Support NeoGAF

[PatThePassive]

It's not just that it isn't profound that's annoying me btw.


Like ... that McDonalds cartoon doesn't really add anything to the original photo, does it?


Just the original photo of a dead child washed up on the beach like that suggests a carelessness about the situation that it even got to that point. Adding that McDonalds sign to that image feels like explaining the joke.

As seen in this thread people would not get the cartoon without the Billboard in the background. I don't think a cartoon of just the picture of the dead kid is necessary when there is already a picture of that.

 

[Kama_1082]

It's not that hard. Take 2 kids, for the price of one kid (read: dead)

There isn't much to discuss about that part of the satire.

I was hoping he'd get to 5 pages down before someone was annoyed and frustrated that he didn't understand it lol

 

[see5harp]

It's not just that it isn't profound that's annoying me btw.


Like ... that McDonalds cartoon doesn't really add anything to the original photo, does it?


Just the original photo of a dead child washed up on the beach like that suggests a carelessness about the situation that it even got to that point. Adding that McDonalds sign to that image feels like explaining the joke.

It's pretty clear that people need shit explained as clearly as possible.

 

[Neoriceisgood]

Please stop, take the L.

Please stop what? Posting?

Why?

 

[injurai]

As someone that defended the content of their last incident, I for the life of me can't figure out what is being said and how it might have a redeeming element.

 

[freenudemacusers]

The real lesson here is to never go full STEM

 

[TheUntamedLegend]

I have never actually argued that it is not satire (although we argued about satire in the abstract), what I've said is that people assume that its satirical when similar cartoons that non-satirically express support for ugly but genuine sentiments aren't uncommon. It doesn't have to be funny, sure, absolutely agreed. But it does have to be satirical in this specific way? It might not just be some real ugliness?

No, people do not assume it is satirical, they know it is satirical because when they see the comic, they get the joke.
Why not show an example of these alleged sincere cartoons that non-satirically express support for kids drowning?

 

[DerangedHermit]

Am I part of a debate I dont know about..by saying they are trolls and not the political climate that accepts this?

I dont mean to use a word to trivialize the issue. But what I mean is it seems their motive to antagonize the muslim comnunity. At the magazine. Which surely represents an accepting culture of this.

Last time people came to defend their actions as free speach against fanatics. But it seems the call is coming from inside the house.

If people are downplaying by using the word troll, that wasnt my intention. Just catching up on toilet atm..

But these cartoons are actually the opposite of that? If anything they're antagonizing the (French) christians who are actively against the refugees from Muslim countries.

 

[Kama_1082]

Please stop what? Posting?

Why?

It's pretty clear that people need shit explained as clearly as possible.

.

 

[kirblar]

I have never actually argued that it is not satire (although we argued about satire in the abstract), what I've said is that people assume that its satirical when similar cartoons that non-satirically express support for ugly but genuine sentiments aren't uncommon. It doesn't have to be funny, sure, absolutely agreed. But it does have to be satirical in this specific way? It might not just be some real ugliness?

There's a very specific reference they're making here:

This photo is all over European media. It's a dead refugee kid being found washed up on shore. The cartoon is intentionally punching you in the face with the imagery again.

 

[The Technomancer]

There's a very specific reference they're making here:

And there are people who are genuinely not upset at the thought of Muslims drowning on the way over.

EDIT: Yes, I absolutely know about that photo. And the reactions from various countries. I have actually been following this pretty closely. I know exactly what people are talking about with the selective Christian/Muslim response from some communities

 

[Neoriceisgood]

.

You realise I "Get" it right? I just think it's so shallow I don't get why they had to make that particular cartoon?

Like at least the Jesus one has a point to it.

 

[MUnited83]

I have never actually argued that it is not satire (although we argued about satire in the abstract), what I've said is that people assume that its satirical when similar cartoons that non-satirically express support for ugly but genuine sentiments aren't uncommon. It doesn't have to be funny, sure, absolutely agreed. But it does have to be satirical in this specific way? It might not just be some real ugliness?

 

[Regulus Tera]

There's a very specific reference they're making here:

This photo is all over European media.

This has to be one of the worst uses of pixelation I have ever seen in news reporting.

 

[marc^o^]

I think the cover is just made to make you think (or feel bad) " I don't want to be that guy that is indifferent No I'm not that guy" and thus make you act or at least care about what's happening.

You get it. That's one thing Charlie Hebdo does, when they're not having fun.

 

[commedieu]

But these cartoons are actually the opposite of that? If anything they're antagonizing the (French) christians who are actively against the refugees from Muslim countries.

Bold is what I was missing. I thought it was to take a jab. Considering their last big muslim news...

So my mistake. My misunderstanding there.

And its effective. Gets the discussion happening.

 

[KHarvey16]

And there are people who are genuinely not upset at the thought of Muslims drowning on the way over.

...necessitating this kind of satire.

Hello? Anyone home?

 

[kirblar]

This has to be one of the worst uses of pixelation I have ever seen in news reporting.

Yeah, it's pretty weird, it was the first version of it I found.

 

[Jebusman]

I have never actually argued that it is not satire (although we argued about satire in the abstract), what I've said is that people assume that its satirical when similar cartoons that non-satirically express support for ugly but genuine sentiments aren't uncommon. It doesn't have to be funny, sure, absolutely agreed. But it does have to be satirical in this specific way? It might not just be some real ugliness?

Again, you can say the same thing about all satire, especially good satire, and a "What if?" has never been a valid defense or argument of anything.

What you are saying is "ignorant people will be ignorant". That's not profound, nor has any impact on the satirical value of something.

At the end of the day, you just don't get satire. You think you do. You don't. That's OK.

 

[The Technomancer]

Go read my posts on the first page of the thread, that is literally what I've been arguing. Sorry you haven't been paying attention

 

[PatThePassive]

I was thinking more of this

 

[kirblar]

And there are people who are genuinely not upset at the thought of Muslims drowning on the way over.

EDIT: Yes, I absolutely know about that photo. And the reactions from various countries. I have actually been following this pretty closely. I know exactly what people are talking about with the selective Christian/Muslim response from some communities

And they are putting those people on blast.

 

[Neoriceisgood]

I was thinking more of this

That's cool.

 

[MUnited83]

Go read my posts on the first page of the thread, that is literally what I've been arguing. Sorry you haven't been paying attention

"But it does have to be satirical in this specific way"

Your first arguments were how anti-muslim and racist the comic was, not arguing over satire technicalities and semantics. That's something that magically appeared along the way when you've seen the thread backfire.

I was thinking more of this

That's actually more accurate!

And there are people who are genuinely not upset at the thought of Muslims drowning on the way over.

EDIT: Yes, I absolutely know about that photo. And the reactions from various countries. I have actually been following this pretty closely. I know exactly what people are talking about with the selective Christian/Muslim response from some communities

And how the hell do those idiot people existing alters the darn point of this? You could fucking make a comic about the most ridiculous shit a human could ever utter, and there still would be someone somewhere agreeing with it. That doesn't change the comic one bit. If anything, it make its satire stronger.

 

[Regulus Tera]

No, no it's not. The meaning is incredibly clear in these two cartoons- they're not pretending to celebrate the deaths of children- they're using the imagery to hit you out of your complacency and get you to pay attention to the issue.

I don't think it's as obvious as people are claiming. It would be more on the point if it showed the Europeans celebrating the Christians right on the edge of the frame. As depicted, the cartoon can be interpreted as a mockery of the Europeans who welcome only one type of refugees or as an extremist picture of the values of Christianity over Islam.

The point is that it is a very shitty cartoon and that its intention isn't clear from the get go, which is why the people taking offense in it do not need to be made fun of.

 

[PdotMichael]

And there are people who are genuinely not upset at the thought of Muslims drowning on the way over.

Looking how many people are arguing against refugees from a weird christian west vs. orient point of view.

No, a lot of people don't care about it.

 

[Neoriceisgood]

It's not that hard. Take 2 kids, for the price of one kid (read: dead)

There isn't much to discuss about that part of the satire.

The post you replied to was a joke btw.

 

[Omegasquash]

You are a political and satirical magazine in Europe. What do you write about?

I don't know how it's in the US but this is the Page 1 story of pretty much the whole month so far.

Oh, I understand. Satire is supposed to stick you and twist the knife, so it's achieving what it's supposed to.

So I guess no for profit news or social commentary organizations should discuss is. Any profit they see from ad revenue or copies sold is blood money.

Typically snark isn't the best way to have a discussion, but I doubt the latter is what you were going for.

 

[see5harp]

And there are people who are genuinely not upset at the thought of Muslims drowning on the way over.

EDIT: Yes, I absolutely know about that photo. And the reactions from various countries. I have actually been following this pretty closely. I know exactly what people are talking about with the selective Christian/Muslim response from some communities

From your OP, it sounds like you made the thread thinking that the two covers supported "anti-Muslim sentiments."

 

[daviyoung]

And there are people who are genuinely not upset at the thought of Muslims drowning on the way over.

EDIT: Yes, I absolutely know about that photo. And the reactions from various countries. I have actually been following this pretty closely. I know exactly what people are talking about with the selective Christian/Muslim response from some communities

so you've had your dinner and now you feel fresh enough to just start again

not even where you left off, but from page 1

 

[Kama_1082]

From your OP, it sounds like you made the thread thinking that the two covers supported "anti-Muslim sentiments."

.

 

[PdotMichael]

The post you replied to was a joke btw.

Sure, why not.

 

[kirblar]

I don't think it's as obvious as people are claiming. It would be more on the point if it showed the Europeans celebrating the Christians right on the edge of the frame. As depicted, the cartoon can be interpreted as a mockery of the Europeans who welcome only one type of refugees or as an extremist picture of the values of Christianity over Islam.

The point is that it is a very shitty cartoon and that its intention isn't clear from the get go, which is why the people taking offense in it do not need to be made fun of.

If the shrug was juxtaposed with different imagery, it could be seen as supportive. Say, terrorists behind a fence.

This was juxtaposed with a dead kid. You don't use that imagery to support the "Europe" character here.

 

[Neoriceisgood]

Sure, why not.

Why not what?

 

[Mudcrab]

I don't think it's as obvious as people are claiming. It would be more on the point if it showed the Europeans celebrating the Christians right on the edge of the frame. As depicted, the cartoon can be interpreted as a mockery of the Europeans who welcome only one type of refugees or as an extremist picture of the values of Christianity over Islam.

The point is that it is a very shitty cartoon and that its intention isn't clear from the get go, which is why the people taking offense in it do not need to be made fun of.

That's how it works. On the surface it's presented as the latter while in actuality it's the former by the magic of satire.

 

[lawnchair]

thread of the day

 

[gutter_trash]

good satire requires taste and execution

Charlie Hebod is like a bunch of high schoolers or college kids coming up with bad cartoons convincing themselves that they are funny

 

[kirblar]

Good satire will always be misinterpreted by dummies who don't have the perspective to understand they're being mocked. There's no way around it.

Remember this? The people inviting him THOUGHT HE WAS ACTUALLY A CONSERVATIVE.

 

[Jebusman]

good satire requires taste and execution

Charlie Hebod is like a bunch of high schoolers or college kids coming up with bad cartoons convincing themselves that they are funny

No it doesn't. In fact, satire is one of those things that has the opportunity to push the boundaries of good taste while still making it's point.

 

[esms]

I was thinking more of this

This is pretty amazing because it looks like it has a goal in the background too.

 

[HK-47]

This is pretty amazing because it looks like it has a goal in the background too.

Now thats a high brow image.

 

[waypoetic]

Some people just see what they want to see. I bet Ben Affleck don't get what that picture is saying, like most of you.

 

[DECK'ARD]

good satire requires taste and execution

Charlie Hebod is like a bunch of high schoolers or college kids coming up with bad cartoons convincing themselves that they are funny

Swing and a miss.

 

[Neoriceisgood]

Good satire will always be misinterpreted by dummies who don't have the perspective to understand they're being mocked. There's no way around it.

Remember this? The people inviting him THOUGHT HE WAS ACTUALLY A CONSERVATIVE.

Well isn't that one of the issues with satire, especially satirical comedy?

There's a bit of a Poe's law issue where the "extreme" satire might not be extreme enough & just get people you're trying to critically examine to support the satiric piece unsatirically. (if that's how it's spelled)

The people who you're making fun of might become your fans/support you because they actually agree with your character.

Didn't David Chapelle quit over something like that?

I know it happened in The Netherlands with de tegenpartij where an attempt to satirize populist extremist parties backfired spectacularly as a huge chunk of the country legitimately wanted to vote for them.

Spoiler

They eventually killed off the characters as a result, lol.

 

[atr0cious]

There's a very specific reference they're making here:

This photo is all over European media. It's a dead refugee kid being found washed up on shore. The cartoon is intentionally punching you in the face with the imagery again.

I've never seen this photo until now, and I got both images. All you need is a general understanding of world events and some critical thinking.

 

[wildfire]

If the shrug was juxtaposed with different imagery, it could be seen as supportive. Say, terrorists behind a fence.

This was juxtaposed with a dead kid. You don't use that imagery to support the "Europe" character here.

Why this goes over the head of people who don't understand why this is satire is surreal.

It's as if they don't realize if it was made to mock the dead children it would have something to paint them as the bad guys like a bomb vest (if they want to be blatant racists) or their parent in the background running into the country while being in ecstacy of reaching Europe (if they want to be subtle racists)

Having the dead child and only the dead child is negative imagery that only says a child is dead, look at everything else going on around that child.

 

[kirblar]

Well isn't that one of the issues with satire, especially satirical comedy?

There's a bit of a Poe's law issue where the "extreme" satire might not be extreme enough & just get people you're trying to critically examine to support the satiric piece unsatirically. (if that's how it's spelled)

The people who you're making fun of might become your fans/support you because they actually agree with your character.

Didn't David Chapelle quit over something like that?

I know it happened in The Netherlands with de tegenpartij where an attempt to satirize populist extremist parties backfired spectacularly as a huge chunk of the country legitimately wanted to vote for them.

Spoiler

They eventually killed off the characters as a result, lol.

Yeah, a similar issue with people laughing at the wrong things.

 

[joedan]

These type of threads always pop up on GAF and the inevitable goalpost-moving, fallback, statement always shows up..."no no, it's not that it's offensive, it's just that it isn't funny"

 

[Messofanego]

I find it funny that the two people in this thread that everyone else is arguing with are exclusive in which of the two comics they're focused on understanding the point of.

 

[Zen_Arcade]

I have never actually argued that it is not satire (although we argued about satire in the abstract), what I've said is that people assume that its satirical when similar cartoons that non-satirically express support for ugly but genuine sentiments aren't uncommon. It doesn't have to be funny, sure, absolutely agreed. But it does have to be satirical in this specific way? It might not just be some real ugliness?

That is a generous reading of what is otherwise appears to be an anti-Muslim joke of the sort that are frequently told by actual racists.

If you understood it was satire from the beginning, you wouldn't have gone around saying it was some anti-Muslim cartoon. The only way you would think that is if you didn't understand that it was satire, because the entire satire of the piece revolves around the exact opposite of an anti-Muslim sentiment.

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

The joke is super obvious. "You hear about that kid who drowned?" "Yeah I guess Muslims can't walk on water"

This in itself essentially says you didn't think it was satire from the get go, because you are saying you aren't willing to give them the benefit of the doubt that the joke was anything but an anti-Muslim crack joking about drowning children. You thought the joke was super obvious, because you didn't understand the satire of cartoon.

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

This blatantly points out that you were arguing that it wasn't satirical. You're claiming that the cartoon was endorsing the behavior of the European governments, and was trying to reinforce this sentiment. So much so that you even had to ask how it could read as a criticism of the behavior because you didn't understand how it could be satire. You might not have came outright and said "This isn't satire." but you didn't need to, it was obvious that you didn't think it was satire by what you were criticizing about the strip. Only someone who thought the strip was being literal would have had these complaints.