Support NeoGAF

[superseohyun]

dont see the problem with the image. But i understand ppl are really sensitive and like to misunderstand and not give benefit of doubt.

 

[Abounder]

I think he must be trolling, I remember him complaining about a joke he didn't understand before.

He's got a Rick and Morty avatar, of course he's trolling lol.

 

[Calderc]

Man, some people...

I dread to think how some of you would react to Brass Eye.

 

[Neoriceisgood]

I find it funny that the two people in this thread that everyone else is arguing with are exclusive in which of the two comics they're focused on understanding the point of.

If you're talking about me, I don't really have anything particular to say about the jesus one.

I don't particularly like it, but it being around educated me to something I wasn't aware of; the fact that some countries are accepting people based on religion. (which is disgusting.)

In that sense I think it has a clear purpose & succeeds quite well at it.

The McDonalds one I think is a lot less good and, to me, distracts from the superior one about the hypocritical treatment regarding Christian & Muslim refugees.

 

[DECK'ARD]

Man, some people...

I dread to think how some of you would react to Brass Eye.

Yeah, imagine the "Good AIDS / Bad AIDS" bit ...

 

[The Technomancer]

This in itself essentially says you didn't think it was satire from the get go, because you are saying you aren't willing to give them the benefit of the doubt that the joke was anything but an anti-Muslim crack joking about drowning children. You thought the joke was super obvious, because you didn't understand the satire of cartoon.

This blatantly points out that you were arguing that it wasn't satirical. You're claiming that the cartoon was endorsing the behavior of the European governments, and was trying to reinforce this sentiment. So much so that you even had to ask how it could read as a criticism of the behavior because you didn't understand how it could be satire. You might not have came outright and said "This isn't satire." but you didn't need to, it was obvious that you didn't think it was satire by what you were criticizing about the strip. Only someone who thought the strip was being literal would have had these complaints.

Me thinking it might not be satire isn't the same as me thinking that it can't be satirical. Of course it can be taken satirically. The entire argument was over if it should

 

[Maninthemirror]

This is my view

 

[TheLostBigBoss]

IMO, this is just pure trash.

Yes, it is meant to be satire, but to use a dead child in about 2 weeks since it happened.

Pathetic. Could have used someone else.

Yea lets wait a couple of months so nobody gives a shit about it.

That will really get the point across.

This thread is amazing, never thought so many people would be unable to pinpoint satire and understand something that's so easy to grasp.

 

[daviyoung]

This is my view

oh yeh, "American Racist Monthly"

thanks for reminding me to renew my subscription

 

[Neoriceisgood]

This is my view

"American Racist Monthly", that's subtle. lol.

 

[TheLostBigBoss]

Its offensive. But so was the muhammed thing.

They really are just trolls. Fucked up... but thats about all you can say.

The only people who should be offended are the people who view the sentiment of the picture.

If you're offended by showing reality then the issue isn't with the person showing it.

 

[SapientWolf]

On first glance, it's a really acerbic sendup of Western apathy towards the Syrian's plight. Isn't that sort of thing their raison d'être?

 

[Sotha Sil]

Me thinking it might not be satire isn't the same as me thinking that it can't be satirical. Of course it can be taken satirically. The entire argument was over if it should

It's like you've completely taken the context out of the equation. Context matters, dude. Given the general content of your posts on GAF I know you mean well and I respect your views, but it's okay to show some humility and admit that you may have jumped the gun on this one.

 

[TheLostBigBoss]

Yeah, imagine the "Good AIDS / Bad AIDS" bit ...

I think Brass Eye would make peoples head explode.

 

[samn]

This is my view

I disagree with the point of view expressed, it's difficult to see the difference between the two covers.

 

[The Technomancer]

It's like you've completely taken the context out of the equation. Context matters, dude. Given the general content of your posts on GAF I know you mean well and I respect your views, but it's okay to show some humility and admit that you may have jumped the gun on this one.

I can admit that this is more satirical than it appears at first glance if we can get some other people to admit to there being more to satire than just depicting awful things and expecting the self evident awfulness to carry the "obvious" non-sincerity. Because the latter is how we end up with actual racists saying awful things and defending it with "no I was being satirical"

 

[freenudemacusers]

I prefer American Racism Quarterly, more in-depth racism for your dollar.

 

[deli2000]

I think Brass Eye would make peoples head explode.

The Paedophilia special actually got plenty of people when it came out. Times haven't changed.

 

[Jebusman]

It's like you've completely taken the context out of the equation. Context matters, dude. Given the general content of your posts on GAF I know you mean well and I respect your views, but it's okay to show some humility and admit that you may have jumped the gun on this one.

I'm going to give you a little hint.

Context only matters when it supports their views.

You will see the following arguments everywhere now:

"Context is irrelevant"

"Yeah, but the "greater" context is more important"

"Saying it's fine in context is just trying to make an excuse"

Repeat ad nauseam.

I can admit that this is more satirical than it appears at first glance if we can get some other people to admit to there being more to satire than just depicting awful things and expecting the self evident awfulness to carry the "obvious" non-sincerity. Because the latter is how we end up with actual racists saying awful things and defending it with "no I was being satirical"

You're going down swinging. I appreciate that.

 

[Foggy]

This thread is a rollercoaster in a glass case of emotion

 

[Zornack]

IBecause the latter is how we end up with actual racists saying awful things and defending it with "no I was being satirical"

When does this ever happen?

 

[Chozolore]

Man, some people...

I dread to think how some of you would react to Brass Eye.

Remember the whole scandal over one particular episode.


There are certain people in this world who cannot understand satire, maybe a genetic thing, perhaps because they are stupid, I don't know.

 

[Neoriceisgood]

I think Brass Eye would make peoples head explode.

Pre HD footage really hasn't aged well..


I've never heard of Brass Eye before and it looks quite amusing, but I'm way too coddled by nice quality sound and video.

 

[KHarvey16]

I can admit that this is more satirical than it appears at first glance if we can get some other people to admit to there being more to satire than just depicting awful things and expecting the self evident awfulness to carry the "obvious" non-sincerity. Because the latter is how we end up with actual racists saying awful things and defending it with "no I was being satirical"

Is there an epidemic of racists publicly expressing their racism only to then publicly claim they were really making the opposite point?

 

[commedieu]

The only people who should be offended are the people who view the sentiment of the picture.

If you're offended by showing reality then the issue isn't with the person showing it.

That post you're replying to was under the impression that the muslim community was upset about this. As far as the debate about the satire, well the mission to get the discussion worked. The messenger just confused me, as these were the people seemingly antagonizing muslims earlier.

 

[The Technomancer]

Remember the whole scandal over one particular episode.


There are certain people in this world who cannot understand satire, maybe a genetic thing, perhaps because they are stupid, I don't know.

And there are people who will take anyone's word at what they say. "No I wasn't being sexist, I was just joking, honest!" "Nono its satirical racism, its different from real racism"

 

[MUnited83]

I can admit that this is more satirical than it appears at first glance if we can get some other people to admit to there being more to satire than just depicting awful things and expecting the self evident awfulness to carry the "obvious" non-sincerity. Because the latter is how we end up with actual racists saying awful things and defending it with "no I was being satirical"

Can you explain how "Because the latter is how we end up with actual racists saying awful things and defending it with "no I was being satirical" invalidates this cartoon exactly.

You're trying to twist this into being a slippery slope where every racist could get away with something by saying it's satire. That's not how it works, and some people misunderstanding the complete point of a cartoon and thinking it's endorsing their racist views in no way invalidates the satire present. You could literally make the most heavy-handed and ridiculous satire in the damn world, and there would be someone "agreeing" with what that satire was criticizing.

 

[OverBlood 3]

Pre HD footage really hasn't aged well..


I've never heard of Brass Eye before and it looks quite amusing, but I'm way too coddled by nice quality sound and video.

Buy the DVDs then.

And there are people who will take anyone's word at what they say. "No I wasn't being sexist, I was just joking, honest!" "Nono its satirical racism, its different from real racism"

What on God's green earth are you chatting?

 

[metalslimer]

And there are people who will take anyone's word at what they say. "No I wasn't being sexist, I was just joking, honest!" "Nono its satirical racism, its different from real racism"

Who does this? And if they do we can pretty easily use context clues and past actions to figure it out.

I seriously don't understand where you are going with this. Also who says satire can't also be racist?

You have jumped through so many different positions here. Just take the L.

 

[Lufiaddict]

I can admit that this is more satirical than it appears at first glance if we can get some other people to admit to there being more to satire than just depicting awful things and expecting the self evident awfulness to carry the "obvious" non-sincerity. Because the latter is how we end up with actual racists saying awful things and defending it with "no I was being satirical"

One of the most efficient techniques used in satire is exaggeration. One form of exaggeration in this picture is that christians are represented by Jesus walking on water.

 

[Chozolore]

And there are people who will take anyone's word at what they say. "No I wasn't being sexist, I was just joking, honest!" "Nono its satirical racism, its different from real racism"

what?

 

[daviyoung]

And there are people who will take anyone's word at what they say. "No I wasn't being sexist, I was just joking, honest!" "Nono its satirical racism, its different from real racism"

ain't no crows getting passed this many strawmen

 

[TheLostBigBoss]

That post you're replying to was under the impression that the muslim community was upset about this. As far as the debate about the satire, well the mission to get the discussion worked. The messenger just confused me, as these were the people seemingly antagonizing muslims earlier.

Antagonizing muslims? Like drawing a picture of the prophet? If one is "antagonized" by that than maybe a mirror and a hard look is in order.

Is this what the outrage is about? People mad over that picture they produced and can now scream "RACISM" anytime they have a piece about muslims, without even thinking about the context of the piece and what it means?

 

[The Technomancer]

ain't no crows getting passed this many strawmen

I responded to snark with snark. *shrug* Don't take that comment as a comment on you personally, since it wasn't even in reply to you

 

[Kinyou]

It's obviously meant to shock and is kind of in bad taste for drawing the kid that way, but that's satire for you.

 

[daviyoung]

I responded to snark with snark. *shrug* Don't take that comment as a comment on you personally, since it wasn't even in reply to you

since that's what this thread has descended into, and as you've conveniently ignored all the explanations, the appeals to context, and definitions supplied by most people here, I suppose we're at an impasse

 

[Chozolore]

Can you explain how "Because the latter is how we end up with actual racists saying awful things and defending it with "no I was being satirical" invalidates this cartoon exactly.

You're trying to twist this into being a slippery slope where every racist could get away with something by saying it's satire. That's not how it works, and some people misunderstanding the complete point of a cartoon and thinking it's endorsing their racist views in no way invalidates the satire present. You could literally make the most heavy-handed and ridiculous satire in the damn world, and there would be someone "agreeing" with what that satire was criticizing.

If you don't understand what BernardoOne has written then I pity you.

 

[Zen_Arcade]

Me thinking it might not be satire isn't the same as me thinking that it can't be satirical. Of course it can be taken satirically. The entire argument was over if it should

Right. Which directly goes against you saying this.

I have never actually argued that it is not satire(although we argued about satire in the abstract), what I've said is that people assume that its satirical when similar cartoons that non-satirically express support for ugly but genuine sentiments aren't uncommon. It doesn't have to be funny, sure, absolutely agreed. But it does have to be satirical in this specific way? It might not just be some real ugliness?

You did in fact argue that it wasn't satire. There is no difference in saying "This isn't satire." and "This shouldn't be taken as satire." The only reason you wouldn't take something as satire is if you thought it wasn't and was, in fact, being literal.

At this point you're just backpedaling with the goalposts attached to the front of your bike.

 

[The Technomancer]

since that's what this thread has descended into, and as you've conveniently ignored all the explanations, the appeals to context, and definitions supplied by most people here, I suppose we're at an impasse

There's been plenty of that going on on both sides of the argument, so yes, I suppose we are

 

[FartOfWar]

I can admit that this is more satirical than it appears at first glance if we can get some other people to admit to there being more to satire than just depicting awful things and expecting the self evident awfulness to carry the "obvious" non-sincerity. Because the latter is how we end up with actual racists saying awful things and defending it with "no I was being satirical"

http://www.amazon.com/dp/1491514132/?tag=neogaf0e-20

http://www.amazon.com/dp/0062183613/?tag=neogaf0e-20

 

[Neoriceisgood]

I'm actually curious as I'm gonna treat this as a general satire thread.


How effective is satire at actually changing people's perception on issues? I get that the point is usually to use strong (often visual) language to show a problem, but I've often found that certain strands of satirical content seem more self-congratulatory rather than something that might make someone not already holding the position in the piece change their mind.

Anyone know if any legitimate studies have been done on the effectiveness of satire in changing views?


(It seems like hell to research so I wouldn't be surprised if there's nothing substantial, but this topic got me curious.)

 

[DECK'ARD]

Pre HD footage really hasn't aged well..


I've never heard of Brass Eye before and it looks quite amusing, but I'm way too coddled by nice quality sound and video.

Brass Eye is the finest bit of satire ever, you owe it to yourself to watch it.

It's still being proved right to this day. Remember Rick Perry's comment about the Charleston shooting saying the congregation should have been armed?

http://youtube.com/watch?v=NAQy8v0d_qo

Brass Eye got there first.

In 1997.

 

[metalslimer]

Also how in the world can you claim you never argued this wasn't satire when you ask what is satirical about this on the first page. Dear lord...

 

[EGM1966]

On first glance, it's a really acerbic sendup of Western apathy towards the Syrian's plight. Isn't that sort of thing their raison d'être?

Correct. It's easy to take wrong, and it's not particularly subtle satire (or tasteful) but the target is fair.

Apathy and feigned concern at a macro level from certain aspects of West. The sympathy of the material is actually with the dead children despite how some might read it.

 

[victreeb3l]

I kinda dont get the second one. Tasteless first comic but thats Charlie Hebdo for you.

 

[Neoriceisgood]

Brass Eye is the finest bit of satire ever, you owe it to yourself to watch it.

It's still being proved right to this day. Remember Rick Perry's comment about the Charleston shooting saying the congregation should have been armed?

http://youtube.com/watch?v=NAQy8v0d_qo

Brass Eye got there first.

In 1997.

I watched a part of their drugs skit, it kinda reminded me that we've really got stuff as ridiculous as Krokodil.

 

[Kinyou]

I can admit that this is more satirical than it appears at first glance if we can get some other people to admit to there being more to satire than just depicting awful things and expecting the self evident awfulness to carry the "obvious" non-sincerity. Because the latter is how we end up with actual racists saying awful things and defending it with "no I was being satirical"

Are there examples of this? And how effective was that defense?

 

[daviyoung]

There's been plenty of that going on on both sides of the argument, so yes, I suppose we are

erm, no there hasn't been and when I refer to most people (a majority) I exclude you and anyone else who bull-headly refused to think about all the explanations, appeals to context, and definitions

your appeals to context can be summarised by the apparent snarky strawman you put out, unfortunately, because that really is the crux of your argument no matter how ironically you're trying to put a "snark" badge on it

all those appeals and definitions have been answered numerous times in this thread, while no-one else's has been answered by you until your third return where you tried to save yourself but couldn't and just flopped your arse in the same groove as before

now as you've admitted we're at a stalemate, I'll let you as TC figure out how best to end it

 

[Neoriceisgood]

Are there examples of this? And how effective was that defense?

I think the most common form isn't so much "satire" as "irony".

e.g. ironic use of slurs. (chan culture is infamous for using slurs and derogatory terms "ironically" & it's essentially turned large chunks of the chans into hives filled with neo-nazis who can use the "ironic" nazi language as a barrier.)


I don't think I've seen particular examples of "Satire" used this way, but it'd not surprise me.

 

[HK-47]

I'm actually curious as I'm gonna treat this as a general satire thread.


How effective is satire at actually changing people's perception on issues? I get that the point is usually to use strong (often visual) language to show a problem, but I've often found that certain strands of satirical content seem more self-congratulatory rather than something that might make someone not already holding the position in the piece change their mind.

Anyone know if any legitimate studies have been done on the effectiveness of satire in changing views?


(It seems like hell to research so I wouldn't be surprised if there's nothing substantial, but this topic got me curious.)

That seems like a sociological nightmare.