part of a race/ethnicity, which he doesn't seem to mention?
People seem to have a really tough time with analogies. And understanding pretty much anything from the responses I've gotten.
— Erik Larsen (@ErikJLarsen) January 11, 2015
Of course the attack was terrible. Of course it was unwarranted. Of course it was extreme. I never said otherwise.
— Erik Larsen (@ErikJLarsen) January 11, 2015
If you got out of all that that I'm blaming the victim--you are mistaken.
— Erik Larsen (@ErikJLarsen) January 11, 2015
But he seems to suggest the cartoonists are the ones who have to bear the burden of responsibility, not the jihadists who committed the violent crime. Don't criminals also have to be held to any standards of accountability? It makes no difference whether they listen or not, they have to be told their barbarism is wrong, plain and simple.
Ironically, @MC_RE the vocal minority is aggressively proving my point.
— Erik Larsen (@ErikJLarsen) January 11, 2015
I'm sure 99.9% of the people reacting to me didn't read the article that I linked to, @MFSteveHere
— Erik Larsen (@ErikJLarsen) January 11, 2015
Again--here's what R. Crumb thinks about the #CharlieHebdo situation: http://t.co/vqI3WylbY7 …
— Erik Larsen (@ErikJLarsen) January 11, 2015
I think you made a good point and eloquently, @RyanSchrodt but I think most people here miss the point because we don't see the context.
— Erik Larsen (@ErikJLarsen) January 11, 2015
We see the headlines and react with a strong, "that's not right!" but we don't get the context because we don't see it, @RyanSchrodt
— Erik Larsen (@ErikJLarsen) January 11, 2015
No, we get the point, and it's a very unchallenging one. Even if cartoonist Crumb grasps the situation better than Larsen, the latter is still making very weak arguments.
Basically, the #CharlieHebdo situation amounted to taking a risk. Sometimes that works out and sometimes it doesn't.
— Erik Larsen (@ErikJLarsen) January 12, 2015
If I walk into a dark alley late at night--I'm taking a risk. I know that.
— Erik Larsen (@ErikJLarsen) January 12, 2015
At one point or another we've all taken risks. Sometimes it's no big deal--sometimes it's a disaster.
— Erik Larsen (@ErikJLarsen) January 12, 2015
Simon and Kirby had Captain America punching Hitler before we got into the war. Others followed suit. They took a risk.
— Erik Larsen (@ErikJLarsen) January 12, 2015
Okay, this is going too far. If Simon, Kirby, Stan Lee and other writers during the Golden Age were attacked by nazi sympathisers during WW2, would he say responsibility is entirely on their shoulders, and not a single bit on those of the enemy? This comes very close to the kind of blame-the-victim tactics used to say a rape victim brought it on by wearing skimpy clothes and/or because she's beautiful. Some Muslim rapists have even defended their obscene acts by saying the victim wasn't wearing a headscarf, even though there's been Muslim women wearing burkas/niqabs who've also been attacked, both physically and sexually.
If things had gone bad--it wasn't their fault--but they did take that risk. Sometimes it's a risk that should be taken--other times not.
— Erik Larsen (@ErikJLarsen) January 12, 2015
Oh, now he tells us? But then, how come he hadn't said it before about Charlie Hebdo's cartoonists? Or do just American artists like Simon & Kirby count? Interestingly, Larsen drew a Savage Dragon cover where he portrayed Osama as the filth he was:
Some might say this cover was something of a risk: pic.twitter.com/CQWKHYZujQ
— Erik Larsen (@ErikJLarsen) January 12, 2015
But what are the odds he'll ever be willing to draw Mohammed? I guess they're close to zip.
Others might be just as offended by this: pic.twitter.com/MY6GCg8xKl
— Erik Larsen (@ErikJLarsen) January 12, 2015
Why should we be bothered? Zoroastrians certainly wouldn't - it reflects their take on life, that there's God and a Devil.
Or even this: pic.twitter.com/5mmYE1fu7w
— Erik Larsen (@ErikJLarsen) January 12, 2015
Even if conservatives were offended, the majority know better than to take things to extremes. Besides, Bush was no saint, and he did things that turned off some conservatives too.
From all indications--the #CharlieHebdo guys were trying actively to offend.
— Erik Larsen (@ErikJLarsen) January 12, 2015
@ErikJLarsen I know what you mean, but that justifies fanaticism to a degree. It shouldn't be a risk to criticize religion.
— Tim Seeley (@HackinTimSeeley) January 12, 2015
The analogy with cars is poor too. Drivers come in many forms, and usually, if somebody gets hit by a car while wading into traffic, it's accidental on the driver's part. A hit-and-run attack, on the other hand, can be very deliberate, and this one definitely was. Seeley's right. And suppose Will Eisner got attacked over his last GN from 2004, The Plot, which was critical of Muslim anti-Semitism? Would he be the scapegoat, and not the jihadists?
My point is really that it took balls to do what they did. They took a risk. And the #CharlieHebdo situation should not have happened.
— Erik Larsen (@ErikJLarsen) January 12, 2015
And neither should the jihad at the kosher supermarket. But if Larsen doesn't think these tragedies should've taken place, why doesn't he say a word about how abominable the ideologies are that the jihadists are following? Why doesn't he say that a religion that supports murder, slavery, underaged marriage and other sex offenses is something no sane person should associate themselves with? His approach is super-cheap, and epically fails to tackle more challenging issues and facts.
Labels: Europe and Asia, islam and jihad, misogyny and racism, moonbat artists, moonbat writers, politics, terrorism, violence
It really sounds as if Larsen started by saying that the victims brought it on themselves, then tried to backpedal and put a more positive spin on it.
And it's ironic that liberals constantly insist that Islam is a peaceful religion and that all Muslims are peaceable, but when the cartoonists were murdered, Larsen said, in effect, "Well, what did they expect? They offended Muslims, and that's the same thing as poking a wild animal."
And Larsen has not been shot by Christians who were offended by his "God vs. Devil" cover, and he has not been firebombed by Republicans who hated his "Bushwhacked" cover, so, evidently, those comics weren't really as much of a "risk" as he claims.
I guarantee this: You'd NEVER see Larsen or other 'bats writing that about the US government/IRS/Justice Dept, etc. if a rightist fanatic shot a few people.
NEVER.
The "religion of peace" strikes to censor again with Marvel's Muslim Ms. Marvel being used to deface Pamela Geller's bus ads raising awareness of Islamic Jew-Hatred.