Support NeoGAF

[FrenchToastDisciple]

Well, that's their right I guess. I will continue to maintain, however, that these cartoons are in bad taste, not particularly thought provoking, and don't achieve anything other than offending an oppressed minority.

And, no, that doesn't mean I think that the newspaper had it coming or anything. Respect for the rule of law is the backbone of any functioning state, and is the prerequisite for all democratic governments, especially respect for laws disallowing citizen to citizen violence (and, of course, it's a terrible thing to take another human life).

 

[mujun]

Here's a clear cut verse on mockery and insults:

It basically says to ignore mockers, and worship God instead.

I'm not surprised. What sane person would suggest that even the most offensive words bring anything but discussion, disdain or being ignored.

 

[Alchemy]

Well, that's their right I guess. I will continue to maintain, however, that these cartoons are in bad taste, not particularly thought provoking, and don't achieve anything other than offending an oppressed minority.

I thought the point of the magazine was to just offend everyone they could? Seems pretty inline with what they've published before.

 

[chancellor]

That is a good response to the intimidatory attack as far as I am concerned. It may be an insult to the Prophet but people can't let terrorist attacks affect and change how they do things so drawing another caricuture is a good a way for Charlie Hebdo to show that.

Hopefully newspapers and tv outlets in the UK decide to show the cover this time as the self censorship by not showing the previous cover after the attack was disappointing. They should never go out of their way to offend Muslims but it was merited last week due to how newsworthy the attack was.

 

[DECK'ARD]

And now you are putting words in my mouth: me commenting about how I think regarding their quality =/= me thinking that they shouldn't be allowed to do whatever it is that they do.

And there's nothing wrong with someone thinking "nothing of value would be lost" isn't it? Unless you are making yourself the sole arbiter of what people should or should not appreciate, that is.

I wasn't saying that, I just asked how you quantify calling them juvenile. On what grounds, why are they juvenile to you?

Because that line of criticism is common when trying to dismiss the worth of something people just don't like, and is used a LOT when it's something people find offensive.

Satire often presents it's message in childish or provocative ways, juvenile is really not a valid way to critique it unless you think they have nothing to say.

 

[Dryk]

Well, that's their right I guess. I will continue to maintain, however, that these cartoons are in bad taste, not particularly thought provoking, and don't achieve anything other than offending an oppressed minority.

I'm actually surprised that those artists had long enough arms to punch down at those kidnap and rape victims.

 

[PeregrinSe7en]

looking forward to seeing these cartoon depictions.

 

[Laughing Banana]

I wasn't saying that, I just asked how you quantify calling them juvenile. On what grounds, why are they juvenile to you?

Because that line of criticism is common when trying to dismiss the worth of something people just don't like, and is used a LOT when it's something people find offensive.

Satire often presents it's message in childish or provocative ways, juvenile is really not a valid way to critique it unless you think they have nothing to say.

Based on my opinion that I think they are not in the least thought-provoking or how I think they are not at all interested in pushing people thinking higher thoughts regarding the content they provide, but rather only to provoke reactions?

In other words, to put it bluntly, and in the basest form of words possible: I think they're just stupid cartoons.

Now, I don't know how you expect me to 'quantify' that?

Also, "satire" is also often erected by folks posting worthless provocative content to stand behind and say, "hey, it's just satire! so don't get upset!" or "you don't understand, it's satire!", so it goes both ways.

 

[PopeReal]

Well, that's their right I guess. I will continue to maintain, however, that these cartoons are in bad taste, not particularly thought provoking, and don't achieve anything other than offending an oppressed minority.

And, no, that doesn't mean I think that the newspaper had it coming or anything. Respect for the rule of law is the backbone of any functioning state, and is the prerequisite for all democratic governments, especially respect for laws disallowing citizen to citizen violence (and, of course, it's a terrible thing to take another human life).

They have offended a lot of people. Who cares if you think it is thought provoking? The fact that people continue to bitch just shows how important this is to them because they are uncomfortable with opposing thoughts and views.

 

[Cartman86]

Thinking that the printing of a picture of a person that died over a thousand years ago is offensive is absurd. It puts real insensitivity concerns of race, sexism, gender, rape humor and other topics into the same basket. I just can't accept that. Yet it seems quite a few people can. It makes me feel shitty that so many people I usually support on extreme far left issues have this one blind spot. I can only assume they would say this is mine.

Deciding to print such images in defiance of people who murdered and terrorized? That is necessary. It is by definition what needs to be done. That's the context for them to post these pictures.

Now what about posting a picture of Muhammad on your Facebook page any random day of the week when you know that a Muslim who wouldn't like it will see it? Sure that's kind of a dick thing to do. Poking at a massively large group of people with varying opinions and reactions just because you want to troll basically. That's not a nice thing to do no matter the context. I can't equate that scenario with most reactions by fair minded people (not the right wing fucks) in support of Charlie Hebdo however.

 

[DECK'ARD]

Based on my opinion that I think they are not in the least thought-provoking or how I think they are not at all interested in pushing people thinking higher thoughts regarding the content they provide, but rather only to provoke reactions?

In other words, to put it bluntly, and in the basest form of words possible: I think they're just stupid cartoons.

Now, I don't know how you expect me to 'quantify' that?

Also, "satire" is also often erected by folks posting worthless provocative content to stand behind and say, "hey, it's just satire! so don't get upset!" or "you don't understand, it's satire!", so it goes both ways.

Provoking a reaction is precisely how you spark a debate, breaking taboos is how you widen that debate, and what people learn from it depends on how they engage in that debate.

What's your take on this one:

Incredibly offensive to some, worthwhile in being published or just a stupid cartoon?

 

[Laughing Banana]

Provoking a reaction is precisely how you spark a debate, breaking taboos is how you widen that debate, and what people learn from it depends on how they engage in that debate.

What's your take on this one:

Incredibly offensive to some, worthwhile in being published or just a stupid cartoon?

Yes, but provoking reactions can also be done in a myriad of ways more meaningful and thoughtful.

Also an honest question: are you trying to purposefully steer me to say something specific?

 

[DECK'ARD]

Honest question: are you trying to purposefully steer me to say something specific?

No, I just asked what you think of that cartoon.

It's not a trick question, we're discussing the validity of their work.

So what do you think of it?

 

[RustyNails]

I wasn't saying that, I just asked how you quantify calling them juvenile. On what grounds, why are they juvenile to you?

Because that line of criticism is common when trying to dismiss the worth of something people just don't like, and is used a LOT when it's something people find offensive.

Satire often presents it's message in childish or provocative ways, juvenile is really not a valid way to critique it unless you think they have nothing to say.

Isn't expression subjective, or is there only a fixed way to perceive satire? Something you may find mildly amusing, someone else might find unfunny, while other may find it stupid or childish. Is only your way correct?

 

[leadbelly]

Life Of Brian was called stupid and juvenile as well, in amongst all the protests, death-threats and bans.

Funny that.

Actually you made that argument before in your post with me. Now, as I said, I don't disagree with you completely, in the sense that, such a reaction by extremist Muslims is problematic in Western countries and the rest of world. It does spark a debate on such matters even if it simply asks the question what is the appropriate response to offensive material in the Muslim community. Slaughtering innocent people over these cartoons clearly isn't, and that is something that is important to tackle,

However, Life of Brian did get protests and death-threats, but what you seem to ignore is Monty Python also cut out areas of the movie because of it. I don't believe it has ever been released uncut. Life of Brian originally had anti-Zionist jokes where it depicted Zionists as like the Third Reich determined to promote racial purity.

And this is really my issue with this stance in the West. It is undermined with the selective use freedom of speech and freedom of expression. And by doing so, we're creating this perception that it is only okay if you're singling out specific group of people in society, but disgusting when doing it to others. Now you could argue, history plays a part in that to some degree, but then at the same time, the images we're talking about are blasphemous to Muslims and highly offensive. Just the same way how the Jews were depicted in the Life of Brian were.

 

[DECK'ARD]

Isn't expression subjective, or is there only a fixed way to perceive satire? Something you may find mildly amusing, someone else might find unfunny, while other may find it stupid or childish. Is only your way correct?

Being focused on just how funny something is sort of missing the point of satire.

Life Of Brian is juvenile, is it also stupid?

Juvenile is a throwaway critique, it implies something has nothing of worth to say, nothing an adult could learn from, and with satire what is being said is the point.

 

[krypt0nian]

EVERY free world paper should be running these every day now.

Take away all power from the images.

 

[RustyNails]

Being focused on just how funny something is sort of missing the point of satire.

Life Of Brian is juvenile, is it also stupid?

Juvenile is a throwaway critique, it implies something has nothing of worth to say, nothing an adult could learn from, and with satire what is being said is the point.

You didn't answer my question...

 

[Bodacious]

EVERY free world paper should be running these every day now.
.

NYT too. But hey, they ran an article describing it, so that's something. Right?

Spoiler

not really

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/13/arts/international/charlie-hebdo-staff-prepares-next-issue.html

http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/01/08/charlie-hebdo-cartoon-publication-debate/

 

[obin_gam]

NYT too. But hey, they ran an article describing it, so that's something. Right?

Spoiler

not really

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/13/arts/international/charlie-hebdo-staff-prepares-next-issue.html

http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/01/08/charlie-hebdo-cartoon-publication-debate/

It's not that they want to not-insult muslims.
They are afraid to being attacked.

 

[alatif113]

So now news agencies are cowards for not wanting to offend people?

 

[Christine]

Whether or not Charlie Hebdo is good satire doesn't really seem that important in the context of what they're doing here. A religious rule that says "don't make images of the prophet" isn't in itself a problem. The problem is a rule that says "don't allow anyone to make images of the prophet."

One could spend forever arguing that people who are not adherents to a religion have no obligation to obey its rules for behavior, but we all know that's pointless. People won't agree with you if they don't want to, even if you're right. At some point, in order to communicate that you're rejecting an assertion to authority you have to act in defiance of that claimed authority. In this case, that means publishing an image of the prophet.

 

[23qwerty]

What a sad excuse for a magazine. Why does it exist again?

 

[reckless]

So now news agencies are cowards for not wanting to offend people?

Or they say the reason is about not being offensive when they are actually scared of potential responses.

 

[DECK'ARD]

You didn't answer my question...

Because it's a shitty one.

Humour is subjective, satire though relies on what is being said as much as how it is being said. What people think of the message often colours their perception of how it is being said.

Opinions of one don't necessarily reflect the merit or quality of the other. Bad taste doesn't equal bad message, unfunny doesn't mean without point.

Stupid cartoons does them a bit of a disservice really that's all, they've definitely had very valid things to say. Whether you find them funny or agree or not.

 

[alatif113]

Or they say the reason is about not being offensive when they are actually scared of potential responses.

My apologies. Didn't know you could read minds.

 

[Agnostic]

What a sad excuse for a magazine. Why does it exist again?

Because it can exist.

 

[Bodacious]

It's not that they want to not-insult muslims.
They are afraid to being attacked.

précisément

 

[Cyan]

What a sad excuse for a magazine. Why does it exist again?

Well, not quite all of them were murdered or injured in the recent attack. So I guess that's the main reason it still exists.

 

[Christine]

The U.S. news agencies don't have a pressing need to prove that they are free to publish images of the prophet. Charlie Hebdo is in a significantly different position with respect to that question.

 

[Pegosaurus]

The right decision IMO. No reason to let these terrorists think they can accomplish anything by being terrorists.

I don't really believe it matters if anyone is offended, the real issue is that people were killed over this, and they're still standing strong against those extremists.

 

[23qwerty]

Well, not quite all of them were murdered or injured in the recent attack. So I guess that's the main reason it still exists.

That's not what I meant and you know it.
It's entire purpose seems to be to offend... why exactly? How noble of them...

 

[not psycho]

EVERY free world paper should be running these every day now.

Take away all power from the images.

I agree that would be the best, even if they also added notes saying the importance of supporting free speech outweighed the potential offensiveness. The attacks on those who publish them, and the statistics on how many people think the drawings should be punished, are both good reason to publish them as widely as possible. Religion is, and must be, a valid target of ridicule and criticism. If anyone disagrees with that, I would be genuinely interested to hear why.

In addition, you would think that religions would be tolerant of offensiveness, since religions tend to be extremely offensive themselves.

Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great.

If a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod and he dies at his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, he survives a day or two, no vengeance shall be taken; for he is his property.…

In the interest of not offending people, shouldn't religion have to be hidden from view in public?

Or is a drawing more offensive than words supporting the inferiority of women, beating women and slaves, and lack of punishment for murder of slaves if they survive a day after the beating? I mean, free speech and all, but shouldn't religious people give up their religion in the interest of not offending?

 

[reckless]

My apologies. Didn't know you could read minds.

Well here's an example from CNN's worldwide president.

"Journalistically, every bone says we want to use and should use" the images, the CNN Worldwide president said during a staff meeting on Thursday, according to a story co-bylined by the network's Reliable Sources host Brian Stelter.

Zucker added: "as managers, protecting and taking care of the safety of our employees around the world is more important right now."

Then you have things like the New York Times showing holocaust denying cartoons and cartoons with Swastikas in the past to help contextualize news stories. I think holocaust denying cartoons are more offensive then the new cover of the magazine...

Of course they aren't going to come out and say they are scared to print the cartoons.

 

[mujun]

That's not what I meant and you know it.
It's entire purpose seems to be to offend... why exactly? How noble of them...

I doubt that they go about their business with the desire to offend. They probably hope that they are provoking thought.

Whether they are doing it clumsily or not is up for debate.

How can you make people consider their beliefs if any analysis of those beliefs whatsoever is considered offensive?

 

[stufte]

That's not what I meant and you know it.
It's entire purpose seems to be to offend... why exactly? How noble of them...

To be provocative? To spark a debate? It doesn't have to be noble, and it doesn't have to be kind.

It's the kind of thing that in a perfect world may not exist. But we don't live in a perfect world, and not everyone agrees. So if you or I get to say what we want without fear of death, so should everyone else.

 

[Vice]

So now news agencies are cowards for not wanting to offend people?

Yes, if a series of cartoons are enough to inspire one of the worst terror attacks in the country then may e people should see them and judge for themselves. The American medias near constant dumbing down of important, and difficult, imagery is mostly from fear - be it financial or potential of violence.

 

[Cyan]

That's not what I meant and you know it.

Context matters.

 

[Shengar]

Richard Malka told French radio the upcoming publication will "obviously" lampoon Mohammed - among other figures - to show staff will "cede nothing" to extremists seeking to silence them.

They never considered that this action too fulfill what the extremist and radicalist want right? This action will only further rustled the sensibilities of moderate muslims worldwide, making them easier to become target for extremist recruitment and so on.

But that's what the western media want to believe I guess, and nothing to stop them. I guess I've to choose better place for my future study, now the political situation of Europe will be heavily right-wing sided.

 

[Jintor]

They never considered that this action too fulfill what the extremist and radicalist want right? This action will only further rustled the sensibilities of moderate muslims worldwide, making them easier to become target for extremist recruitment and so on.

Don't publish cartoons: violence and intimidation as a means of censorship work, driving extremism.
Publish cartoons: inflame moderates, driving extremism.

catch-22, by the sounds of it

 

[reckless]

They never considered that this action too fulfill what the extremist and radicalist want right? This action will only further rustled the sensibilities of moderate muslims worldwide, making them easier to become target for extremist recruitment and so on.

But that's what the western media want to believe I guess, and nothing to stop them. I guess I've to choose better place for my future study, now the political situation of Europe will be heavily right-wing sided.

I think that if printing some cartoons is enough to make an impact in driving someone to extremism then they were gonna end up being recruited by extremists anyway.

 

[mujun]

They never considered that this action too fulfill what the extremist and radicalist want right? This action will only further rustled the sensibilities of moderate muslims worldwide, making them easier to become target for extremist recruitment and so on.

If they are moderate shouldn't they see this for what it is?

Someone expressing their opinion.

Someone disliking ice cream doesn't detract from my ability to like ice cream.

 

[alatif113]

Yes, if a series of cartoons are enough to inspire one of the worst terror attacks in the country then may e people should see them and judge for themselves. The American medias near constant dumbing down of important, and difficult, imagery is mostly from fear - be it financial or potential of violence.

If people want to see it they can find the means to do so themselves. That doesn't mean you plaster it on the evening news for the sake of "revenge". They can report on the news without showing the image. If the agencies' true intentions were not to offend (a few posts above proved otherwise) then I would applaud them for that. That doesn't make them cowards. I'm sorry, but being offensive for the sake of being offensive is just plain stupid in my opinion, especially when you can portray the same information in a myriad of other non offensive ways.

 

[Madness]

That's not what I meant and you know it.
It's entire purpose seems to be to offend... why exactly? How noble of them...

Because they can. Their goal is to lampoon religious and political figures, to draw attention to certain ideologies, certain ideals. They exist because they weren't all killed recently and will continue to exist because there are many people who appreciate what they do or buy their content. Who decides what is offensive to someone? Either it's all offensive or none of it is.

 

[JustenP88]

I can't believe this debate still has any legs even after that cover was released. If THAT'S offensive to you, then you should move to a cave somewhere. There's no place for you in today's society.

 

[mujun]

I can't believe this debate still has any legs even after that cover was released. If THAT'S offensive to you, then you should move to a cave somewhere. There's no place for you in today's society.

Except places where you have a whole group of people around you who believe the same thing...

 

[ramuh]

Good on them. They should be able to write, draw, or whatever and publish without the threat of death hanging over them.

 

[JustenP88]

Except places where you have a whole group of people around you who believe the same thing...

There's no reason for this magazine to be in those places. The fact that people are still upset after seeing that cover only goes to show that some are practically BEGGING for something to be offended by.

 

[SolidsnackooFoxhound]

Can't believe they're gonna insult all devoted Muslims to send the middle finger to some extremist terrorists. They have no integrity.

 

[Nealand Liquor]

The saying "My freedom ends where somebody else's begins" sums exactly how I feel about this subject and the cartoons.
Not a single person is forcing anyone to read these, nor is the publisher plastering them in a mosque. At the same time nobody has the right to limit their production or distribution. Tolerance goes two ways.