Source: The Hooded Utilitarian
At TRS we have noted a growing trend among leftists to place social status above intellectual consistency. When narrative-challenging events like yesterday’s shooting at leftist magazine Charlie Hebdo occur, what typically happens is liberals will coalesce around the easiest and safest narrative available. In this case it took the form of projecting fears over possible Islamophobic backlash. “Islamophobia” being defined as “any perspective that could possibly make me question what made such a tragedy possible in the first place (protip: look in the fucking mirror).”
While many granola-eaters are content with taking the easy out in political discourse, some liberals feel a need to signal higher status than the crowd. Providing us with a perfect example of such behavior is one Jacob Canfield, what appears to be a white-presenting kebab, offering us an interesting (read: retarded) take on the Charlie Hebdo shooting Wednesday (boldface added for emphasis):
When faced with a terrorist attack against a satirical newspaper, the appropriate response seems obvious. Don’t let the victims be silenced…
In this case, it is the wrong response.
Here’s what’s difficult to parse in the face of tragedy: yes, Charlie Hebdo is a French satirical newspaper. Its staff is white. Its cartoons often represent a certain, virulently racist brand of French xenophobia. While they generously claim to ‘attack everyone equally,’ the cartoons they publish are intentionally anti-Islam, and frequently sexist and homophobic.
The victims of the shooting should be silenced. Because they’re white and racist. Ouch, I cut myself on all of this edge.
Canfield follows by posting some choice Hebdo covers taken from a Gawker article. I’m sure it was unintentional that the author ignores the anti-Catholic covers. I’m sure the author did a little research and found covers lampooning a wide variety of topics, including military intervention, privatization of the postal service, and even the 2012 Presidential election in the United States:
Jacob Canfield continues, again mentioning the race of the Hebdo staff. It’s very important that Jacob’s readers focus on the skin tone of the dead. The author portrays the French Muslim community as an “incredibly marginalized” community, before making the following assertion:
White men punching down is not a recipe for good satire, and needs to be called out. People getting upset does not prove that the satire was good. And, this is the hardest part, the murder of the satirists in question does not prove that their satire was good. Their satire was bad, and remains bad. Their satire was racist, and remains racist.
Actually, pointing out the stupidity or vices of a people in context of political discourse is precisely the point of satire. That one particular target of Hebdo’s critique responded with barbarism is absolute proof that the satire was great. And true. Blaming whitey does nothing to make it otherwise.
To be sure, Canfield avoids any direct language, he dances around the argument and attempts to conclude with some feeble appeal to a middle ground where everyone is wrong. That said, the entire thrust of this article involves shifting the focus away from the violent murderers and on to the victims. Which leads us to the hilarious realization that Jacob Canfield’s attempt to be holier-than-thou with progressivism results in victim blaming. Yeah, oops.
I suppose spinning the Hebdo murders as a rational response to evil whitey’s oppression makes sense in certain circles, but for even typical left-leaning sensibilities this comes off as deeply insensitive at best and offensively dense at worst. I personally lean toward the latter, though I feel it’s completely intentional.
I find myself shocked that people like Canfield actually exist. It’s horrifying to learn that there are Westerners (in Jacob Monir Canfield’s case, “Westerners”) who seriously identify with masked murderers with AKs over white people getting their blood spilled for drawing pictures.