Of course.
-
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
Of course.
I guess if you agree with the position of some people saying that muslims should be left to die at the borders, you can find these comics trash.
Israel is still their most favoured target. They just became famous for their muslims images for obvious reasons.
Also if you look at this and get disgusted at them and not at the fact that this is the actual reactions that you're hearing in europe right now (we want christians but not muslisms!), then maybe you're missing the point. Is the mcdonald 2 for 1 also flying over your head ? Consumerism vs human life in one of the most possible classic representation.
The fact that so many people are getting angered at this is really good however. It increase perception of the issue and it make extremely clear why arguments about religion (the first one) or money (the second one) are stupid when weighted human life. It show how crude at the end those arguments are when the alternative is what it is.
But please you all of you angry internet mob call for closing the journal and call them racists and whatsnot.
Neoriceisgood
Member
Generally the idea comes down to using parody/satire/irony as a defense of something in-and-of-itself, essentially acting like being critiical of itself is a losing argument.
This is part of why I've been asking about the actual effective value of satire as a tool, rather than as an actual art form.
I fully recognise satire as an act of expression like any other communicative art form (someone else mentioned it can be equated to poetry and other things in that way); but a lot of people often bring up the effectiveness (and necessity) of satire as a tool.
And it got me thinking that .. I've never actually seen any substantial research or data showing satire to be as important as it's proclaimed to be.
Personally I can enjoy some good satirical comedy purely based on the wit, humor, insight or effort put into it. (which is my main gripe with the McDonalds picture btw; I just don't think it's good in any way); but I'm curious if the effectiveness of satire specifically as a persuasive tool has ever been demonstrated.
This really misconstrues why most people seem to dislike it.
A lot of people don't really get it & assumed it was making fun of the victims; which would be garbage. It's a bit disingenuous to act like their mistaken interpretation means they want muslims to drown. /:
No, I said Hebdo is trash. The comics are just them trying to be edgy but they've done far worse.
I should have put a sarcasm tag or something.
If you see the comics, I don't have any idea how it could be construed as making fun of the victims.
I'd guess that its fair games since we're in a topic about disingenuous misinterpretations.
Neoriceisgood
Member
Nope, you insulted the glorious Hebdo. You must now want muslims to drown. /s
The only reason I checked out this thread was because I overheard kids I was teaching talk about "Je suis Charlie" making fun of dying children.
To a large chunk of the general population anything that's "cartoony" is just meant to be funny & there's not much more thought put into it beyond that. (which leads to hilarious situations like parents allowing kids to watch ultra-violent japanese animation & being shocked to death when they realise what their kids are watching.)
People who don't know much about the context, don't deal much with satire or who just assume Charlie Hebdo is out to offend and nothing else can easily misinterpret the cartoons by not really looking much deeper into them.
I think part of the issue is that in modern times there's been a large overlap between satire & the whole notion of being as offensive as possible in the name of free speech; that people have gotten a knee-jerk reaction in assuming something was probably made to be offensive.
Even if the targets are fairly obvious once you know the context, I don't think it's that hard to understand why some people might not get it.
[SUBTEXT]I don't care what a person says. As long as I think they are an asshole everything they say is an assholish statement .[/SUBTEXT]
:\
If you knew anything about it you'd know that everything is fair game as far as CH is concerned
Finding data like that is probably going to be quite hard. All I can say is that a shocking and biteful joke is more likely to stay in my memory than a simple "Islamophobes are bad".
Rockman Wright
Banned
I suppose lot of people already said this but.... my god, are people really arguing about if this is racist or not, about what is the joke??? I only read the first 3 pages and the two last one but this is baffling!
I could understand an argument about if it's bad taste or not, if it's a good way to criticize something or not, sure, this is totally fine to argue about that.... but man....
It's fucking satire, they're mocking the european and christian that do not care about these syrian muslim refugee! This is not some conservative american christian comic that hate muslim.... is it this so hard to see?
we don't have to like charlie hebdo, i don't, but inform yourself of the context before posting.... nobody makes fun of the muslim drowning....
I could understand an argument about if it's bad taste or not, if it's a good way to criticize something or not, sure, this is totally fine to argue about that.... but man....
It's fucking satire, they're mocking the european and christian that do not care about these syrian muslim refugee! This is not some conservative american christian comic that hate muslim.... is it this so hard to see?
we don't have to like charlie hebdo, i don't, but inform yourself of the context before posting.... nobody makes fun of the muslim drowning....
Far worse implies these cartoons are still bad, why are they bad?
You're going to have to do better than generalisations.
J
Jotamide
Unconfirmed Member
That's what I got as well, social commentary. Unfortunately, North Americans take everything literally.
The way satire creates arguments could be in favor of it's usefulness but sometimes I question if people are more concerned about making the satirists the subject instead of the subject being satirized the talking point.
One tool that I question even more is sarcasm. It's usage on messageboards is a lot easier to misinterpret than IRL interactions.
PatThePassive
Member
Your entitled to any opinion you have about Hebdo I just didn't agree with the initial response of people claiming its insulting Muslims and the refugee crisis when it isn't.
If the cartoon upsets you or you find it in bad taste that's fine just remember that this thread had some pretty extreme reactions from people misinterpreting the cartoon.
Neoriceisgood
Member
Which is why I got a bunch of people reacting seriously to a post ending in /s lol.
That post was in reply to the earlier poster literally saying people who were offended by it must want muslims to drown. (which was apparently sarcasm? don't really get it, but whatever.)
Messofanego
Banned
You need to watch Brass Eye.
PatThePassive
Member
My bad this thread is moving way to fast for me still.
Neoriceisgood
Member
Yeah I watched some earlier, it's pretty funny.
The transitions between segments are absolutely amazing.
No problem, a lot of gaffers take their satire very seriously.
King Tubby
Member
I can't believe anybody who actually thinks about those images for more than 5 seconds thinks that they're attacking Muslims or refugees.
boiled goose
good with gravy
^
Are people on gaf really unable to grasp satire?? It is pointing out the clear bigotry in Europe and how it turns into a self fulfilling prophecy. A little jab at religion too.
In bad taste? Yes, but whoosh has never been more appropriate. The equivalent of when Colbert was called racist. Come on gaf.
Mohonky
Member
You'll have to remind the next lot of idiots that shoot the place up. You already know someone is gearing up for it.
The saddest part of all this is not how so many people can't get the joke and read it backward.. That is just plain embarrassing.. Like you're at a dinner and the dumb uncle is the only one to not get a joke and make a scandal about it you know.. Except it's way more people there.
It's actually that in the end the idea that Charlie Hebdo was anti-muslim (and somewhat "guilty") has been validated for most. The lie and terrorists won.
Also bravo internet and your international blind shaming. Next time a cartoonist is killed you can all be happy you had a part in it.
It's actually that in the end the idea that Charlie Hebdo was anti-muslim (and somewhat "guilty") has been validated for most. The lie and terrorists won.
Also bravo internet and your international blind shaming. Next time a cartoonist is killed you can all be happy you had a part in it.
boiled goose
good with gravy
Well said. One of the problems of arguing on the internet people can't do nuance
Ollie Pooch
In a perfect world, we'd all be homersexual
The problem isn't Charlie Hebdo, it's overly sensitive people who don't even understand the concept of satire and need everything explained to them. It's like they see something to get worked up about and their brain shuts down. This thread is a perfect example.
Guarantee the click-based media will cash in on this 'controversy' to stoke the flames of faux-outrage.
Guarantee the click-based media will cash in on this 'controversy' to stoke the flames of faux-outrage.
Neoriceisgood
Member
... Are you seriously implying people on an internet forum saying CH are anti-muslim have blame in extremists going on a murder spree? what?
Please tell me I'm misunderstanding your post.
/edit
I'm going to bed if anyone replies to any of my posts btw, so I won't reply for at least 8-9 hours.
boiled goose
good with gravy
yep. The idiots who don't get it are one problem but the even bigger idiot who resort to violence over being offended are on a whole other level
Big Baybee
Member
What if you understand and still think it's in poor taste?
boiled goose
good with gravy
It being in poor taste is a valid criticism
Also given that large amount of people misunderstanding it, it might not be particularly effective satire
Ollie Pooch
In a perfect world, we'd all be homersexual
Yeah - I'll be honest, my first reaction to seeing those cartoons (on the tv news) was like 'oh shit....' the reaction from those people will no doubt be fierce.
But anyone actually engaging some brain cells and thinking for more than 2 seconds can see what the cartoons are saying.
Well, you're entitled to think that. I think there's a difference between that and a blanket 'these guys are disgusting / should be shut down / magazine is trash' etc.
Isn't the entire MO of this magazine to be on the nose, though? I don't think anything should really be off limits for satire.
If i'm completely honest, i don't see how this cartoon using the image making a valid point is any worse than mainstream news media using it to sell papers or get clicks. (Not that one cancels out the other)
Rockman Wright
Banned
that's fine to think it's poor taste, nothing wrong having an argument about that! At least you know what going on in this comic
The sad part is the huge amount of people who totally miss the point of the comic by claming it's racist
It's a valid opinion, not a valid criticism.
A large number of people misunderstanding satire when unaware of, or not presented with context as in the OP, doesn't really demonstrate much at all.
The fact some of them are now aware of the context means it's been effective, it provoked thought by igniting discussion about the issue it was targeting.
Not here specifically but yeah i'm saying this is cause this kind of shaming "mah god Charlie attacked muslims again!!", when becoming viral (and if it's already on gaf, it's probably tweeted a lot already), will spread in the entire world, and you got people burning the french flag in africa, and ultimatly you got a whole process that participates in someone, at some point, deciding to kill that guy int he street yeah.
You're underestimating internet power nowadays. This is exactly how it works.
Technosteve
Banned
The joke would be the holly christian is letting the muslim boy drown i think
boiled goose
good with gravy
Umm ok... just assert shit.
If people are offended by definition it is offensive.
We will have to wait whether it was effective or counterproductive. Im not arguing either way, as we may never know.to just assert one is a bit disingenuous
The target is literally spelt out. If people are more affected by provocative imagery than seeking to understand the message and context of a satirical cartoon in a satirical publication, then they probably had little interest in the subject in the first place.
Just by getting them engaged about that it's already done more than it needed to, whether they learn anything from it is up to them.
The reality is offensive, I don't expect a cartoon criticising that to sanitise it.
Uh oh, folks, if you don't like something, you want the creators dead! There's no middle ground. Thanks hiex
brainchild
Banned
No, you're absolutely right. Satire isn't activism.
However, if nobody but the proponents to the satire understand it, then what the fuck is the point? To pat ourselves on the back for telling them off in a snarky and witty way? It's useless.
Turning satire into what would effectively be nothing more than an in-joke is entirely missing the point of the art.
Most french people with the habit of that humor + the context will get it.
Everyone is forgetting a little something there with Charlie's shaming. Those drawings are not meant to be seen by an international crowd, they are local, and even more than that, they are really niche. That's not mainstream humor. Yet with internet it spreads in an unhealthy way everywhere around the globe where people have no clue what it is...
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked