Support NeoGAF

[Buzzati]

Who cares. Charlie Hebdo has always been a cumrag. Ignore them and they'll die with the rest of the publication industry.

 

[BaronLundi]

If every clueless poster in here got a swoosh for missing the point this thread would be one giant Nike ad.

 

[DoktorEvil]

I mean, it's right there dude.

I'm on the side that doesn't understand how anyone would think they're making fun of the dead children. The Jesus one obviously points out that things would be different coming from a christian or jewish country (or inmigrants of that those religions). The McDonalds one? Remember that the little boys brother (and mother) also died. There's no picture of him though.

I am also not French and not European, so I didn't understand the context.

 

[EmiPrime]

Read Charlie Hebdo before getting upset about this.

I don't like their sense of humour, I think it's a bit too raw but there's always context to the front page cartoon. Read the articles within before commenting; Satirising the far right in France and Europe by putting a mirror up to their views via a cartoon showing how disgusting they are is Charlie Hebdo's bread and butter. It's satire.

I would have thought most of you would have been able to link that cartoon to the various politicians around Europe including our own Nigel Farage saying they only want Christian Syrian refugees. The connection is obvious.

 

[Siegcram]

And how would this cartoon read as a criticism of that position and not an endorsement of it? It seems to me that you have to assume that the cartoon is being critical of something just by virtue of being a cartoon to make that leap, and I've seen lots of (usually bad) cartoons that are meant to reinforce, not criticize. If I don't assume it has to be criticizing something then reading that cartoon absolutely reads as a reinforcement of that mayor's position

Satire aims to improve society via hyperbolic depictions of current shortcomings. This isn't a major leap to make here.

 

[dalin80]

Majid Nawaaz is a fucking tool. Stop quoting him.

As for the Hebdo, satire is ok. But they were fishing for more publicity here. Whats the point of having a satire so opaque that only 4 people in the country "get it"?

I'm sure plenty in France and europe got it just fine with the recent news coverage, only 4 people on GAF may have got it but it's less ambiguous on this side of the pond.

 

[PdotMichael]

On the point.

It hit to close to the truth for some people here. Edit: looks like they are even completly missing the point. disgusting.

 

[The Technomancer]

And you're assuming that it's inherently evil and making fun of dead kids (which doesn't really make any sense if you actually think about the CONTEXT of the situation)

Yes, because one requires less of a leap than another. It could be a blatantly racist joke reinforcing current sentiments or if we make some assumptions it could be what just appears to be a blatantly racist joke thats supposed to go "haha look how racist this is" by assuming everyone will see the absurdity of the racism.

 

[GhostTrick]

And how would this cartoon read as a criticism of that position and not an endorsement of it? It seems to me that you have to assume that the cartoon is being critical of something just by virtue of being a cartoon to make that leap, and I've seen lots of (usually bad) cartoons that are meant to reinforce, not criticize. If I don't assume it has to be criticizing something then reading that cartoon absolutely reads as a reinforcement of that mayor's position

Mmh, because it's also a context and the history of Charlie Hebdo. They've always have been left/extreme left politic wise. That's what satire is about. They've always been against that position of anti-immigration and such.
Also for more context about the mayor and christian refugees.

 

[Nivash]

Why do people keep insisting that it isn't funny? It's not supposed to be funny. It's supposed to make you feel offended and then wonder why you were. This is how political cartoons are supposed to be done, not the usual tripe you seen in most newspapers that lack any level of subtlety and still feel the need to put labels on everything because they think people are idiots. They're supposed to provoke, to make you think.

At best this can elicit a cynical laughter at how fittingly this describes European attitudes because the situation is deplorable. And that's just the type of response we need. People need to have the situation shoved in their faces, not be allowed to hide behind platitudes where they can't even see the people dying because of our inaction.

 

[paradise_circus]

Satire can be funny but there is no necessity to be funny.

 

[Boem]

Majid Nawaaz is a fucking tool. Stop quoting him.

As for the Hebdo, satire is ok. But they were fishing for more publicity here. Whats the point of having a satire so opaque that only 4 people in the country "get it"?

It's pretty obvious really. I completely understand that it's not high on the public agenda/in the news that often outside of Europe, but this isn't 'opaque' in the slightest. The debate about exactly this has been raging for weeks now, and it's everywhere. I think almost everyone here should be able to get it pretty quickly.

 

[The Technomancer]

Satire aims to improve society via hyperbolic depictions of current shortcomings. This isn't a major leap to make here.

But the satirical elements people are citing are all external to the cartoon itself. It requires assumption on the part of the reader that the writer is just pretending to be horribly racist in the exact same way a real horrible racist would be without any textual indications that its tongue in cheek. You can't say "well that's so awful they had to be kidding" if there's nothing else to indicate they're kidding

 

[vas_a_morir]

Brilliant satire. Charlie Hebdo did it again, but in these times where people look for indignation first and never look at context and intent, I'm sure a bunch of self-centered privileged Westerners will once again project their own bigotry by becoming 'vicariously offended' for a group with which they are unaffiliated.

 

[Mudcrab]

And how would this cartoon read as a criticism of that position and not an endorsement of it? It seems to me that you have to assume that the cartoon is being critical of something just by virtue of being a cartoon to make that leap, and I've seen lots of (usually bad) cartoons that are meant to reinforce, not criticize. If I don't assume it has to be criticizing something then reading that cartoon absolutely reads as a reinforcement of that mayor's position

You don't see how a smiling Jesus standing next to a dead Muslim child looking for refuge could be a satirical comment on hypocrisy?

 

[TheLostBigBoss]

Yes, because one requires less of a leap than another. It could be a blatantly racist joke reinforcing current sentiments or if we make some assumptions it could be what just appears to be a blatantly racist joke thats supposed to go "haha look how racist this is" by assuming everyone will see the absurdity of the racism.

If you're going to go down this argument than I can easily argue that Blazing Saddles is a racist movie because I view the leap from non-satire to satire is less than the other.

You're offended because you think Charlie Hebdo is being racist. I'm not because I think they are echoing a possible common public sentiment in the EU to a degree and pointing it out straight with no bullshit.

 

[Mael]

Why do people keep insisting that it isn't funny? It's not supposed to be funny. It's supposed to make you feel offended and then wonder why you were. This is how political cartoons are supposed to be done, not the usual tripe you seen in most newspapers that lack any level of subtlety and still feel the need to put labels on everything because they think people are idiots. They're supposed to provoke, to make you think.

At best this can elicit a cynical laughter at how fittingly this describes European attitudes because the situation is deplorable. And that's just the type of response we need. People need to have the situation shoved in their faces, not be allowed to hide behind platitudes where they can't even see the people dying because of our inaction.

This is also a very good post.

 

[MUnited83]

are you new to Charlie Hebdo or?
Also, I'd like you to elaborate how is that "anti-muslim". Did you miss the point?


edit: wow, the ammount of people missing the point

 

[Barbacoatl]

If every clueless poster in here got a swoosh for missing the point this thread would be one giant Nike ad.

This isn't funny, you do know slave kids make those shoes right?

 

[The Technomancer]

You don't see how a smiling Jesus standing next to a dead Muslim child looking for refuge could be a satirical comment on hypocrisy?

Could be? Yes. Or there are actually lots of people who very unironically would agree with that imagery.

 

[onepiecefan]

True scumbags.

 

[Siegcram]

But the satirical elements people are citing are all external to the cartoon itself. It requires assumption on the part of the reader that the writer is just pretending to be horribly racist in the exact same way a real horrible racist would be without any textual indications that its tongue in cheek. You can't say "well that's so awful they had to be kidding" if there's nothing else to indicate they're kidding

No it's taking the current xenophobic/islamophibic political climate of France and other European countires and extrapolates it. Weirdly enough, you end up with something horribly racist.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

I don't get how many of people in this thread are criticizing this cartoon and saying its not funny.

This joke is repeted ad nauseum in any thread on Christianity. About how they're not acting Christlike

 

[patapuf]

I'm not sure why people are saying that it must be an ironic jab at local governments. Its because the cartoon, on its surface, isn't funny, and adding that irony makes it more entertaining? Because political cartoons are frequently both unfunny and unironically express some really ugly sentiments, and I don't know why this deserves benefit of the doubt

No offense, but charlie hebdo is a french publication, you have to have at least some context of french politics to "get" it.

But the satirical elements people are citing are all external to the cartoon itself. It requires assumption on the part of the reader that the writer is just pretending to be horribly racist in the exact same way a real horrible racist would be without any textual indications that its tongue in cheek. You can't say "well that's so awful they had to be kidding" if there's nothing else to indicate they're kidding

how much political satire do you read? it's all about context external to the cartoon.

Like at carneval.

 

[KHarvey16]

The meaning is immediately apparent. If you worked yourself into outrage take a step back and reevaluate carefully and considerately.

 

[TheLostBigBoss]

Could be? Yes. Or there are actually lots of people who very unironically would agree with that imagery.

Ding Ding Ding, that's a very common form of satire (Just like my Blazing Saddles example)

 

[FartOfWar]

Someone explain the McDonalds one?

European commercialism is happy to sell hamburgers to children but is indifferent to their deaths.

 

[Mudcrab]

Could be? Yes. Or there are actually lots of people who very unironically would agree with that imagery.

That's probably true of all satire everywhere. It's not unheard of for people to miss the point and run with satire as if it wasn't.

 

[TheUntamedLegend]

And how would this cartoon read as a criticism of that position and not an endorsement of it? It seems to me that you have to assume that the cartoon is being critical of something just by virtue of being a cartoon to make that leap, and I've seen lots of (usually bad) cartoons that are meant to reinforce, not criticize. If I don't assume it has to be criticizing something then reading that cartoon absolutely reads as a reinforcement of that mayor's position

So, do you think the other example in the OP is Hebdo praising the corporate lords of McDonald's for their customer-friendly prices?

 

[Neoriceisgood]

To all the people gloating about how much they get it & how awful and horrible every person is who doesn't get it.


McDonalds picture.

Explain to me.

Pleaaaaase.

 

[Jebusman]

Could be? Yes. Or there are actually lots of people who very unironically would agree with that imagery.

There are people who very unironically believe in any statement you could possibly make, somewhere on this earth.

This has not been, nor has never been, a valid defense for anything.

Just admit that you don't get dark humor/satire and move on.

 

[ghostjoke]

Could be? Yes. Or there are actually lots of people who very unironically would agree with that imagery.

You have just stumbled upon the point that a brief look at world affairs would reveal.

 

[Trokil]

Well, I think it's pretty lame

More edgy would have been a pale slightly overweight European couple sitting at the beach, with the drowned child and the couple's comment would be, great our holiday is ruined.

Because in the end, it's all about us, how we are the real victims of this not the refuges.

 

[daviyoung]

Could be? Yes. Or there are actually lots of people who very unironically would agree with that imagery.

it's those people that are being satirised

 

[The Technomancer]

No it's taking the current xenophobic/islamophibic political climate of France and other European countires and extrapolates it. Weirdly enough, you end up with something horribly racist.

From everything I've seen and heard this isn't extrapolation, this actually reflects what a not insignificant number of people think right now. That's why it doesn't seem particularly funny, because it doesn't seem to be exaggerating

 

[DECK'ARD]

Damn good cartoon.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

But the satirical elements people are citing are all external to the cartoon itself. It requires assumption on the part of the reader that the writer is just pretending to be horribly racist in the exact same way a real horrible racist would be without any textual indications that its tongue in cheek. You can't say "well that's so awful they had to be kidding" if there's nothing else to indicate they're kidding

#cancelcolbert

 

[TheLostBigBoss]

From everything I've seen and heard this isn't extrapolation, this actually reflects what a not insignificant number of people think right now. That's why it doesn't seem particularly funny, because it doesn't seem to be exaggerating

THAT'S THE POINT

 

[jtb]

huh? I definitely read this as a cartoon about European xenophobia fueling their indifference to muslims drowning.

From everything I've seen and heard this isn't extrapolation, this actually reflects what a not insignificant number of people think right now. That's why it doesn't seem particularly funny, because it doesn't seem to be exaggerating

Isn't that what makes it powerful satire?

 

[M0nochromatic]

It seemed pretty clear from the second picture that this is satirizing anti muslim sentiments regarding Syrian refugees.

If only there was more to it then pictures to provide context on what the magazine intends to say.

 

[FartOfWar]

Welp..fuck them. Fuck them. No sympathy from me.

Let's save this one for posterity.

 

[GhostTrick]

To all the people gloating about how much they get it & how awful and horrible every person is who doesn't get it.


McDonalds picture.

Explain to me.

Pleaaaaase.

This one isn't really subtile I think. Basically, dead kid while you have ads for kids, how kids are being taken care well in Europe or something.

 

[Mudcrab]

From everything I've seen and heard this isn't extrapolation, this actually reflects what a not insignificant number of people think right now. That's why it doesn't seem particularly funny, because it doesn't seem to be exaggerating

Re: Satire

 

[Siegcram]

From everything I've seen and heard this isn't extrapolation, this actually reflects what a not insignificant number of people think right now. That's why it doesn't seem particularly funny, because it doesn't seem to be exaggerating

Man you're really close. Now get past this "funny" thing and you'd see why this is actually a competent cartoon.

 

[Zen_Arcade]

Could be? Yes. Or there are actually lots of people who very unironically would agree with that imagery.

This is the entire point of satire.

 

[DiipuSurotu]

I don't like their sense of humour, I think it's a bit too raw but there's always context to the front page cartoon.

It isn't even the front page cartoon by the way. If you look at the photo closely, it appears a non-front page CH cartoon was cut and pasted on the actual cover for maximum shock.

Here is the actual cover:

 

[Toxi]

And how would this cartoon read as a criticism of that position and not an endorsement of it? It seems to me that you have to assume that the cartoon is being critical of something just by virtue of being a cartoon to make that leap, and I've seen lots of (usually bad) cartoons that are meant to reinforce, not criticize. If I don't assume it has to be criticizing something then reading that cartoon absolutely reads as a reinforcement of that mayor's position

Because the reason given for said discrimination in the cartoon is ludicrous and comes across as horrifically callous to the Muslim who is drowning.

 

[Real Hero]

Explain to me in what ways this is racist

 

[Circle Jerk]

But the satirical elements people are citing are all external to the cartoon itself. It requires assumption on the part of the reader that the writer is just pretending to be horribly racist in the exact same way a real horrible racist would be without any textual indications that its tongue in cheek. You can't say "well that's so awful they had to be kidding" if there's nothing else to indicate they're kidding

There is something else that indicates this is satire. It's called "the rest of the magazine".

 

[The Technomancer]

THAT'S THE POINT

But its not criticizing them! Nothing here says "wow this is awful" on any level unless you the reader go "wow that's so awful they can't really be saying that" and as you just acknowledged A LOT OF PEOPLE ARE SAYING THAT