But their whole point is to take your level-headed thinking and say "fuck you, what are you gonna do about it?" There's expression and then there's exploitation. Charlie Hebdo are pieces of shit imo, the evolution of bullies. Their "support" comes from whackjobs who see their xenophobia/ignorance/intolerance given public platform, and immunity.
-
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
But their whole point is to take your level-headed thinking and say "fuck you, what are you gonna do about it?" There's expression and then there's exploitation. Charlie Hebdo are pieces of shit imo, the evolution of bullies. Their "support" comes from whackjobs who see their xenophobia/ignorance/intolerance given public platform, and immunity.
Vampire On Titus
Member
I'm not entirely sure you hold the values you claim.
Also holy shit @ your entire post btw.
Dicktatorship
Junior Member
I'm for those things, but maybe not together and not about events that are so urgent. It just seems irresponsible to me that they'd consider this fine, not everyone is going to look at this and calmly disagree as I'm sure they're acutely aware of now. If my message was so ill-received to the point where human lives where lost and change an already volatile geopolitical climate for the worse then I'd stop instead of doubling down like a petulant child.
ClosingADoor
Member
Perhaps there are such things. Perhaps we shouldn't make cartoons about anything that will hurt people. Perhaps not about a certain prophet also then?
Where the line is drawn is up to the creator. He probably knows he'll get a lot of criticism for it, but that's his choice. You don't have to agree and are free to give your opinion or don't buy the magazine of course, just as they are free to publish it.
What I saw from them were pretty bad cartoons to my taste, but whatever, it's not like someone is forcing me to read it.
So somehow I can't recognize that people will react to Charlie Hebdo the wrong way?
Twitter reaction is the worst kinda reaction.
this cartoon does not have the same message as the one that cost human lives, not comparable
and the magazine chose to keep on trucking, so what?
that's an interesting way of describing 70-year old commies
No bigger bullies on the media stage than a far-left french satire magazine with a weekly print run of 50.000. And sure they're supported by racists. Why not.
Some of you are misinformed to a degree that shouldn't be possible with internet access.
So you're blasting them for not giving in after religious extremists murdered half their staff? Wow.
BaronLundi
Member
When you speak about calling them heroes what are you referring to exactly? Defending their right to be tasteless without being murdered in cold blood?
Pray tell us what other kind other kind of homicidal spree, or just plain crime, you think warrants some good old victim blaming?
Those women in Köln, I think maybe they shouldn't have gone out so late dressed for partying unsupervised. And these refugees whose kid drowned and was washed ashore, what were they thinking trying to cross the Mediterranean sea on an inflatable boat? I mean it all seems rather unwise, should people be really surprised those things happened?
Dicktatorship
Junior Member
If it'll save lives and prevent escalation of a global conflict? Yes, I'd give up in a heartbeat. No questions asked. Cartoons aren't worth dying for.
Vampire On Titus
Member
Recognizing a reaction and a cavalier "what did they expect?" attitude are very different (your posts fall into the latter category). Especially coming from someone who claims to be "very against Political Correctness."
I'm being honest when I say not I'm not entirely sure. So just to clarify, because this is the impression I'm getting from your posts... Are you saying Charlie Hebdo should stop making Cartoons under the duress of terrorism and because some people dislike them?
Well, it would do neither and betray what your collegues died for, so congrats?
is this a crystal ball talking? or are you saying we should allow everyone to do everything?
ClosingADoor
Member
So the basic right to freedom of speech and having free press isn't that important to you I take? I think we should also just stop making newspapers and such. Books and movies can have pretty touchy subjects, better stay clear. Might create a conflict.
I don't think you have really thought this through.
Kind of happens when your small publication suddenly becomes world news for billions of people and now everything you make is put under a microscope and will get commented on by everyone. You are basically saying people should give in to terror and violence. That never went well.
Dicktatorship
Junior Member
Really? How many times have they popped up in the news for something that caused an uproar since the shooting? And after the Paris attacks they persist? This is pride and nothing more.
EDIT: I'm out of this thread. It's a mess all around but personally speaking I wouldn't continue in the cycles of violence.
it could be because people know they exist now
do you realise how ridiculous it is to put cartoon drawing in as part of a cycle of violence? Charlie Hebdo does
And if they stopped, the extremists would move on to another media outlet they deem "blasphemous", "western" or some shit. The ones acting in pride are the ones claiming to speak, kill and die for their god. Not the ones ridiculing them for it with squiggly lines.
excelsiorlef
Member
My question is what if it turns out that they aren't actually helping the people they purport to be defending.
they're a satirical magazine, not a charity
These guys were practically sainted at least where I live after that attack. Of course they can be as offensive as they wish to. And of course they don't deserve to be murdered over a cartoon. Tbh I just have a hard time feeling as sympathetic as everybody else. If I were to run around calling people the N-word and got killed for doing it, would you really feel that sorry for me? Are people all gonna change their facebook profile pictures to remember me? I can see how their various cartoons like the Mohammed ones, regardless of whether it's labeled as satire, could be interpreted in the same way. Should they be attacked? Absolutely not. But with stuff like this coupled with our relentless oppression of the region, I don't see how anyone should be surprised.
So they had it coming because the US fucked up the Middle East. A refreshing take on geopolitics. What else you got?
Also, I wouldn't use an example of yourself throwing around racial slurs unsolicited after professing your disdain for political correctness. Could make people wonder. Just a tip.
1.21Gigawatts
Banned
Yeah, because discussing the quality of a particular piece of satire is like discussion the quality of a movie or a book: Its inherently subjective.
Thatswhy I say the critics are right to voice their opinion* on the piece and the people who blatantly say that these critics just didn't get the satire missed the point.
*Whether their opinion is right or not is a different question, and probably one that can't be answered definitively.
The image was used a lot by the right wing extremists.
Schadenfreude galore.
And also, as I mentioned a few pages ago, conspiracy theories.
From some weird story about the boys fathers dental treatment in Canada to just straight up allegations that this whole thing was staged by the NWO to get the publics support for ethnic warefare(=letting immigrants in) to destory the white race.
This cartoon is supposed to be an exaggeration? Please, the actuall stuff some people out there believe in is on another level.
Oh, come on.
Media outlets have been bashed for way less.
You think the BILD could just print something like that and people would defend it as satire?
What do you mean? The first few posts in this thread are people who think that the critics didn't get that its satire.
And if you read what the news websites and journalists who picked up on the story said you'll see that they're all criticising the piece as poor satire, so obviously acknowledging that its satire.
But it doesn't work because large parts of the public have already adapted the irrational, prejudiced and disgusting view thats depicted by the cartoon and they have already forgotten the compassion they felt back when the picture of the kid was released.
I don't know how I can make this any clearer.
What I and the other "angry" people say is that this cartoon falls flat, whatever meaning it was supposed to have doesn't come through. The message, if there is any, is weak. There is little to no substance.
All thats left is a pretty disgusting image and slogan.
Weak piece of satire.
But calling it satire doesn't give you a free pass.
No matter what the actual intentions of the cartoon are(I'm very sure that one of the intentions is to spark outrage and controversy because attention is always good), its not wrong to view it as distasteful and offensive. And people can feel that way while acklowledging the satirical nature of the cartoon.
I changed my opinion before I came in this thread.
I discussed the whole thing in another forum in german before and was defending the cartoon because I gave CH the benefit of the doubt. "Its satire. Whats your problem?"
But that was wrong. When you start analyzing it as satire, when you try to find its message based on indicators IN the cartoon(not based on the fact that its by CH and therefore has to have some kind of message), they you notice that its not up to par to comparable satire we see on a daily basis.
But at the same time its features pretty disgusting imagery and a disgusting slogan That combined with weak substance and message made me change my position and I stopped defending it.
Then I came here and voiced my opinion on the cartoon as a satirical piece, that its content is problematic, its message is weak and the intention to provoke its not a very noble one, especially when using imagery like that, and the reactions were people claiming its satire and therefor criticism is invalid.
I get that some people on twitter said that the author is racist for making the cartoon, that obviously bullshit.
But its also obviously bullshit to defend the cartoon by saying its satire.(my own initial reaction when I heard about it earlier today, but it wasn't a smart reaction.)
Thats sounds and awful lot like victim blaming.
It doesn't matter how offensive their content is. We live in a free society where everyone has a right to publish stuff and the society has the duty to maintain and protect this freedom.
We can debate the content they put out, but we can't debate whether or not they should put it out, thats up to them.
If they want to do it, they can. And they should be able to do so without repercussions.(Except verbal criticism) And to ensure that is our job as a society.
LaserBuddha
Member
It's either satire or it isn't. If it is, it doesn't need defending. So what if it made you angry initially? Mission accomplished. So what if you don't like shocking imagery in a vacuum? Mission accomplished. They are trying to provoke reactions, and the subject matter of this cartoon has gotten far more discussion here as a result of the imagery than it ever would with something that didn't offend delicate sensibilities.
None of that makes it a failure of satire or any of the other things you have called it.
Take the L.
excelsiorlef
Member
Ok? And?
Their cartoons are not there to help or defend anyone
They're not in the business of helping anyone.
1.21Gigawatts
Banned
I agree, but why is everyone here, including you, defending it then?
Or do you mean by nature of beeing satire it is above all criticism? If thats what you mean then I disagree.
What made me a little angry was the fact that I saw a handful of better pieces of satire regarding the same topic over the last 3 days which all got way less attention.
In that sense, it was a failure.
Its a piece of satire that put provocation over message.
If controversy and attention was their goal, they succeeded. If a good satirical message was their goal, they failed.
So you do need the wink wink nudge nudge.
I've got a thick skull. Can you elaborate on the difference between those two? But honestly, what did they expect? I don't know about you, but I wasn't surprised when I heard about the attack. Yes, we shouldn't live in a society where everyone has to be okay with everything that's said. But I can still be aware that we do, right? What is the intended reaction when they put out cartoons like this or of Mohammed? Who is the intended audience?
It's their choice to continue making cartoons. They shouldn't care whether "some people" (seems like an understatement to me) dislike them if they're doing something they believe in. And any violence against them isn't justified. But if someone like Donald Trump got assassinated would you really be that shocked or sympathetic? I think he's hilarious, and it's interesting how many people on this board wish for his death. Would you make his image your profile picture? Would you put posters all over your school or community to commemorate him? I feel like you don't have to pity either the aggressor or the victim.
Of course he does. And it better be not just a big red box that basically says "THIS IS SATIRE" at the top of the page. That's too subtle.
Are we still in the part that people don't understand that this is a satiric magazine and the whole point of the cartoons are to provoke a reaction about a situation that is really not normal.
Funny comic and really above the shitty stuffs you can see from US satirists these days that's for sure (if you have some good link please send them my way).
Funny comic and really above the shitty stuffs you can see from US satirists these days that's for sure (if you have some good link please send them my way).
Mass_Pincup
Banned
It's funny that this thread has more viewers then the actual magazine.
No, we're at the part where CH didn't get the memo and should have stopped after the shooting. For the betterment of society and serious satirists everywhere.
I believe we're near the end of this part. A telltale point is that we are now moving goalposts and started victim-blaming.
I think CH have made a few cartoons on this subject too, were pretty funny too.
(my fav really being the small children in an assembly line making Tshirts with 'I am Charlie' and saying 'And good Health to you too' should have been the cover instead of dick muhammad)
Nice, always good to know that victims haven't suffered enough and need to be made examples off.
the constant, seemingly willful attempts by people on the left, who happily laugh along to colbert, to ignore any satire and just pretend that charlie hebdo are vile insult merchants with no political point is bizarre. it's partially that whole 'interpret everything regardless of background through the framework of hot button american political issues, totally make no effort to understand or put into a foreign context' that's just deeply annoying and deeply american, but mostly it seems to be underlined with the sly implication that charlie hebdo is racist, sexist, only seeking to offend people and as a result sort of had it coming which i find insulting.
Totally. Sorry I offended you.
Vampire On Titus
Member
One is a neutral response and the other is an (actually not very) implicit judgement.
Im guessing the intended reaction is to shock and provoke laughter or thought. In some cases both. I'm pretty sure the intended audience are their 50k or so subscribers. Fans of satire or comedy? It seems pretty straight-forward to me.
Okay, cool. Thanks for clearing that up. Just to let you know -- if this is you're opinion on the matter -- some of your previous posts belie that sentiment.
Not really getting the Trump comparison. Charlie Hebdo is a far left satirical magazine. I'm sure plenty of people who agree with Trump's ideas and policies would do just as you say. But from what I know CH's positions and Trumps are dissimilar.
Are you saying their intent shouldn't be a factor?
King Tubby
Member
That makes two of us.
1.21Gigawatts
Banned
No, I need a proper message and something to actually think about, an interesting idea or anything, instead of just provocation for provocations sake.
This is btw. the same argument I made twice about GTA years ago, and back then people also didn't like it.
When Rockstars puts torture in the game they do that too provoke reactions. They know that news media will pick it up and bitch about it. They don't even want to make a statement with the inclusing of these topics.
The only statement they make is "Lol, look how easy it is to get free marketing."
This is fine, but kinda disappointing because its a lot of wasted potential.
Its sparks a debate about whether or not its okay to be outraged instead of a debate about the actual topic, because they didn't take on any position on the topic.
And CH did the same.
The conversation now is not about perspective on the things that happened on NYE(the absuse allegations towards the ex popes brother would be the obvious comparison), its not about the desperate situations of refugees on their way to europe, its not about the growing resentments against refugees in europe in the center of society, its not about right wing extremists and the outraguous things they say and do.
The conversation now is just about controversy. Its meta. And thats bad. And thats not the fault of the viewers but the fault of the creator. And it didn't happen because the viewers were to dumb or the satire wasn't obvious enough, it was because the actual content of the cartoon was lacking.
Satire can achieve much more than just controversy.
What keeps it from beeing a total desaster is the fact that the lack of substance allows people to just project whatever they want onto it and that leads to some interesting statements.
Some see it as criticism of the shift in public opinion. Some see it as criticism of the publics naïvety. In germany we already came up with a nice word for it: Asylromantik(asylum romanticism, basically the thought that this would all be a piece of cake). And its over now.
Etc. etc.
But just wringting "Refugees! Discuss" on a blank piece of paper would have had the same effect. The cartoon itself offers no new insights, no new perspectives.
Its disappointing.
Crash Station
Member
Defending and helping are different things. If their message gets misinterpreted by idiots, that's not on them.
Nostremitus
Member
Why does he look like an ape?
I'm saying their intent isn't to provide help.
It's one main clause, I don't see how that is confusing.
Crash Station
Member
Their intent is to start a discussion. Wherever that discussion goes, it doesn't matter. They've succeeded.
So if Americans can't understand this "foreign" satire, what makes you think terrorists would? Doesn't this kind of ambiguous so-called humor only fuel their agenda?
TwEE-N-Toast
Banned
Why are they all drawn in that style?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked