So they don't have a left leaning bias? They're just provocateurs there for the sake of controversy?
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Charlie Hebdo cartoon on dead Syrian child sparks anger
- Thread starter DXB-KNIGHT
- Start date
- Status
So they don't have a left leaning bias? They're just provocateurs there for the sake of controversy?
Vampire On Titus
Member
I actually think that has more to do with any conversation about CH cartoons being poisoned from the outset. The impression i'm getting generally is people were initially ignorant of Charlie Hebdo. They took their cartoons at face value, believed them to be racist, and got upset. Now some have since been informed as to the satirical element of CH cartoons but are still clinging to their past impressions.
I think pretty much anything they produce will re-create this thread as a result.
i don't tend to value much of what terrorists think of things and whether it fuels them. gay marriage fuels the agenda of terrorists from a wide variety of groups who seek to present the west as decaying morally and undermining gods will as justification for their actions. i think it's a good idea and should be encouraged. i quite like ambiguity, i'm not sure it's something i want to sacrifice because it might be misunderstood.
but if you insist on holding speech to as standard of 'does it serve a useful social purpose', the purpose of charlie hebdo's comedy is to expose the hypocrisy of popular viewpoints in europe and particular france on current issue, with a view hopefully of changing minds or exposing truth. a europe that is more inclusive to refugees, makes more efforts to integrate immigrant communities, is less imperialistic in its foreign policy is much less likely to fuel terrorism and this is what they argue for in their own distinct way.
Clockwork5
Member
Do you really care what terrorists can't understand? Should we only produce commentary that appeals to their sensibilities?
1.21Gigawatts
Banned
The thing is that when you read ISIS's magazine you'll notice that they are quite up to date and media savy. They understand. They might misrepresent it to use it as propaganda*, but they understand.
*And we can't do anything about that anyway, so why would we care what terrorists think of our cartoons?
Once we change our behaviour because of terrorists, the terrorists have won.
Why would they cater to terrorist or even worse, American sensibilities?
excelsiorlef
Member
The people they are defending aren't happy either
Yeah and they are arbitrarily inventing a simplistic world view that might not even be out there.
Truly odd that you would cite print run numbers when the obvious goal (achieved several times now) is to have the image(s) shown on global news and social media where they are viewed tens/hundreds of millions of times. What a bizarre response you gave, complete with token holier-than-thou statement. The goal is to reach a wide audience, the method is exploitation and shock value.
McKeeverFever
Banned
This thread is making my evening.
Honestly, watching people like scream "racist!" at others who clearly are not is comedy itself at this point. I just can't get mad at it.
When did Gaf turn into such a PC shithole.
Still not sure how my statements contradict anything I've said. Someone who is against political correctness is still capable of seeing how things can be offensive to certain people. The point I'm trying to get across is that this magazine seems to lack good judgment. Their cartoons largely seem to add fuel to the fire and at least at the surface seem offensive for the sake of being offensive, under an ambiguous label of "satire". Depicting Mohammed nude and hideous can be pretty funny, but doing it right after the attacks on the US embassies doesn't seem like a brilliant idea. We laugh now, but then it's hard to ignore that their work literally led to the murder of half the staff. So I criticize them for being reckless. Freedom of speech is necessary to our "free" society, and CH can say whatever they want, but their actions have extremely obvious consequences. Should these guys really be symbols of freedom of speech when their comics are perceived as offensive enough to endanger the lives of people beyond CH, or even people there who didn't draw the cartoon? Would it actually be 100 percent truthful to say that the victim here is totally innocent? Things that are offensive bring out shock, they make us laugh, and most importantly, they make us think. I truly believe that exposure of every viewpoint is extremely helpful and critical to advancing our society. But the problem I have with CH is beyond PCness. Through their specific and seemingly mindless targeting of Muslims over anybody else (at least that's how they're seen), they are only contributing to Islamic radicalism (and Islamophobia to that matter). At least to the average, uninformed viewer, their message at its core seems to founded upon deep, racist bigotry. I don't see any reason why anyone in the Middle East would immediately choose not to interpret it that way. I'm against political correctness, but I'm not for racist bigotry. Whether's that's their agenda doesn't matter, since that's what IT APPEARS TO BE. The whole point of political incorrectness, imo, is not to make people hate each other, but rather to allow us to understand each other better, to realize our own frailties, and to improve the world by putting things as they are.
As for the Trump comparison, at least what I'm reading seems to indicate that their "views" on Muslims are pretty similar. Again, depicting Mohammed naked and ugly might be funny to me, but it probably doesn't resonate well with the Middle East regardless of what the political or satirical message might be (and I kinda doubt there is one). Therefore it seems pretty unlikely that CH thinks highly of Muslims. And the point I was trying to make with him is that if he were killed for his words, the odds of him becoming a beacon of shining light of freedom of speech seem slim.
That's not my point. I'm wondering why people are so shocked that the terrorists get so pissed over this kind of stuff.
King Tubby
Member
Who is shocked that terrorists become violent at the least of slights? If the conclusion to draw from this is that we should bite our tongues lest insane people have their feelings hurt, that conclusion can go fuck itself.
Thought the point was the sell magazines.
Don't think it is honestly. You can still say whatever as long as you don't say it with clear hate and disdain for something. If it was this "PC shithole" a sentence like "Ayn Rand was a cunt" wouldn't be allowed, which would be mean, cause she was.
Clockwork5
Member
I haven't taken the ISIS media plunge. I didn't mean to minimize their capability to use this as ammunition in the war of minds. I meant "terrorists" as in the suicide bomber recruited by ISIS who saw this cartoon and whatever message was attached by ISIS and took up arms to defend his people from the west.
Either way, I agree with your post; I was just wondering why shrek was talking about terrorists when that has nothing to do with the cartoon.
That is kind of the point of satire.
Except much of what CH seems to publish at least seems to be useless, mindless bullshit that only contributes to radicalism and risks the lives of people beyond the guy who drew the damn thing. It's poor judgment to release a cartoon of Mohammed bending over naked right after the US embassies get attacked. Insulting is fine. We shouldn't bite our tongues. But then it's no longer funny (to the extent it even was) when half of the god damn staff is murdered. Was that little chuckle worth it? Should CH be heralded a champion of freedom of speech for producing something that appears to be racist bigotry and that only caused increased hatred and death?
excelsiorlef
Member
Satire needs to stop being used as a get out of jail free card.
People have been looking to get Charlie Hebdo ever since the massacre, don't expect anyone to put even a minimum amount of effort into trying to understand the material they're trashing.
If you think terrorists get pissed off at "this kind of stuff" you've fundamentally misunderstood what Muslim theocrats are all about. Charlie Hebdo could print a cartoon proclaiming that all Muslims are a bunch of smelly goat fuckers, something that's actually offensive, and I guarantee that absolutely nothing would happen. No massacre, no riots in the streets, no embassies getting burned to the ground. What gets these people going is anything that undermines the sanctity of their religion, and by extension their totalitarian political vision. They couldn't give a fuck if someone made fun of a dead kid, in fact it's a useful propaganda point for them.
If you think terrorists get pissed off at "this kind of stuff" you've fundamentally misunderstood what Muslim theocrats are all about. Charlie Hebdo could print a cartoon proclaiming that all Muslims are a bunch of smelly goat fuckers, something that's actually offensive, and I guarantee that absolutely nothing would happen. No massacre, no riots in the streets, no embassies getting burned to the ground. What gets these people going is anything that undermines the sanctity of their religion, and by extension their totalitarian political vision. They couldn't give a fuck if someone made fun of a dead kid, in fact it's a useful propaganda point for them.
Silent Chief
Member
I don't see it as satire at all.
What Charlie Hebdo does is create caricatures of current events.
They do this with a complete and utter lack of respect and it's completely intentional.
When it was called Hara-Kiri, an offended party wrote to them than that they were being "bete et mechant", mean and stupid. The responded by making it their motto. Hara-Kiri, Le magazine bete et mechant.
If you look at the drawing, you see that it combines the two events in the Syrian refugees crisis that generated the most media coverage, the drown child on the beach and the sexual assault in Cologne. It's brilliant in its simplicity. It's outrageously insensitive.
They are not expressing an opinion. They are not even pushing stereotypes. They are connecting things that actually happened. Still, a caricature is a deformed view of reality. It can make you laugh. It can shock you.
Silent Chief
Member
They day I read ISIS propaganda the terrorist will have won.
Freedom of expression is a basic right, but does not apply to murderers.
excelsiorlef
Member
LaserBuddha
Member
Yeah send them to jail, the brazen bastards.
CH already paid for it in blood and didn't blink. If they owed anything to your hurt fee-fees before, they sure as hell don't now.
To many of you:
I'm getting real sick of anti-intellectual crybabies grasping to interpret CH's cartoons as anything but the demonstrable satire they are. Even when you are shown a wide view of the magazine you retreat to "Well it didn't read as satire to me at first glance and I'm going to stick to my initial gut reaction."
People demanding justice for being offended by satire have somehow managed to get to adulthood completely missing what the spirit of satire is. You always accepted that satire will offend the status quo and needs to offend the status quo, because you never envisioned yourself as the offended party, and now that you are you can't handle it. But the worst part is, this only offends you people because when the context is handed to you, you slap it to the ground and refuse to accept it. You choose to strip it of it's anti-racist context because it doesn't serve your drama.
I have never seen so many wrong people try to outlast their way into being right since the Great Tipping Wars of 2014.
M0nochromatic
Member
It's strange that offense is still being taken against them. A mild amount of research into the magazine shows it's true colors behind the pictures, if there was any doubt.
A modest proposal, but I think it could work.
OpinionatedCyborg
Member
oh, so like the last time this happened on gaf.
excelsiorlef
Member
Why did you pick my response to go on some rant, when you basically just did exactly what my reply was against which is using "it's satire" as an excuse.
I ask again what good is anti-racist satire that hurts the people you're supposedly "fighting" for
The boy's family has been hurt by their actions, does that count for nothing? Or does that not even need to be considered because satire can't include considering the feelings of people directly affected?
I mean you understand what get out of jail means in this context right? Or do you think I'm actually saying send them to jail?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Get_Out_of_Jail_Free_card
Jail in this case = consequences aka criticism.
You know for someone who bitches about people not getting satire that sure flew right over your head.
LaserBuddha
Member
I know what you meant by "get out of jail free". I was making light of the idea that they have to answer for/be held accountable for a lack of taste, which would be a more fitting use for that idiom rather than just referring to your own free speech.
Mostly just the first sentence applied to you.
Should I point out that this phrase is not an example of satire?
excelsiorlef
Member
So then why quote me if a tiny fraction of what you wanted to say was relevant to my point and the part that did basically said nothing to rebut what I said?
Btw I didn't say it was satire.
Since you actually got what I was saying my point is moot.
If you hadn't though it would have been hilarious that someone bitching about people taking satire seriously took a popular turn of phrase (aka something easier to identify than satire) seriously. Never claimed it was a satire.
I ask again do you believe the fact that this was somebodies kid and that the family feels hurt by this cartoon is at all something worth considering given that they proclaim to be fighting on behalf of people like that boy's family?
Where did they proclaim that? And I say again, they are using the photo of the dead child as a symbol to deliver a message. Just like every news agency that has published that photo.
Portraying minorities using racist imagery isn't pushing stereotypes?
Whoa, you want to shoot them just because they draw cartoons?! That's pretty dark, and frankly disgusting!!
Tinfoilhatsron
Banned
So what does GAF think of Borat and Bruno?
They obviously used the image of the dead child because so many news agencies shamelessly used the image. This isn't difficult.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...ed-syrian-boy-shows-tragic-plight-of-refugees
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...shed-up-on-a-beach-don-t-change-10482757.html
http://www.wsj.com/articles/image-of-syrian-boy-washed-up-on-beach-hits-hard-1441282847
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...mbol-yet-of-the-mediterranean-refugee-crisis/
And on, and on, and on, and on. You can google search and find basically endless news articles using the image from countless different countries. The cultural impact the image had is kinda, sorta, maybe one of the main points of the cartoon.
You should stop using the word "exploitation", you don't know what it means. No one is getting exploited by publishing those cartoons.
As for using shock value in a satiric magazine to boost sales ... c'est la vie.
PdotMichael
Banned
So the alternative is banning Charlie Hebdo and supporting Saudi Arabia even more? So the typical American style of world improvement?
This is a good post.
Criticizing an opinion that doesn't exist? No.
Shuggananas
Banned
You must be pretty naive if you think this opinion doesn't exist
Well that's the thing, GAF is mostly American, and it's a bit ironic to see them complain about something they do not have the intelligence to comprehend because of culture differences and context and calling a not racist magazine racist and how they should stop doing it, while being the country that is okay with people like Trump, west borough, kkk-like groups saying what the say because of freedom.
Seeing GAF anyway the majority of Gaffers are very very literal, satire and 2nd degree humor is out of their grasp. Different countries also have different definition on what is shocking or not. America does have trouble with white people talking about non-whites and it's often met with strong opposition, sometime irrational, but as you said are okay with crude representation of homosexuality and racism towards eastern white people for example.
Bloody_Five
Banned
I'd like to provide some insight regarding the cartoon because it seems to be highly confusing to non-French people.
It's going to be a bit long but I hope that it will be at least enlightening
1- France has a long tradition of satire and more importantly political satire.
At middle school, we study a 17th century play called Tartuffe which is about a priest who is actually a fraud and a sex maniac (Molière's, Tartuffe). It's considered a classic and the word "Tartuffe" is synonymous with "hypocrite" in French
2-In French, words are considered weapons.
The purpose of a good joke in French is not to please or be good natured.
It's supposed to hit the raw nerve, to elicit a reaction, to lay all pretenses bare.
Charlie Hebdo fits perfectly into this tradition.
For example: a 19th century president died while being blown by his mistress
His opponent declared in lieu of a public eulogy "He wanted to be Caesar, he was just Pompey" which is a play on the roman general "Pompey" and the word pompé "pumped" which is slang for receiving a blowjob in French
3-French language is implicit
Keep in mind when speaking to French people: the most important things are the things not said. Example : One of the most famous line in French literature is a girl saying to her lover in a classic play "Go. I don't hate you" instead of saying "I love you (Le Cid by Corneille) It's especially jarring to Americans who take everything at face value and need everything to be on the nose.
4- Back to the Charlie Hebdo cartoon.
The cartoon with the drowned kid is actually a pretty brutal condemnation of the indifference of Europe and how it values consumerism over a human life.
Note the poster with Ronald Mac Donald saying "So close: Kid meals : two for the price of one".
The message is pretty clear: You are risking life and limb and for what?
To become another consumer, another kid to be fed his happy meal.
You wanted a better life but your death is meaningless because we only value you as a consumer to sell products to.
It's actually really sympathetic to the kid and very harsh on Europe
This subtext makes the second cartoon even better.
It says that even if the child had survived., he would not fit in Europe because he would be seen as a rapist and a molester.
Because of the mental sickness of Europe, whatever the poor child does, he is doomed.
Doomed to die because of indifference or doomed to suffer from racial prejudice.
Like most of the things Charlie Hebdo publishes, it's actually a critique of Europe and its hypocrisy.
People who are outraged by this don't actually grasp that Charlie Hebdo's are actually very outraged and use these cartoons as missiles against the indifference and stupidity of French people and European Society.
All this is implicit but it's pretty clear for most French people.
However, I understand that it can be highly confusing for foreign readers especially to American ones.
So please : don't rush to be outraged by French cartoons and take some time to analyze their deeper meaning.
It's going to be a bit long but I hope that it will be at least enlightening
1- France has a long tradition of satire and more importantly political satire.
At middle school, we study a 17th century play called Tartuffe which is about a priest who is actually a fraud and a sex maniac (Molière's, Tartuffe). It's considered a classic and the word "Tartuffe" is synonymous with "hypocrite" in French
2-In French, words are considered weapons.
The purpose of a good joke in French is not to please or be good natured.
It's supposed to hit the raw nerve, to elicit a reaction, to lay all pretenses bare.
Charlie Hebdo fits perfectly into this tradition.
For example: a 19th century president died while being blown by his mistress
His opponent declared in lieu of a public eulogy "He wanted to be Caesar, he was just Pompey" which is a play on the roman general "Pompey" and the word pompé "pumped" which is slang for receiving a blowjob in French
3-French language is implicit
Keep in mind when speaking to French people: the most important things are the things not said. Example : One of the most famous line in French literature is a girl saying to her lover in a classic play "Go. I don't hate you" instead of saying "I love you (Le Cid by Corneille) It's especially jarring to Americans who take everything at face value and need everything to be on the nose.
4- Back to the Charlie Hebdo cartoon.
The cartoon with the drowned kid is actually a pretty brutal condemnation of the indifference of Europe and how it values consumerism over a human life.
Note the poster with Ronald Mac Donald saying "So close: Kid meals : two for the price of one".
The message is pretty clear: You are risking life and limb and for what?
To become another consumer, another kid to be fed his happy meal.
You wanted a better life but your death is meaningless because we only value you as a consumer to sell products to.
It's actually really sympathetic to the kid and very harsh on Europe
This subtext makes the second cartoon even better.
It says that even if the child had survived., he would not fit in Europe because he would be seen as a rapist and a molester.
Because of the mental sickness of Europe, whatever the poor child does, he is doomed.
Doomed to die because of indifference or doomed to suffer from racial prejudice.
Like most of the things Charlie Hebdo publishes, it's actually a critique of Europe and its hypocrisy.
People who are outraged by this don't actually grasp that Charlie Hebdo's are actually very outraged and use these cartoons as missiles against the indifference and stupidity of French people and European Society.
All this is implicit but it's pretty clear for most French people.
However, I understand that it can be highly confusing for foreign readers especially to American ones.
So please : don't rush to be outraged by French cartoons and take some time to analyze their deeper meaning.
And that's where their critique falls flat. Basically their message is everyone should help and be kind to everyone. Peace & love. Everyone is nice, everything is going to be alright. There isn't any deeper meaning than that. What's their solution? Allow everyone in I suppose. As long as it's not in their bobo neighborhood. Where are their cartoons about France sending weapons to Syria?
Mr. Giggles
Member
Excellent post. Thanks for the enlightenment
...there's people who equate all black people to be being rapists
Bloody_Five
Banned
As cartoonists, I don't think it's their job to propose a solution but rather to politicians or the people. And I think the cartoon is actually quite subtle because it actually says that we are all morally outraged by this tragedy but we have no problem in living in a society governed by money and where individuals are chiefly regarded as consumers that exist only to be sold products to.
"This poor child is dead, too bad, one kid less to sold a Happy meal to"
I's not Peace and Love, it's actually a bleak and rather cynical view of things.
Do you know one? I personally don't. Even if there was some, it's probably a very small number. Is there even someone on TV or in a newspaper that said something like that?
Yeah but the implicit message is that Europe should allow everyone in, always, all the time. It's more human you see.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked