Support NeoGAF

[Septic360]

Freedom of expression eh? This was what the solidarity was for last year?

 

[FlyingSaucer]

Freedom of expression eh? This was what the solidarity was for last year?

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humour_noir

There are other forms of humor that farting in Hollywoodian movies, you know.

 

[Lufiaddict]

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.

I agree that the cartoon as a whole does not make fun of refugees. What I was trying to say is that the depicted drowning child, isolated from the rest of the picture, is making light of their situation, and I understand that some people are not ok with that.

 

[Dragon1893]

I can't get behind this, find other ways to make your point, this is disgusting.
Regardless of what is ultimately the intention, for me this is too much.
Every time I try to imagine what these children went through I can't hold back the tears, it's so unfair.

 

[KHarvey16]

I agree that the cartoon as a whole does not make fun of refugees. What I was trying to say is that the depicted drowning child, isolated from the rest of the picture, is making light of their situation, and I understand that some people are not ok with that.

But it isn't isolated, so I don't understand your point.

 

[Corronchilejano]

Freedom of expression eh? This was what the solidarity was for last year?

Avatar quote

 

[spindoctor]

I agree that the cartoon as a whole does not make fun of refugees. What I was trying to say is that the depicted drowning child, isolated from the rest of the picture, is making light of their situation, and I understand that some people are not ok with that.

So some people are taking offense to the cartoon by stripping it of it's context? Why should anyone care what those people think?

 

[DECK'ARD]

Meanwhile, in Hungary:

... yet a cartoon is what crosses the line. Not countries closing their borders to refugees and using tear-gas and water cannons on them. I've seen similar imagery to this, if this was happening in America would we still be talking about a cartoon?

This is the reality of what the cartoon is criticising, a drowned child is the reality of what it is criticising, and whether it makes you feel uncomfortable or not, whether you like it or not, they are under no obligation to sanitise that criticism to make it more palatable.

And quite often you do the opposite to hammer that message home.

The cartoon isn't disgusting, the reality is. Being made to think about it is the least you can do.

 

[Lufiaddict]

But it isn't isolated, so I don't understand your point.

Let's say your significant other strongly despises profanity, and you tell her/him "I fucking love you": she/he will understand that the global meaning of you sentence is "I love you" but will be annoyed by the F word nonetheless. It's the same here with the "funny" drowning child. The artist knew very well what he was doing here. The image is shocking, and it's meant to be. That's Charlie's style (I wouldn't say that it's tasteless, rather that it's an acquired taste).

 

[Count Dookkake]

I agree that the cartoon as a whole does not make fun of refugees. What I was trying to say is that the depicted drowning child, isolated from the rest of the picture, is making light of their situation, and I understand that some people are not ok with that.

This is kind of a dumb point, because we can remove bits from any number of things to present them free of context in a way that will render them unrecognizable to the original message.

I wouldn't expect an addict to get that, though.

 

[PopeReal]

I find it interesting that some people are much more upset by a cartoon than the reality of what is happening to the refugees.

 

[Captain Tuttle]

Meanwhile, in Hungary:

... yet a cartoon is what crosses the line. Not countries closing their borders to refugees and using tear-gas and water cannons on them. I've seen similar imagery to this, if this was happening in America would we still be talking about a cartoon?

This is the reality of what the cartoon is criticising, a drowned child is the reality of what it is criticising, and whether it makes you feel uncomfortable or not, whether you like it or not, they are under no obligation to sanitise that criticism to make it more palatable.

And quite often you do the opposite to hammer that message home.

The cartoon isn't disgusting, the reality is. Being made to think about it is the least you can do.

Excellent post. If you don't see the logic and truth in it I don't know what to tell you.

 

[Count Dookkake]

I find it interesting that some people are much more upset by a cartoon than the reality of what is happening to the refugees.

It's almost as if religion does nothing to help one be a better person.

 

[Clefargle]

More poignant but not-so-funny content from this mag. Sad situation, hope this continues to be a dialog.

 

[Mael]

Meanwhile, in Hungary:

... yet a cartoon is what crosses the line. Not countries closing their borders to refugees and using tear-gas and water cannons on them. I've seen similar imagery to this, if this was happening in America would we still be talking about a cartoon?

This is the reality of what the cartoon is criticising, a drowned child is the reality of what it is criticising, and whether it makes you feel uncomfortable or not, whether you like it or not, they are under no obligation to sanitise that criticism to make it more palatable.

And quite often you do the opposite to hammer that message home.

The cartoon isn't disgusting, the reality is. Being made to think about it is the least you can do.

Woah there this image is offensive! If you want to talk about it please don't use this image I'm eating now, this is gross!
/s

 

[Lufiaddict]

So some people are taking offense to the cartoon by stripping it of it's context? Why should anyone care what those people think?

This is kind of a dumb point, because we can remove bits from any number of things to present them free of context in a way that will render them unrecognizable to the original message.

I wouldn't expect an addict to get that, though.

But the drowning child is what the whole joke revolves around: the author drew him in a deliberately funny (and thus shocking) way, and put him in the context of a joke that justifies it.

 

[JustenP88]

Maybe people should spend more time arguing about the reality of the situation than complaining about a cartoon.

Maybe that's the whole fucking point.

Maybe people who are so damn offended by the cartoon aren't as offended by the reality as they'd like to seem.

Maybe I'm high and this thread is stupid and why did I read it and whatever

 

[KHarvey16]

Let's say your significant other strongly despises profanity, and you tell her/him "I fucking love you": she/he will understand that the global meaning of you sentence is "I love you" but will be annoyed by the F word nonetheless. It's the same here with the "funny" drowning child. The artist knew very well what he was doing here. The image is shocking, and it's meant to be. That's Charlie's style (I wouldn't say that it's tasteless, rather that it's an acquired taste).

Huh? That's a terrible analogy for this situation. You're specifically using a word this person has told you they don't care for. It's not satirical or being used to make a point. You just aren't accommodating that person's wishes.

Do you understand what is different between that and satire? The shocking nature of the image is the point. It's necessary. It's chosen because the very nature of it is what demonstrates the point they're making.

 

[Count Dookkake]

Maybe someone should just remove the illustrated child from the cartoon and replace him with the photographic child.

I'm sure it will be less offensive to these sensitive folks.

 

[MUnited83]

Freedom of expression eh? This was what the solidarity was for last year?

Yes, a newspaper criticizing a awful situation is somehow a terrible thing, and yes, it totally makes solidarity for victims of a massacre invalid.

Spoiler

what in the flying fuck are you saying

 

[aygomyownroad]

The walk on water one raised a slight laugh from me but its completely poor taste.

I understand what they are saying in the comic with the drowned child. But still think it's poor taste

Private Eye in the UK that is a good satirical magazine.

Charlie Hebdo just seems to be offensive for the sake of being offensive and using satire as an excuse.

Free Speech is important and I will defend that right.

 

[RionaaM]

Freedom of expression eh? This was what the solidarity was for last year?

No, that's fine, I see what you mean. The murderers shouldn't have left any survivors at Charlie Hebdo, sure. Satirical cartoons shouldn't be tolerated.

Fucking hell...

I agree that the cartoon as a whole does not make fun of refugees. What I was trying to say is that the depicted drowning child, isolated from the rest of the picture, is making light of their situation, and I understand that some people are not ok with that.

If you take "In the flesh" out of the context of the album it's featured in, you could say Pink Floyd is an anti-semitic band too. But why would you do that? Context matters.

Let's say your significant other strongly despises profanity, and you tell her/him "I fucking love you": she/he will understand that the global meaning of you sentence is "I love you" but will be annoyed by the F word nonetheless. It's the same here with the "funny" drowning child. The artist knew very well what he was doing here. The image is shocking, and it's meant to be. That's Charlie's style (I wouldn't say that it's tasteless, rather that it's an acquired taste).

Telling your partner "I fucking love you" would be rude. Making a point through a cartoon showing a real image isn't. If anything, it's the real world what's horrible.

 

[PdotMichael]

The walk on water one raised a slight laugh from me but its completely poor taste.

I understand what they are saying in the comic with the drowned child. But still think it's poor taste

Private Eye in the UK that is a good satirical magazine.

Charlie Hebdo just seems to be offensive for the sake of being offensive and using satire as an excuse.

Free Speech is important and I will defend that right.

You mean that magazine that pretty much ignores the refugees drama and just does random UK specific nonsense?
I have an idea why you like it.

Actual issue

 

[Condom]

Pretty bad satire but ok.

 

[Llyranor]

Meanwhile, in Hungary:

... yet a cartoon is what crosses the line. Not countries closing their borders to refugees and using tear-gas and water cannons on them. I've seen similar imagery to this, if this was happening in America would we still be talking about a cartoon?

This is the reality of what the cartoon is criticising, a drowned child is the reality of what it is criticising, and whether it makes you feel uncomfortable or not, whether you like it or not, they are under no obligation to sanitise that criticism to make it more palatable.

And quite often you do the opposite to hammer that message home.

The cartoon isn't disgusting, the reality is. Being made to think about it is the least you can do.

I find it interesting that some people are much more upset by a cartoon than the reality of what is happening to the refugees.

Maybe people should spend more time arguing about the reality of the situation than complaining about a cartoon.

Maybe that's the whole fucking point.

Maybe people who are so damn offended by the cartoon aren't as offended by the reality as they'd like to seem.

Maybe I'm high and this thread is stupid and why did I read it and whatever

I agree with all the above. The cartoon isn't high-brow or whatever, but it achieves what it sets out to do if it makes people uncomfortable or upsets them.

 

[S-Wind]

Je ne suis pas Charlie.

 

[uncelestial]

I'm very glad to see the OP's attempt at an outrage thread backfire and that people largely understand the message of the cartoon.

The difference in how Christian refugees and Muslim refugees have been treated is heartbreaking and sad, and Charlie Hebdo is straight up calling it out. I hope some posters here have learned a lesson about flying on hyper-offended autopilot.

 

[Septic360]

Yes, a newspaper criticizing a awful situation is somehow a terrible thing, and yes, it totally makes solidarity for victims of a massacre invalid.

Spoiler

what in the flying fuck are you saying

I'm saying so many of us got behind such a low and shitty publication for the right reasons. That these low brow unintelligent and uninspired publication were the martyrs for freedom of expression leaves a pretty bitter taste in my mouth as opposed to others who actually have a history of publishing something worthwhile.

 

[funkypie]

Meanwhile, in Hungary:

... yet a cartoon is what crosses the line. Not countries closing their borders to refugees and using tear-gas and water cannons on them. I've seen similar imagery to this, if this was happening in America would we still be talking about a cartoon?

This is the reality of what the cartoon is criticising, a drowned child is the reality of what it is criticising, and whether it makes you feel uncomfortable or not, whether you like it or not, they are under no obligation to sanitise that criticism to make it more palatable.

And quite often you do the opposite to hammer that message home.

The cartoon isn't disgusting, the reality is. Being made to think about it is the least you can do.

They didn't just start firing tear gas and water cannons. The 'refugees' started throwing rocks, attacked the police and tried to bring down the fence.

If you want help, don't bite the hand.

 

[Doczu]

They didn't just start firing tear gas and water cannons. The 'refugees' started throwing rocks, attacked the police and tried to bring down the fence.

If you want help, don't bite the hand.

Don't forget about throwing their own children. That was just fucked up.

 

[milanbaros]

Just read the first page and holy shit at some people thinking this is mocking the child or Islam or the migrants. What must be going through some heads to see it that way.

 

[Ikael]

The outrage in this thread is really hard to believe.

Nah, this is par the course. NeoGAF and the anglo cultures in general are prone to iconoclasm. As in, they consider certain symbols to be inherently inmoral into theirselves (or not) irregardless of the context itself where they are presented or their intent (see also how this tread revolves about "racist drawings" and not "racist discourse", or the treads about Spiderwoman's ass). Puritanism do that to your mind, irregardless of your political aligment it seems.

 

[DECK'ARD]

They didn't just start firing tear gas and water cannons. The 'refugees' started throwing rocks, attacked the police and tried to bring down the fence.

If you want help, don't bite the hand.

You're joking right, your response to water-cannons and tear-gas being used in this is they brought it on themselves?

They'd been stuck there for 2 days because Hungary closed its borders refusing to offer them safe-passage or asylum. Applications for asylum were all rejected within hours instead of being given due process. This is in breach of EU law, and you putting refugees in inverted commas doesn't make it true or acceptable.

Neither is using tear-gas or water cannons on them.

Hungary “has obligations to follow which it looks like this new legislation would be a contravention of,” Magdalena Majkowska-Tomkin, head of the Hungary office of the IOM told Reuters. “Both the international UN conventions on the status of refugees, but also EU legislation regarding asylum and also regarding criminal procedures.”

Majkowska-Tomkin said the IOM saw scope for a legal challenge to the new rules. “From my perspective Hungary needs to respect its international obligations and allow people to claim asylum and provide facilities for them that are adequate for their condition.”

A BBC reporter was there when it kicked off and said one of them had been trying in vain to negotiate with the security forces, who obviously had no authority to change anything, throughout the day but then got pepper-sprayed for it.

At least the UN disagrees with you:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/17/hungary-refugees-ban-ki-moon-eu-serbia

The UN secretary general has condemned the Hungarian government’s treatment of refugees on its southern border, arguing that the use of teargas, pepper spray and water cannon on people fleeing war and hardship is not acceptable.

Hungary triggered outrage from the international community on Wednesday after firing gas canisters and spraying water at crowds of frustrated refugees who had briefly broken through a border gate in protest at being prevented from crossing from Serbia.

Interesting these actions are also being called "Un-European", EXACTLY the point being made in the cartoon.

And while all this has been going on:

At least 34 people, including 15 babies and children, drowned when their overcrowded boat capsized in high winds off a Greek island on Sunday, the latest asylum seeker tragedy at sea.

The deaths came as Athens angrily defended its handling of the mounting refugee crisis in Europe and appealed for more help.

Four babies and 11 young children – six boys and five girls – were among those on the stricken wooden boat when it sank off the Aegean island of Farmakonisi.

EU governments have been playing politics with immigration at the expense of real suffering and refugees, and this is the result.

But no, let's stay getting upset about someone drawing a dead child to make that point.

 

[More Fun To Compute]

Just read the first page and holy shit at some people thinking this is mocking the child or Islam or the migrants. What must be going through some heads to see it that way.

Angry people have severe problems thinking. It's one of the more mentally debilitating conditions there is when it comes to thinking analytically or thinking about other people as humans with their own problems and ideals. One of the worst states of minds that affects humans is that they are "angry at stupidity" because it's such a toxic feedback loop of everyone becoming more angry and stupid.

 

[El Topo]

EU governments have been playing politics with immigration at the expense of real suffering and refugees, and this is the result.

But no, let's stay getting upset about someone drawing a dead child to make that point.

I'm under the impression that many have no idea about European immigration policy and the (recent) history of immigration to Europe. I'm not a fan of Charlie Hebdo, but I honestly don't get how one could be upset about those drawings. At all.

 

[funkypie]

You're joking right, your response to water-cannons and tear-gas being used in this is they brought it on themselves?

They'd been stuck there for 2 days because Hungary closed its borders refusing to offer them safe-passage or asylum. Applications for asylum for all rejected within hours instead of being given due process. This is in breach of EU law, and you putting refugees in inverted commas doesn't make it true or acceptable.

Neither is using tear-gas or water cannons on them.



A BBC reporter was there when it kicked off and said one of them has been trying in-vain to negotiate with the security forces, who obviously had no authority to change anything, throughout the day but then got pepper-sprayed for it.

At least the UN disagrees with you:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/17/hungary-refugees-ban-ki-moon-eu-serbia



Interesting these actions are also being called "Un-European", EXACTLY the point being made in the cartoon.

And while all this has been going on:



EU governments have been playing politics with immigration at the expense of real suffering and refugees, and this is the result.

But no, let's stay getting upset about someone drawing a dead child to make that point.

Last time I checked whenever you like it or not Hungary is sovereign state. Also whenever you think it was right or wrong for Hungary to shut up shop, doesn't matter. They can and they did. That's doesn't give the refugees the right to use violence.

 

[DECK'ARD]

Last time I checked whenever you like it or not Hungary is sovereign state. Also whenever you think it was right or wrong for Hungary to shut up shop, doesn't matter. They can and they did. That's doesn't give the refugees the right to use violence.

I see you also didn't read anything of what you replied to.

 

[PdotMichael]

I see you also didn't read anything of what you replied to.

You are replying to the guy who downplayed dying refugees children with the fact that children are dying everywhere.

 

[DECK'ARD]

You are replying to the guy who downplayed dying refugees children with the fact that children are dying everywhere.

Sounds like he'd be the good subject of a cartoon.

 

[DECK'ARD]

And for a bit more context on Hungary's actions, in an interview last night a member of the Government said it would be "dangerous" to let refugees into the country, and they've also said one was a terrorist without giving any further details. Better shut that border from all these refugees potential terrorists! Tear-gas the bastards.

Also from a couple of weeks ago, Hungary's Prime Minister had this to say:

http://reuters.com/article/idUSKCN0R30J220150903

The influx of refugees into Europe threatens to undermine the continent's Christian roots and governments must control their borders before they can decide how many asylum seekers they can take, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban said.

Orban said his country was being "overrun" with refugees, adding most were not Christians, but Muslims.

"That is an important question, because Europe and European culture have Christian roots. Or is it not already and in itself alarming that Europe's Christian culture is barely in a position to uphold Europe's own Christian values?" he asked.

... anyone still want to say this cartoon is unwarranted?

 

[mugurumakensei]

Also from a couple of weeks ago, Hungary's Prime Minister had this to say:

http://reuters.com/article/idUSKCN0R30J220150903

... anyone still want to say this cartoon is unwarranted?

One could say the cartoon is a hyperbolic reflection of reality. I think it might be called satire, buy I'm not sure considering someone might agree with the situation.

 

[DECK'ARD]

One could say the cartoon is a hyperbolic reflection of reality. I think it might be called satire, buy I'm not sure considering someone might agree with the situation.

Shocking and offending people with that reflection of reality is a legitimate method of criticising it, the fact some agree with it is why it needs to be said to make people aware of that. Bringing awareness to issues is how you fix them, not ignoring them or just thinking how sad it is a child washed up on a beach. We are all leaning more by discussing it, and it's through this cartoon which we are.

Children drowning might have something to do with the fact that people in positions of power are literally saying "We don't give a shit what you're going through, you're Muslim".

What is disgusting here? It's not the cartoon for stating things rather more bluntly than people may like.

 

[KHarvey16]

I think it might be called satire, buy I'm not sure considering someone might agree with the situation.

How could satire possibly be defined by such a condition?

 

[User 73706]

Nah, this is par the course. NeoGAF and the anglo cultures in general are prone to iconoclasm. As in, they consider certain symbols to be inherently inmoral into theirselves (or not) irregardless of the context itself where they are presented or their intent (see also how this tread revolves about "racist drawings" and not "racist discourse", or the treads about Spiderwoman's ass). Puritanism do that to your mind, irregardless of your political aligment it seems.

no no, see, since you made spelling mistakes your whole argument's invalid, and therefore there's no point in having a rational discussion with you on your beliefs.

 

[Bo-Locks]

You mean that magazine that pretty much ignores the refugees drama and just does random UK specific nonsense?
I have an idea why you like it.

Actual issue

Imagine that, a UK based satirical magazine that deals primarily with UK based stories? What a bunch of bastards, right?

Anyway, there's a new issue out in the next couple of days, and I have a sneaking suspicion of what will make the front cover.

 

[Kinyou]

no no, see, since you made spelling mistakes your whole argument's invalid, and therefore there's no point in having a rational discussion with you on your beliefs.

You grammar Nazi nitpicker

 

[funkypie]

I see you also didn't read anything of what you replied to.

I responded directly to what you said but keep deflecting.

 

[DECK'ARD]

I responded directly to what you said but keep deflecting.

Well apart from the small matter of it being illegal, unless you're going to pretend Hungary has no commitments under EU and International law.

But it sounds like you wouldn't care anyway.

 

[Mael]

Well apart from the small matter of it being illegal, unless you're going to pretend Hungary has no commitments under EU and International law.

But it sounds like you wouldn't care anyway.

He probably doesn't know that European law trumps member state laws...
Hungary will probably be sued, lose and pay reparations.
Wouldn't be the 1rst time a member state gets sued for being stupid with EU laws.