-
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
Fine Ham Abounds
Member
That's certainly how I'm reading this.
Count Dookkake
Member
Knock-knock.
Delusibeta
Banned
In this thread: Americans getting offended over something very, very, very French.
Indeed, I imagine most Europeans, hearing news of the indifference of European governments and the EU as a whole of the mass movement of refugees (and in some cases, such as Hungary, outright rejection) every day for the past month or so, would understand that said refugees wasn't the target of these barbs.
Indeed, I imagine most Europeans, hearing news of the indifference of European governments and the EU as a whole of the mass movement of refugees (and in some cases, such as Hungary, outright rejection) every day for the past month or so, would understand that said refugees wasn't the target of these barbs.
Pinko Marx
Banned
Who's there?
Come in.
Count Dookkake
Member
A bunch of Muslims.
soul creator
Member
I see what you did there
Business
Member
Went through the first two pages and it seems some of GAF isn't having their brightest day. Seriously what's so hard to get? This is a blunt critique of the difference that it makes to live in the west and our privileges, and how we are often oblivious to the suffering of the ones that weren't so lucky. I would have thought it was obvious.
Ganzlinger
Member
I'm surprised to see that nearly everyone from the first page didn't get the satire.
It's a hard criticism towards Europe and Western society.
It's a hard criticism towards Europe and Western society.
The original thread title was "Charlie Hebdo runs cartoon mocking drowned Syrian boy, "Muslims sink."" Reactions shifted once the title was changed.
It's not uncommon for people to base their reaction on a thread title and a cursory-at-best glance at the OP.
Milly Osworth
Member
Not true. Loads of people in this thread alone are stopping and thinking.
It's funny how the cartoon is confusing to the usual outrage people though.
Only thing that this makes me think about is how dickish they are for having published that. I don't have to like this, and I certainly don't have to appreciate what they're getting at. I find it distasteful.
Slappers_Only
Neo Member
Keep in mind that a few CH artists and publicists were murdered. They're not going to change their tune after the atrocity. Their freedom of speech is going thurmonuclear now. It's a definite challenge.
You don't appreciate that refugees are currently being tear gassed and having water cannons turned on them at the border of an EU country? That's the attitude they're getting at, and what led to a dead child washing up on a beach.
You stay being offended by just a cartoon, it certainly requires much less thought.
Ganzlinger
Member
Oh, I see. That title would certainly lead to that.
I think there's interesting study to be done into the human tendency to try and justify an initial reaction regardless of additional information learned after the fact. Some simply refuse to reconsider and just double down and others minimize the intent or effect of the actual purpose behind it as a way to still feel partially right.
For 'stupid' cartoons, they certainly do a good job of showing up stupid people.
The message can be conveyed other ways.
But hey, different strokes for different folks.
A bunch of Muslims who?
I guess we're just going to have to disagree in what decency means for us.
No, we can disagree on what being informed means to us though.
BaronLundi
Member
Successful on multiple fronts.
I'm having a hard time coming up with a reason why using satire to provoke discussion and bring attention is indecent when the cause is so just.
Sapiens
Member
This is pretty much how I saw it - I mean, right away - I understood the point, even though I barely speak French.
The outrage in this thread is really hard to believe.
Sure, go ahead.
Count Dookkake
Member
A bunch of Muslims whose inability to parse humor is becoming a big fucking problem.
You've just become more informed about the issues being criticised by this cartoon, and yet you'd rather double-down to save face than even comment on those issues.
Which is exactly why incredibly blunt cartoons like this have their place, you wouldn't even be discussing it if it wasn't for something like this forcing you to.
Whether you like it or not, Charlie Hebdo has just educated you.
Except I was already aware of it. I'm not doubling down on anything - I've already said I find it distasteful, that CH are assholes (they are), and the cartoon has no finesse. There is no "educating", as far as my standing in this.
When you do anything other than make blanket statements without justifying them, I'll believe you were as aware as you claim to be.
Your standing is pretty weak, and more interested in the messenger than the message.
And you still have yet to explain why you don't appreciate what they are getting at, when that's precisely why it needed to be said.
I don't know why you keep pushing it. Well, actually I do, I just don't know why I keep indulging you, but... It's not like this hasn't been on the news. It's not like this wasn't some huge event. It's not like it hasn't been discussed already.
I don't need to write a 10 page essay on what my standing is - just know that I am aware of this, and I have a stance and am aware of the plight of the Syrians and I sympathize with them. I am on their side.
I don't appreciate what they're getting at because of how they're going on about it. A lot of the drawings made in "support" of the child were weird, some were tasteless even if their intent wasn't to be. This took that to an extreme, posing the child in such a way as to be "funny", or "satirical". I mean come on, man. Come on.
It did neither.
It's not meant to be funny. You get that, right?
Well, how about this compromise then
art is subjective. it's interpreted by people differently.
I simply see it as a tasteless thing.
You can see it however you want, but there aren't really any interpretations to be made here, nor is the child "posed" in any way.
If you don't like the cartoon, fine, just don't construct a nonsensical justification for it. We have Maninthemirror for that.
Is it tasteless when shown in a newspaper?
Is it tasteless to show the image in the newspaper?
Vampire On Titus
Member
Wow, reading this thread and the response on twitter... I don't know if I've ever seen so many shifting positions and doubling down.
It really cant be that hard to just take the L and move on.
It really cant be that hard to just take the L and move on.
All I'm seeing is: "Here is a bad thing that is happening."
It doesn't call out or criticize those who harbor anti-Muslim sentiment or any other responsible parties.
What does this cartoon do that the original images of the Syrian refugees does not?
The original photograph is powerful and offensive. This cartoon mimics this preexisting imagery but adds little else.
Therefore, I find it exploitative. Drawing upon the hot button issue of the day just to get in the headlines.
You're just going to have to accept that not everyone likes Charlie Hebdo or finds its satire profound.
The whole point of the cartoon is to condemn and call out the response. How can you say it doesn't do this?
I thought you just replied to a post explaining all that. It's like you didn't read any of it.
You also seem rather preoccupied with the messenger rather than the message.
*doesn't do well, I should have said
I don't really care who the messenger is (but the fact this a cartoon by Charlie Hebdo which is notorious for invoking shock imagery for attention- certainly doesn't do it any favors.)
The delivery is what people are getting irritated with.
The Beeler cartoon quoted above is a much more effective example of offensive satire- in my opinion, of course.
I don't really care who the messenger is (but the fact this a cartoon by Charlie Hebdo which is notorious for invoking shock imagery for attention- certainly doesn't do it any favors.)
The delivery is what people are getting irritated with.
The Beeler cartoon quoted above is a much more effective example of offensive satire- in my opinion, of course.
This phenomena seems to me to be a modern equivalent to the 'godditit' line of thought that has been prevalent throughout history. Outrage is a non-answer answer just like goddidit. Much like goddidit, you can just exclaim that you are upset and that is somehow considered a valid position. It is the secular equivalent of theological gibberish.
What people are essentially saying is that they have little to no understanding of the matter at hand, but they have strong feelings about it regardless of their ignorance therefore their opinion is important. The fact that they are upset somehow validates their opinion. They have decided that the topic at hand offends them, therefore they don't have to critically think about it anymore. Instead, they can switch to defending their position of outrage. From there, it becomes a game of who can come up with clever arguments instead of who actually knows what they are talking about. This thread would serve as an excellent example.
I think it has become so widespread because it is so enticing. You get to feel good about yourself -- and even look down on others -- without having to think critically about the world around you. Much like religion, if you pick the right outrage team to join, you can feel like you are part of a larger movement and that you are important even if your position is based on ignorance and makes little sense logically.
This type of thinking definitely has a strong presence on this forum, but that isn't much of an indictment since it is widespread across the internet and modern life in general.
They think they're on the side of justice, and most probably are, but they get a little a head of themselves and their ego gets the best of them. Seeing prominent posters double down on ignorance has been sad.
FlyingSaucer
Banned
Nothing new here, Charlie Hebdo has always been rubbish - shitty levels of rubbish, even; it's not the point.
The point is, for example, should feminists been kicked on the ground when they perturb a conference about marital relations and if an husband should beat his wife.
Lufiaddict
Member
I like this cartoon and I find it clever, yet I think can understand Nephtis's point of view.
To me, the drowning child is clearly posed in a funny way. A very cartoonish way, might I say. This is indeed one of the main reasons why this picture is offensive and makes people uneasy. This aspect of the picture does make fun of a tragic situation, and I don't think this can be denied, but as many have already explained in this thread, this is a mean toward the end: once the whole picture has been taken into consideration, it becomes clear that the full message is certainly not "let's laugh at this drowning child".
To put it in another way, this picture takes a step back to leap further: it mocks the migrants to better defend them. The question is: does the end justify the means in this case? I'd say "maybe"; Nephtis and others clearly say "no", and I can understand that.
The only people being mocked are those Europeans ignoring or otherwise denying these people safe harbor. The cartoon in no way mocks, makes fun of or disparages the child or the refugees in any way whatsoever.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked