Man, what a fucking copout.
You bring out nothing but strawman arguments, fall down the slippery slope, but it's "snark for snark"?
Learn to take the fucking loss.
-
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 publishes cartoon of drowned Syrian toddler, "Muslims sink"
- Thread starter The Technomancer
- Start date
- Status
Man, what a fucking copout.
You bring out nothing but strawman arguments, fall down the slippery slope, but it's "snark for snark"?
Learn to take the fucking loss.
Zen_Arcade
Banned
It's probably not going to. I don't have any studies to prove otherwise or anything, but the entire point of satire is to mock something that already exists. A huge point of comedy is that someone has to be the punchline, so it's logical that a joke will look self congratulatory to the person saying it, and feel like a put down to the people who are the butt of the joke.
Most of the people who believe in the thing the satire is mocking are going to have one of two reactions:
1) Not getting the satire and assuming that whatever the piece is is agreeing with their viewpoint.
2) Them getting the satire and them realizing they're the butt of a joke.
I highly doubt either of these people would have very much interest in changing how they look at things after looking at the satire mocking them. People typically don't change their viewpoints because of a situation where they're being made fun of for what they believe.
Hold on a second... Just to clear things up..
I'm not muslim, nor can I really fully explain the anger felt. But, its an offense to their holy prophet. What I do know, is that the magazine had a history with that content, whichever conclusion you want to draw from that content is subjective. That being said, with them being the messenger of this satire, probably one of the world's lowest moments in recent history(the dealing with the refugee crisis) I mistakenly assumed they were doing something that wasn't truly genuine. Something that was more for hits, than passion. As I've seen others comment on, they aren't exactly the leaders of satire or very clever individuals...
Your thoughts on whether or not drawing the prophet should be antagonizing is subjective. It definitely seems to be antagonizing, judging by the reactions to it. I genuinely feel that the satire is being confused because of the infamy of the magazine. At least, that is how it was with me. Id imagine it would be like Gawker or someone doing something serious, but being taken the wrong way as its Gawker.
Oh man Brass Eye. Brilliant show and boy did it get some reactions.
I really should watch it again haven't dipped into it for years.
"British Isles? Pedophiles." That episode in particular I remember really ruffling feathers.
MisterR
Member
Good satire usually has nothing to do with good taste
OverBlood 3
Banned
i fell down the youtube rabbit hole and the Clive Anderson shot by Noel Edmonds sketch is brilliant.
Neoriceisgood
Member
Okay, I'm pretty sure I saw some people argue that these cartoons were meant to change people's views on how Europe is treating immigrants so I was curious if there was actually any evidence to back up Satire's capability to make (the butt of the joke) change their views.
Your post is how I feel about it personally, but I'm open to changing my mind on that if there's actual tangible evidence that people's claims of it changing minds are true.
That's how I felt when reading the context for these, lol.
"Wait they're not on the side of being dicks on this one? Well that's uncharacteristic."
Q
qizah
Unconfirmed Member
Just like their joke from before, classless and not funny. There's better forms of satire.
Chris sticking that in kid in a drawer at the beginning of that episode is such a great visual gag. Had me rolling.
"My children are safe tonight. Are yours?"
The Technomancer
card-carrying scientician
The appeals and definitions provided were all so vague as to be useless and applicable to anything if you'd like them to be, which is exactly what's drawn my ire this whole time.
So yeah. Fuck it. Peace
OverBlood 3
Banned
Hahaha god. What a ride.
MisterR
Member
You honestly seem to have no understanding of what satire is. It looking like something else at first glance, generally the idea that it is mocking, is entirely the point.
Zen_Arcade
Banned
At the very least, it could start a dialogue about what the satire represents. The satire itself probably isn't going to change any minds for the reasons I've listed. But it's a great tool to sneak opposing viewpoints into someones world view. If it starts people talking about the issue then there is a chance that the dialogue could change someones mind. It really all depends on how stubborn the person taking in the satire is.
Yup, people generally cling to their beliefs even in the face of facts and data so jokes or satire targeted at their views are unlikely to trigger a positive reaction (and certainly not a visible change). View and beliefs seem to change mostly through an accumilation of things over a period of time and introspection (and its ridiculous how resistant beliefs can be to change even in the face of what seems like bulletproof evidence). Single instants dont really change anything. So if a piece of satire had an effect it would just be a small piece of a greater wave of change in a person's position.
Neoriceisgood
Member
What I'm curious about is what the satirical element adds beyond just having the basic conversation say...
Sharing a satirical cartoon v.s. a typical facebook outrage post "COUNTRY X WILL ONLY TAKE IN CHRISTIAN REFUGEES".
I get that something like comedic satire works well because people might be more inclined to share something "funny but true" over something that just seems like basic outrage. (I think this is part of why the daily show/jon stewart and similar shows worked well at making people aware of issues.)
Like the basic advantage is a combination of exposure x starting a conversation right? It makes me wonder if satirical content is more effective at it than alternatives.
Lufiaddict
Member
I think that satiric pictures such as this one actually target people who share the opinion of the author; that the point is to make people even more uncomfortable about a scandalous situation they are already aware of.
freenudemacusers
Member
Dear op has left the arena, but I will gladly stand on the podium and accept in his place.
Count Dookkake
Member
The funniest bit about this whole thing is that Hebdo are sticking up for Muslims after getting slaughtered by Muslims and yet still Muslims are complaining.
This is my view
Every time someone have this kind of view I'm reminded of this cartoon.
The other cartoon with the McDonald is pretty much also about the human trafficking where children are getting discount or maybe I'm looking too deep.
Anyway this thread is the mathematical proof that Charlie is not targeting the lowest common denominator.
Zen_Arcade
Banned
Yes. Satire is like the Trojan Horse of comedy. It sets itself up as something the reader is familiar with, but the inside reveals another layer of detail underneath that totally changes the perspective of the joke. It's something that people are willing to look at because on the surface it seems like something they will agree with. Whereas if you see someone going off on some dumb outrage post, you'd probably be inclined to totally ignore it just because of the way they're acting. I see this in people I agree with all of the time. They think that because they're right (And in a lot of cases I would agree they are right), that they should be able to voice their opinion in any way they see fit. Which they're free to do. But they don't seem to realize that if they have any interest in changing other peoples minds, they're not going to do it by being brash, smug assholes. Satire may result in a punchline that makes someone feel bad about their opinion, but at the very least, they have to get to the end of the joke before feeling that way. Which means satire is going to reach people in ways that bluntly telling people they're wrong won't.
I think it's also important to note that comedy is not always about changing minds or getting people to agree with you. Often enough it's there to directly mock. I don't think a lot of South Park episodes exist to try and get the people they're making fun of to change their minds. A lot of the time comedy exists simply to say "Look at how fucking dumb the world can be. Lets take a moment and mock it." Maybe that mocking will lead to changing someone's perspective, but if not it's there to at least make people think a bit differently then they usually would, or at it's very barest, there to get us to laugh.
It almost seems like you're questioning why someone would use figurative language at all rather than just directly articulating the idea they want to express. Why use a metaphor or an idiom to express a thought? Why express your emotion through a poem or song? There's an infinite number of ways to communicate an idea. Different methods resonate with people differently. And I'd say you articulated satire's value pretty well. A specific example off the top of my head is Colbert's work on Super PACs. From the Colber Super Pac Wikipedia page:
Tinfoilhatsron
Banned
Lol, what?
Alright. Your problem is that you can only view satire as something meant to be funny. It's not.
Stop pretending it is and you can realize that people who see these comics for the satire it is are disgusted. The difference (from your perspective) is that the disgust is directed at the people who inspired the satire to varying degrees.
You're disgusted at Charlie Hebdo for painting a picture representing the attitudes of people we both dislike but the difference is that you assume Charlie Hebdo team shares those views.
jim-jam bongs
Member
Charlie Hebdo practices the same kind of free speech that people on the right around the world tend to fixate upon. They make a statement visually which will offend a huge number of people in order to make a point which is directed at a small group, then when people express outrage they double-down as a way of saying "fuck you, I can say what I want". That was the main reason they went so hard in on depictions of Muhammed, they were telling extremist shitsticks that they weren't allowed to tell them what to do, but in doing so they also offended a lot of perfectly reasonable people.
It's perfectly valid, but I don't think anyone should be surprised that people find it offensive. You can't just shut people down with "it's satire", that doesn't change the fact that it's offensive. Charlie Hebdo can keep doing what they're doing, some people will appreciate it and some people will think it's vulgar. That's what real freedom of expression is about, promoting a truly diverse marketplace of ideas and opinions.
It's perfectly valid, but I don't think anyone should be surprised that people find it offensive. You can't just shut people down with "it's satire", that doesn't change the fact that it's offensive. Charlie Hebdo can keep doing what they're doing, some people will appreciate it and some people will think it's vulgar. That's what real freedom of expression is about, promoting a truly diverse marketplace of ideas and opinions.
It was classic stuff and so on point it was amazing how many people missed the point.
Satire needs people to understand it's satire to work.
From this thread, it looks like the majority of posters understood the comic's satire and it worked for them, so I say it was mostly successful at that.
For political satire, it's important to keep up with the news, or else you don't have the context necessary to identify the satire. This goes for most political cartoons; they're more valuable as criticism of current political affairs than as entertainment. In this case the context was knowing about the way some Europeans want to only accept Christian refugees and keep the Muslims out. If you know that context,
Also, something being satirical does not mean it's funny or good or valuable. Satire should not be immune to criticism, provided the critic understands the satire. Funny Games is a satire, and it's also a fucking awful movie.
From this thread, it looks like the majority of posters understood the comic's satire and it worked for them, so I say it was mostly successful at that.
For political satire, it's important to keep up with the news, or else you don't have the context necessary to identify the satire. This goes for most political cartoons; they're more valuable as criticism of current political affairs than as entertainment. In this case the context was knowing about the way some Europeans want to only accept Christian refugees and keep the Muslims out. If you know that context,
Also, something being satirical does not mean it's funny or good or valuable. Satire should not be immune to criticism, provided the critic understands the satire. Funny Games is a satire, and it's also a fucking awful movie.
Since this discussion is trying to move onto trying to understand satire I strongly recommend watching this video.
It's 10 minutes of your life but it explains very well when commentary is satire and when commentary is self serving exaggerations of how other people you don't.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3siLrt173FU
It's 10 minutes of your life but it explains very well when commentary is satire and when commentary is self serving exaggerations of how other people you don't.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3siLrt173FU
Lufiaddict
Member
Yup, satire is pointing at the elephant in the room and shouting "HEY GUYS, LET'S BRING A RHINO AND A COUPLE GIRAFFES HERE SO WE CAN START A ZOO !"
Including the very media it was satirising:
Also the blind home-secretary making kneejerk comments to the press about a show he hadn't seen and literally couldn't see was too good to be true.
The show finished Chris Morris for years, but by God it was glorious.
Yet that's not what is happening. People who are offended are explaining what they find to be offensive. Other people are now breaking down in detail why the picture is the opposite of that and what the picture would need to support their outlook.
Perhaps in the USA?
If you didn't get that joke where i live (Rome), you'd get "Are you serious?" stares.
I have little knowledge about Charlie's usual content but I'm really surprised people took it the other way. "Mocking a drowned child", really?
Of course, sometimes satire is pointing at an imaginary elephant.
That's how we end up with the satire seen on websites like Stormfront.
Actually the point of freedom of speech is also to allow this kind of expression too.
This is not the case here (or you have better understanding of how the body of cosmic horrors works than of comedy) but it's actually vitally important that the racists and bigots express themselves so that in turn we can mock them for being the dumbasses they are.
There's satire in Stormfront?
No, I don't want example actually.
This thread is like a living exhibit on the importance of reading before replying.
PatThePassive
Member
I still think that's one of the reasons people don't get it.
They know about the shooting and the current refugee crisis and think its an anti Muslim paper.
When in reality there has been a growing anti immigrant movement and that the cartoon s directed at their cruel solution to the crisis.
This is from 2013 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6m7uOHevV4
If depicting something like the drowning child for the sake of ridiculing reactions and attitudes to said drowning child and what the child represents is "offensive," then I would say the "offensive" label is nothing more than a superficial designation that doesn't really serve any value in criticism of the cartoon. Such a label only seems to me to be relevant here if you think the image shouldn't be portrayed in such a way no matter the context. That is problematic, as depicting the ridiculed thing and laying it bare to be mocked is a central characteristic of satire. It's hard to properly satirize racism without depicting racism, for example, and shying away from showing the real ugliness of it would potentially diminish its impact. I guess what I am saying is I don't know why I should be concerned with an argument that a clearly "punching up" satirical piece is offensive on its surface, when I am perfectly capable of discerning the underlying meaning.
MisterR
Member
It's amazing. Person after person take a look at OP and just fire off some stupid comment without having any understanding of what they are even looking at.
Edit: and like clockwork another one right below me.
Ah, yeah I see. Though I'm not really sure about it's effectiveness as a defense. The arguments for the chan speak don't really seem to hold up in a critical argument. I imagine the same goes for racist satire.
That episode is pretty damn amazing
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SRRw1ERj2Gc
Intent of the artist.
Ok OP, elucidate me, I'm going to break it down as simple as I can.
You said your issue with this was that it was virtually indistinguishable from actual hate speech because no one would get it. This is patenly false as you can see by the reactions in the thread. Plenty people got the point just fine.
Which means your issue is actually with a small-subset of idiots that would interpret it as something that reinforced or celebrated their racist views. You don't care about how everyone else views it, just the view of that stupid small subset of people.
Similarly, The Onion and Colbert, for example, rely on satire a lot. Some of that satire is lost on people, which is why racists share posts on facebook to complain how horrible immigrants are by sourcing onion arcticles, or people that believe Colbert is a die-hard republican. Do you take issue with Onion and Colbert because some dumb people don't get what they are doing? Because that's exactly what you've been arguing. Aside from the quality and crassness of it, what makes Charles Hebdo such a different thing to Colbert or The Onion? Or do you also believe that those are terrible and harmful examples of satire because some people misunderstand it?
You said your issue with this was that it was virtually indistinguishable from actual hate speech because no one would get it. This is patenly false as you can see by the reactions in the thread. Plenty people got the point just fine.
Which means your issue is actually with a small-subset of idiots that would interpret it as something that reinforced or celebrated their racist views. You don't care about how everyone else views it, just the view of that stupid small subset of people.
Similarly, The Onion and Colbert, for example, rely on satire a lot. Some of that satire is lost on people, which is why racists share posts on facebook to complain how horrible immigrants are by sourcing onion arcticles, or people that believe Colbert is a die-hard republican. Do you take issue with Onion and Colbert because some dumb people don't get what they are doing? Because that's exactly what you've been arguing. Aside from the quality and crassness of it, what makes Charles Hebdo such a different thing to Colbert or The Onion? Or do you also believe that those are terrible and harmful examples of satire because some people misunderstand it?
I know what I am looking at. That doesn't change the fact that Hebdo is trash.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked