8. On the other side, @artgoldhammer has a smart, deeply informed critique of Hebdo-style satire:http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2015/5/pen-america-charlie-hebdo-and-the-virtue-of-self-restraint.html …
-
-
Replying to @HeerJeet
9. I don't agree with Art's conclusions but he's worth reading (as always) because he actually, you know, knows what he's talking about
4 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @HeerJeet
10. The point I'm making is a simple one: this is a fairly complicated issue so it's worth going to informed sources, not instant experts.
6 replies 5 retweets 15 likes -
Replying to @dick_nixon
@dick_nixon Complexity is how we judge Charlie Hebdo. Are they like Pam Geller or are they something else.4 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @HeerJeet
@HeerJeet@dick_nixon So it would be OK for someone to kill you because of disagreement with your belief? Jeet Heer for Prime Minister.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @dmking316
@dmking316@dick_nixon You have serious reading comprehension problems.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HeerJeet
@HeerJeet@dick_nixon I don't comprehend any excuse for terror. Anything short of outright condemnation of terror encourages terror.3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @dmking316
@dmking316 I happen to think CH isn't racist, but it's a perfectly legitimate topic to argue over, and separate from killings themselves.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
@dmking316 Surely it's possible to be critical of CH and also condemn in absolute terms the terrorist attack on them.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.