What?
-
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
What?
TheLostBigBoss
Banned
Colbert is a satire of the republican party, I don't think he cares about their feelings and in the general scope of what he does he hardly dives into deep hitting topics.
Then again I'm a big fan of dark comedy and extremely dead pan humor, so I could be biased.
brainchild
Banned
TheLostBigBoss
Banned
He does this in ever thread. He responds to people by imagining a response he wants to prove a point, not the response he actually gets.
As a ploy offending his family? What are you talking about?
And what is the point being made with the TSA and a person falling from a building? The "acceptability" of the satire is based entirely on the point it's making.
Maninthemirror
Banned
People are so blinded by their defense of this publication they can't even comprehend the sensitivities of millions offended by using an image of a toddler who recently died as a ploy to make the point about Europe
freenudemacusers
Member
seriously, why is anyone bothering.
brainchild
Banned
Well, you know what, that's how the cookie crumbles.
Admittedly, the satire is pretty dark. If you're offended... too bad? I don't know what else to tell you.
Zen_Arcade
Banned
Your explanation of why people might be offended by the Hebdo cartoon doesn't remotely explain why you think the TSA-9/11 thing is satire. The fact that you do shows not only that you don't understand what satire is in the first place, but you also don't understand why the Hebdo cartoon is satire.
Also, you have zero proof any of those parents are offended by this strip. You're just saying they are. As far as I can tell, the only people who are offended by the strip are people who don't understand it in the first place and possibly the type of people who are against the migrants coming to Europe. And they're offended for a totally different reason then you're implying. For all you know, the parents of these children fully understand the purpose of the strip and feel that, while crass, the cartoonist was using their horrible situation to make a larger point about how the Europeans that are pushing them away are hypocritical, bad people.
PdotMichael
Banned
Using the family is quite the straw man.
And who fucking cares about the million others? Are they also offended by the dead child in such a way that they want to change the policy of their governments how they handle the refugees drama? Or is that more "please don't remember I'm eating right now" kind of mindset?
BarringGaffner
Member
I absolutely did not. Apparently you did though.
Maninthemirror
Banned
The fact that the only people really defending Charlie hedbo are who have a warped view of freedom to offending trumping freedom of speech with respect shows this time with many agreeing with my point that despite them making a point about Europe, using a toddler as a ploy for satire is disgusting
... he isn't saying that you can't make a satire involving a 9/11 victim, he's saying that in your imagined satire doesn't work because it has no point, no message. Those two situations you talk about have no logical connection or correlation. Therefore, it can't be satire.
turnbuckle
Member
Perfectly said.
BarringGaffner
Member
what is more important- not offending people or stoppin more children from dying by changing the way people think about refugees?
First the dead kid is a result of the refugee crisis, it is directly relevant and necessary to the point of the satire. Second the whole world had to see that horrific image, there was not choice in the matter for the parents in their son ending up dead in the surf. Or his death being reported on over the world. Third the world is an upsetting place, why would we want to hide the horrors of world crisis when we are trying to engage the very topic of them.
If people are dying, are you going to care that you offend people through you're satirical commentary on it?
Maninthemirror
Banned
And this satire piece will do what ? Stop children from dying ? It only offended every side and pleased a niche group of people who only are caring for freedom to offend over the respect of free speech
PdotMichael
Banned
That children are dying while trying to reach Europe is digusting.
It's disgusting that Charlie Hebdo can make a satire features a dead child and its not hyperbole.
The satire is not disgusting but everything related to it.
The Artisan
Member
but it does not merit death threats.
Do you think it was meant to be pleasurable?
Zen_Arcade
Banned
I do not see many people who are agreeing with your point. In fact, the majority of people who are offended at this seem to be people who didn't understand the strip in the first place.
And if you don't like the idea that freedom to offend trumps the idea that we should only use freedom of speech when it doesn't make any one feel bad then you're kind of missing the point of freedom of speech in the first place. This shit isn't only applicable when you want it to be.
Outside of that, if you truly believe that people should only use freedom of speech when it's not going to offend anyone, maybe comedy, and specifically satire, is not for you.
Maninthemirror
Banned
Using a dead toddler which sensitized even further refugee plight as a ploy is wrong and only to print papers not to make a point which sticks.
PdotMichael
Banned
You are repeating your point without providing any further arguments to support your view.
You basically invented a definition between satire and free speecch and what it should be. Satire has no obligation in protecting people's feeling or being a colbert "Feel good" laughtrack to be effective, even though I love Colbert.
It's funny because it also makes fun of this kind of thinking: The hundreds of people who were "shocked" by the death of this child and will keep wailing about the emotional hit piece of the month or about the "MILLIONS OF OTHERS" (citation needed) being offended by a satirical hitpiece while actually providing no advancement into the actual debate or advancement of the situation. I think that's more important that the feelings of people
Maninthemirror
Banned
Well people are stuck with their view so there is no point to be made if people cannot comprehend that this specific satire Only offended never helped anyone especially going for satire which they knew would offend
Don't ever report horrific shit and how ridiculous it is?
Instead let people live in fairy-tail land?
That's one stupid idea, but ok.
googleplex
Member
I'm not sure you know what that word means.
brainchild
Banned
Public social intolerance for things that are perceived as wrong is responsible in some way for nearly all of our current social constructs. Shaming wrongfulness has worked for thousands of years. Why wouldn't it work now?
Cheesecakebobby
Banned
Zen_Arcade
Banned
People are stuck with their view because you're doing a shitty job at providing any reason why they should be changing their viewpoint.
I'm sure it's much easier to assume that everyone who doesn't agree with you is only doing so because they have their fingers in their ears. That's much easier to digest then to come to the conclusion that your reasoning is hollow and doesn't provide very much evidence to why someone should be agreeing with you.
Maninthemirror
Banned
Sure it has worked , while using a ploy of a victim? Satire is perfectly good when it offends without using the victim in a mocking way. Satire doesn't work when you provoke an image exactly as in a photo to make a point, then it is only used to offend and sell papers and not offend Europe but those who are concerned for the refugees as well. It's a satire piece which only was made to offend everyone and it did and it will not move the needle in Europe. If it made a satire without that image, using any other way which didn't also mock the deaths especially of an image which was sensitive, no one would have cared but Charlie hedbo might care for refugees but they care more about offending and attention
Isn't the butt of the joke here Christian Europeans though? Isn't the POINT to be disgusting? Using bigoted rationalizations to not feel bad about about letting refugees die - if we accept the premise - is probably something disgusting worth framing as such right?
Sure it's tasteless, but I don't see them laughing at the kid, just using his death to make a point.
I mean, lets say tons of irish people were were struggling starvation, and I say... wrote an essay about how we could very simply fix that - not by helping them - but by having them eat their own babies. Would that be equally effective whether you were disgusted or not disgusted? Cuz in that scenario, real people would be dying... Is it better to be less shocking for some reason?
Sure it's tasteless, but I don't see them laughing at the kid, just using his death to make a point.
I mean, lets say tons of irish people were were struggling starvation, and I say... wrote an essay about how we could very simply fix that - not by helping them - but by having them eat their own babies. Would that be equally effective whether you were disgusted or not disgusted? Cuz in that scenario, real people would be dying... Is it better to be less shocking for some reason?
What are you talking about? This is completely, 100% the opposite of mocking this child or the situation the led to his death.
You really, really don't understand what's happening.
It's not "using the victim in a mocking way". Shit, it's doing the direct opposite, so...
And yes, a crapload of satire uses victims of atrocities as a main point so the ridiculousness and terribleness of a cetain situation is highlighted.
You really should stop talking about what is satire or not, and what is satire that works or not. You don't have the singlest idea of what satire actually is, as you've proven over and over and over.
brainchild
Banned
As a form of free speech, it really doesn't matter. As long as it's understood to be satire, it absolutely can still be effective.
Now, if people didn't understand the satire, you'd sort of have a point in terms of what is good or bad satire, but that has nothing to do with offending people.
PdotMichael
Banned
There is a movement in various European countries that argue that Europe and the Islam doesn't work while using a weird occident vs. orient rhetorics like crusades are still a thing.
I think it's more saying it would be un-Christ (read unethical) like to ignore a child drowning in the water. Which is literally Peter Singer's drowning child argument.
Maninthemirror
Banned
Most including me view that using the toddler as a ploy to further a point about Europe especially when the toddlers death image is a sensitive point not just in Europe but most among refugees themselves, that if offensive and not in a good way
freenudemacusers
Member
how many more pages are you all gonna spend trying to explain a concept to someone who actively and aggressively does not want to understand.??? surely technomancer technomancer-ing his own thread was enough?
DiscoJer
Member
While I wouldn't be shocked if religion played a role, remember people were freaked out by those signs for the Aqua Teen Hunger Force movie? Like the whole city of Boston closed down, just because there were these signs all over the cities that had batteries and wires sticking out of them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Boston_bomb_scare
2 people were arrested and the company had to pay a $2 million fine. Like in this incident, authorities in Boston simply refused it was anything other than an attempt at fake bombs, even though it's only common sense.
To put it mildly, people are hysterical these days. Schools are arguably even worse, what with things like kids being suspended for eating cookies into gun shapes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Boston_bomb_scare
2 people were arrested and the company had to pay a $2 million fine. Like in this incident, authorities in Boston simply refused it was anything other than an attempt at fake bombs, even though it's only common sense.
To put it mildly, people are hysterical these days. Schools are arguably even worse, what with things like kids being suspended for eating cookies into gun shapes.
brainchild
Banned
I think he means insensitively using a victim in something that is mocking [something else].
Personally, I don't think it matters in the slightest.
That it's a terrible image IS THE POINT OF THE SATIRE. Your use of words like "mock" demonstrate your complete misunderstanding of everything the cartoons are trying to say.
And you keep saying "most" like the majority agree with you. I don't know why you a) feel this is true and b) feel this is relevant.
You don't seem to understand:
1. People have the right to be offended
2. People have the right to criticize
3. People do not have the right to ban free speech
4. People do not have the right to be violent just because they were offended
We can understand that people are offended by that picture. So what do you expect us to do about it? Just ignore it if it offends you
Ah, sorry. I'm tired, American and poorly informed thanks to work. Sorry.
Either way, yeah, I don't see the problem here. The power of of satire at least partially lies in being at least a little problematic to some.
Once again missing the point. The image being horrible is the entire point.
Also this.
Maninthemirror
Banned
If you believe using the terrible image of a dead toddler which has sensitized the people and refugees is fine as a ploy to make a satirical point about Europe then I can't comment any further on your insensitivities. This would be equal to you being fine to use a falling victim from the World Trade Center which was one of the most horrific shots to be used in a cartoon to make a point with satire on any topic regarding terrorism or the war on terror
Well said.
So your argument boils down to being "too soon"?
Again, it depends on the point. The point being made here justifies the use of such a horrific incident. You have yet to give even a hypothetical point that would be made with a person falling from the WTC. If you did I can tell you specifically whether or not I personally find the use of the image as justified or not.
...it would certainly be fine with me.
...Note the date of publication.
The goal isn't to make your nana chuckle over tea.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked