• 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.

Special edition of Charlie Hebdo will feauture caricatures of Mohammed

Status
Not open for further replies.

Chariot

Member
The wrong shade of brown? lmao
He is white like Jesus and Santa. Fucking foreigners want to take away all the american icons.

I presume that they translate it in german too. I hope they sell it here. I was looking yesterday and people were already looking for it. Never saw so many people at the international press shelfs.
 
This is a new level of pedantry.
They aren't even keeping up with what they drew in 2006. Each time, there is a new drawing based on the interpretation of the artist. Not that it matters here. But I just don't it the same way.

Well, they literally don't have it since last week.
nathan-fillion-well-nevermind.gif
 
Is this whole post reverse psychology satire?
I'm being serious but I'm glad it's come across like that :).

Hell I come from a White Muslim background (Turkish) though I'm an Atheist. I wouldn't be surprised if Mohammad is pictured as White in the Turkish conciousness, just like Jesus = White in America. So Hebdo gotta get all the crayons out if they want to make me happy.
 
This was bound to happen. It had to happen. For over a decade, I've read statement from various academics and people who study future tendencies in society, that just like most other periods in history - the period that follows, tend to be the flip opposite of what we have experienced so far.
We're moving into a territory of people going to exercise their rights to free speech, to levels that would have gotten one in trouble over the last ten years(the non-offensive, people are afraid to offend society). But will this extend to social media like Twitter? I still think people are going to get in trouble and get fired, but I wonder if the counter-response will be in such a way that less people will bother. In a overflow offensive material on the net, people will de-sensitize and become passive unless it's really bad. Like it or not, I think we will see a lot more "everybody receives death threats. deal with it." < But I think this can change if policy makers remove some of peoples privacy rights on the internet, and I think this will also be one of the things that have massive consequences, like the tragedy surrounding this magazine.

I think it will bring good and bad things with it. I think there will be good, clean air, but the pendulum always swings too far, as more and more people want to jump on the fad and exercise their rights to offend. We will grow tougher as a culture, but people being offensive will also fall more on deaf ears, and some people will be hurt, while others will benefit. It's a give and take.
This period will probably take 10-15 years, and then there will be other reverse social norms, and we will again shun peoples lack of social awareness, public tact and so on.

It's basically like predicting that it's going to rain followed by sunshine. I'm just saying, that I think we're witnessing a transitional period in parts of global society. What I wonder is, if this will translate to internet culture - It's nearly impossible to measure the ramification of what offensive behavior does to us from this point of view.
I'm spending a lot of time trying to learn about the field of digital anthropology, but the field is new, and research is lacking.


We have to remember, that there is a logical push, and human beings have a need to create symbols. Buddha asked not to be drawn, carved or have made statues of himself. the very idea of worshiping an idol goes against the principle. There is not supposed to be a holy deity. One god that is above all. Everyone can be buddha. it's within yourself. But after 500 years, the wish to not be exemplified was lost, and now you see trinkets of Buddha everywhere.
I think people can't take their head out of the cookie jar, and the more you make a thing taboo, regardless of what it is, the more it will reach a boiling point eventually, and society will be forced to deal with it.
We're beginning to wrap our heads around homosexuality, and next up will be recreational drugs, the true story of hemp vs cotton and the rights of transsexuals, violence against men & rape in prisons, and maybe even one day pedophelia.


That's a lot of speculation! But I think this is the beginning of a change in attitude. / ramblings
 

Funky Papa

FUNK-Y-PPA-4
They aren't even keeping up with what they drew in 2006. Each time, there is a new drawing based on the interpretation of the artist. Not that it matters here. But I just don't it the same way.
Precisely?

It's not like we have photos of Mohammed in arabic garb. Each artists is thus left to their own interpretation of the character, as it has been forever.
 

rambis

Banned
Don't know if more offensive caricatures will exactly solve anything. But as a publication like this I guess your avenues are limited.
 

KingSnake

The Birthday Skeleton
Changing now the profile of the magazine or censuring the caricatures more will mean that they practically surrendered to the will of the terrorists. And will only encourage more terror acts in the future, just because it worked. So the magazine should keep being what it was before and people are free to buy it or not.
 

Chariot

Member
Don't know if more offensive caricatures will exactly solve anything. But as a publication like this I guess your avenues are limited.
What are they going to solve? The thing is to continue to show the whole world that political critique of any form, even provocative satire won't be stopped by violence. It's a point for free speech against oppression.
We can of course talk about certain hypocrisy and how good Charlie Hebdo's satire actually is. But that's not the core point. What's important is that there was an attack on free speech and that the victim of said attack (Charlie Hebdo as a whole and in some way the entire democratic west due all the support) will not kneel before this attack.
 

Drifters

Junior Member
In reading through some of this thread, I'm trying to figure out what is OK by the thought police, let me get this straight:

- Charlie Hebdo shouldn't incite anymore violence by publishing more cartoons. (Think about that one for a minute...)
- They are cashing in on the deaths of their employees by doing so. (Really?)
- Mohammad (may he rest in peace) cannot nor should not be pictured in any way, shape or form due to that being a blasphemy to the religion of Islam. However, what about those who do not adhere to Islam? (serious question by the way)
 

ZehDon

Member
...- Mohammad (may he rest in peace) cannot nor should not be pictured in any way, shape or form due to that being a blasphemy to the religion of Islam. However, what about those who do not adhere to Islam? (serious question by the way)
In my opinion, that's kind of the crux of the problem. Charlie Hebdo wasn't an Islamic publication (not that being one would justify the attack) who agreed to operate under some set of rules, that they then broke. In this situation, Islamic extremists quite literally forced their beliefs, and the rules for going against those beliefs, onto other people who have made it quite clear that they are not interested in adhering to said beliefs. People are free, and should remain free, to believe in whatever they want. With that in mind, if one's beliefs entail "punish everyone, regardless of their beliefs, in accordance with our beliefs", I think eventually you're going to witness the allegorical immoveable object meet the unstoppable force. And I think it's fairly obvious which one is going to have to give first. I think the wider Islamic population is going to have to accept more progressive ideals in order to operate in a global society, and unfortunately I don't believe this process is going to be a peaceful one, given what we're already seeing. I'm not really sure where we go from here.
 

Drifters

Junior Member
In my opinion, that's kind of the crux of the problem. Charlie Hebdo wasn't an Islamic publication (not that being one would justify the attack) who agreed to operate under some set of rules, that they then broke. In this situation, Islamic extremists quite literally forced their beliefs, and the rules for going against those beliefs, onto other people who have made it quite clear that they are not interested in adhering to said beliefs. People are free, and should remain free, to believe in whatever they want. With that in mind, if one's beliefs entail "punish everyone, regardless of their beliefs, in accordance with our beliefs", I think eventually you're going to witness the allegorical immoveable object meet the unstoppable force. And I think it's fairly obvious which one is going to have to give first. I think the wider Islamic population is going to have to accept more progressive ideals in order to operate in a global society, and unfortunately I don't believe this process is going to be a peaceful one, given what we're already seeing. I'm not really sure where we go from here.

Which really is the crux of this whole debate; Ideals from one ideology are non-transferable to those outside of it. I'm not saying that what Hebdo is doing is right, however on the scale of human history, I'm trying to grasp (as you pointed out) what is next in the evolution of mankind dealing with subjects such as this.
 
People talk about freedom of speech, but to me it just seems like its a common courtesy not to depict Muhammad. Islamic art doesn't do representations of people, that person especially. Google Islamic art, and all youll see are those patterns. That's art to them.

I remember learning this when I was quite young, and found it interesting. How different cultures view art and representation, how representations can be considered sacrosanct. It's like they see a kind of power in representation that we just don't see in the West. In the West we've gotten to the point that almost nothing has power or meaning.

I just think it's kind of classless not to respect that, and for people wanting these images to by published everywhere and pushed in muslims' faces, that's just really dumb.

Nothing can justify the violence in response to it by a couple of crazies, but yeah, that's my opinion.
 

Kezen

Banned
- Mohammad (may he rest in peace) cannot nor should not be pictured in any way, shape or form due to that being a blasphemy to the religion of Islam.
France is not islamic therefore the prophet can totally be caricatured, mocked, ridiculed.
Muslims of France have to understand that their religious laws do not apply here, they do not have a special status that prevents anyone from taking making fun of their beliefs.

They'll be caricatured like everyone else.
 

Jb

Member
People talk about freedom of speech, but to me it just seems like its a common courtesy not to depict Muhammad..

Why would you ever expect a satirical newspaper to be diplomatic and tactful? That's literally the opposite of what they are, what they're supposed to be.
 

KingSnake

The Birthday Skeleton
France is not islamic therefore the prophet can totally be caricatured, mocked, ridiculed.

This is practically the whole point. I really feel like we are missing here the other side of the tolerance. When you live in a country that has a different culture and different principles than the ones promoted by your religion you should respect those principle and that culture as much as the country should respect your religion and your culture. Nothing should be imposed to the others from both sides.
 
Why would you ever expect a satirical newspaper to be diplomatic and tactful? That's literally the opposite of what they are, what they're supposed to be.

Well this magazine in particular I guess. Ironically, it really seems like a truly awful publication.

But I still think there is case to be made for cultural sensitivity, even where satire is involved. It doesn't really cost anything. With Islam and its view on art, you really have a special and very specific case. And France has a large muslim population
 

Siegcram

Member
Well this magazine in particular I guess. Ironically, it really seems like a truly awful publication.

But I still think there is case to be made for cultural sensitivity, even where satire is involved. It doesn't really cost anything. With Islam and its view on art, you really have a special and very specific case.
I don't think you understand satire.
 

Kezen

Banned
This is practically the whole point. I really feel like we are missing here the other side of the tolerance. When you live in a country that has a different culture and different principles than the ones promoted by your religion you should respect those principle and that culture as much as the country should respect your religion and your culture. Nothing should be imposed to the others from both sides.

Caricature should not subordinate to the concept of tolerance.
Charlie Hebdo's mantra is not to be sensible, I don't really like their humor most of the time but that's their right and it must be preserved no matter some Muslims zealots trying to shut them down.
 
I don't think you understand satire.

No, I do, and I understand that nothing should be off limits, but again, it if it truly is so offensive to others, the ultimate taboo, maybe cultural sensitivity should win out.

As strongly as I value both freedom of speech and satire, and even though their view on art and representation is not something I fully understand, I'm happy to respect it.
 

coleco

Member
No, I do, and I understand that nothing should be off limits, but again, it if it truly is so offensive to others, the ultimate taboo, maybe cultural sensitivity should win out.

As strongly as I value both freedom of speech and satire, and even though their view on art and representation is not something I fully understand, I'm happy to respect it.

Maybe having taboos is truly offensive to french people and cultural sensitivity should win out since they are in France.
 
I remember learning this when I was quite young, and found it interesting. How different cultures view art and representation, how representations can be considered sacrosanct. It's like they see a kind of power in representation that we just don't see in the West. In the West we've gotten to the point that almost nothing has power or meaning.

I just think it's kind of classless not to respect that, and for people wanting these images to by published everywhere and pushed in muslims' faces, that's just really dumb.

Why would it be classless? It's none of a non-muslim's business. North Korea requires everyone to bow in front of a Kim Il-sung statue, is it classless if I don't do it?
 

KingSnake

The Birthday Skeleton
Caricature should not subordinate to the concept of tolerance.
Charlie Hebdo's mantra is not to be sensible, I don't really like their humor most of the time but that's their right and it must be preserved no matter some Muslims zealots trying to shut them down.

You misunderstood me. I'm not talking about caricatures, please read again. The western society has learned (and it was not easy and it's not fully done) to accept different cultures. Now it's time for the reverse tolerance. People need to accept the values from the society they live in, even if they are contradicting their religion.

Any magazine that it's not mandatory to buy it's not imposed on the others, that's quite obvious.
 

Siegcram

Member
No, I do, and I understand that nothing should be off limits, but again, it if it truly is so offensive to others, the ultimate taboo, maybe cultural sensitivity should win out.
Who is more cultural insensitive? A cartoonist or someone who acts violently in the face of perceived cultural transgressions? It isn't an ultimate taboo. It's an arbitrary rule imposed by an arbitrary belief system, "enforced" by fundamentalists.
They aren't the one who get to dictate what's off limits to every and all media.

As strongly as I value both freedom of speech and satire, and even though their view on art and representation is not something I fully understand, I'm happy to respect it.
If you don't understand something, you're unable to respect it. And even if you do, you're under no obligation to. Even more so if you're not even muslim.
 

Addi

Member
A digital version of the magazine will be released on Thursday in French, English, Arabic and Spanish according to Canal+
 

EvilFiek

Neo Member
In my opinion, that's kind of the crux of the problem. Charlie Hebdo wasn't an Islamic publication (not that being one would justify the attack) who agreed to operate under some set of rules, that they then broke. In this situation, Islamic extremists quite literally forced their beliefs, and the rules for going against those beliefs, onto other people who have made it quite clear that they are not interested in adhering to said beliefs. People are free, and should remain free, to believe in whatever they want. With that in mind, if one's beliefs entail "punish everyone, regardless of their beliefs, in accordance with our beliefs", I think eventually you're going to witness the allegorical immoveable object meet the unstoppable force. And I think it's fairly obvious which one is going to have to give first. I think the wider Islamic population is going to have to accept more progressive ideals in order to operate in a global society, and unfortunately I don't believe this process is going to be a peaceful one, given what we're already seeing. I'm not really sure where we go from here.

The core idea behind the ban on pictures of Mohammed is that Muslims should not worship idols etc., they should only worship Allah. Therefore, if a non-Muslim makes a caricature, I don't see how that interferes with the picture ban. It's not as if caricatures have the potential to be seen as objects of worship.
 

Kezen

Banned
You misunderstood me. I'm not talking about caricatures, please read again. The western society has learned (and it was not easy and it's not fully done) to accept different cultures. Now it's time for the reverse tolerance. People need to accept the values from the society they live in, even if they are contradicting their religion.

Any magazine that it's not mandatory to buy it's not imposed on the others, that's quite obvious.

My apologies, I read too fast. We actually are in agreement.
 
Who is more cultural insensitive? A cartoonist or someone who acts violently in the face of perceived cultural transgressions?

Clearly the latter, but people seem quite keen to push these cartoons in the face of muslims everywhere, not just the two scumbags who shot the place up. There's no good reason to want to stick it to other muslims because of what these gunmen did.

Maybe having taboos is truly offensive to french people and cultural sensitivity should win out since they are in France.

You have a point. France has its own views on satire and representation. And the muslims who live there should perhaps abide by French norms. But maybe it's not that easy for them to turn their feelings about it on and off. Maybe the response to it is quite visceral. Because it means something. From our perspective, it just seems like they're precious douches choosing to be offended. But there might be more to it than that.
 

Jb

Member
Well this magazine in particular I guess. Ironically, it really seems like a truly awful publication.

How the fuck can you even say that when your clearly know fuck all about what Charlie Hebdo has been for decades and represents in France?
People passing judgement on things they know jack shit about. Jesus if only people would just shut up when they have nothing interesting to add because they're ignorant about the topic at hand, the quality of the conversation would surge dramatically.
 

M3d10n

Member
To you may be it's a simple drawing, but not to hundreds of millions of muslims, may be more, who don't support the killing but don't want to see their beloved prophet being drawn like that.
The beloved prophet didn't want to be beloved, apparently, since he went as far as forbidding depictions of himself in order to prevent any worship towards his person. But it apparently wasn't enough since some people love him so much they are willing to kill for his honor.
 

Irminsul

Member
By the way, my local (i. e., German) train station bookshop who usually gets three copies of Charlie Hebdo now has had over 1,000 calls about when the next issue arrives. Quite funny.
 

KingSnake

The Birthday Skeleton
The taste of the magazine is irrelevant, unless you plan to buy it.

Speaking of which, where is the online edition going to be available, any ideas?
 

Siegcram

Member
Clearly the latter, but people seem quite keen to push these cartoons in the face of muslims everywhere, not just the two scumbags who shot the place up. There's no good reason to want to stick it to other muslims because of what these gunmen did.
It's a print magazine. They're not dropping that shit from planes over Saudi Arabia.

That this particular issue is everywhere is solely to blame on the two terrorists and the backlash against their stupidity.
 

Addi

Member
The taste of the magazine is irrelevant, unless you plan to buy it.

Speaking of which, where is the online edition going to be available, any ideas?

They said it was a first for the magazine so they must be figuring that out right now, but I'm guessing their website? we'll see
 
Siné Mensuel (monthly magazine founded by former Charlie Hebdo cartoonist Siné after they fired him) will publish a special issue:

capture_decran_2015-01-13_a_10.09.38.png


"Buy Charlie"
 

nOoblet16

Member
The only ignorant (lol) part I see is the wrong headdress which is more of a Persian/Afghan style, Arabs wear something completely different. It's not racist but it's conflating vastly different parts of the Muslim world.

Also it's unlikely Mohammed was this brown, this will be up to personal perception of course but to me he looks like an Indian in these cartoons.

Indians can be fair skinned too (look at me) and Arabs can be dark skinned too you know, especially an Arab who was from a nomadic culture like Muhammad.
But more importantly, this is all trivial here.
 
How the fuck can you even say that when your clearly know fuck all about what Charlie Hebdo has been for decades and represents in France?
People passing judgement on things they know jack shit about. Jesus if only people would just shut up when they have nothing interesting to add because they're ignorant about the topic at hand, the quality of the conversation would surge dramatically.

Some of the cartoons I've seen speak for themselves. I don't like them.

It's a print magazine. They're not dropping that shit from planes over Saudi Arabia.

That this particular issue is everywhere is solely to blame on the two terrorists and the backlash against their stupidity.

I'm referring more to some of the posters in this thread, who I think would be quite happy if they were dropping it from planes all over the Middle East. I just don't agree with this kind of sentiment, of wanting to stick it to muslims everywhere.
 

Mimosa97

Member
This comment ( found here https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/01/09/solidarity-charlie-hebdo-cartoons/ ) nails it

-Mona- 12 Jan 2015 at 10:34 pm
A battle rages among liberal and left-tilting people over the Charlie Hebdo cartoons that blaspheme Mohammed. For some, CH is wrong to lampoon a religious figure held sacred by an oppressed minority; to do so constitutes &#8220;punching down.&#8221; Moreover, many on the left have entirely misinterpreted some CH cartoons, due to a lack of familiarity with: idiomatic French, CH&#8217;s usual MO, French politics, and also the long tradition of a French culture that considers aggressive secularism necessary for their &#8220;fraternite.&#8221; (3 citations omitted b/c TI software sucks.)

Many leftist Americans are parsing the CH cartoons thru the lens of standard right-wing and Zionist Islamophobia. They lack all understanding that the French tradition of anti-religion and blasphemy is in the political DNA of the country of 1789, Voltaire and Diderot. To the French &#8212; and CB is written by and for the French &#8212; anti-religion and blasphemy are part of their anarchist cri de coeur: &#8220;Ni Dieu, ni maître!&#8221;

For the French, with so many stories in the news about bad acts by Muslim extremists, it would be positively unFrench not to apply their legendary contempt for religion to Islam. I wouldn&#8217;t, because I&#8217;m American and understand, as many of us do, that we only &#8220;punch up.&#8221; But CB doesn&#8217;t see it that way when it comes to mocking religion. Any religion.

For CH, there is no contradiction between strongly opposing discrimination against Arabs and Muslims, as it does, on the one hand, and ridiculing one of the world&#8217;s great religions, Islam, as they also do. Muslims may see a huge contradiction; we non-Muslim left-wing Yanks may see it as well. So then let&#8217;s dialogue with CH about that, but let us not attribute to it racism and ugliness that it does not &#8212; emphatically does not &#8212; stand for. They just lost TWELVE of their friends and colleagues, and misunderstanding from those who should support them is, at best, a cruel irony.

Finally, Charlie Hebdo suddenly has some strange new friends, for a magazine as far left as it has always been. Very strange indeed. That&#8217;s because a lot of Zionists, fascists and wingnuts are also misreading the magazine &#8212; or at least exploiting its tragedy for their own vile ends. I&#8217;ll let a Charlie Hebdo cartoonist who survived, Bernard Holtrop &#8212; whose pen name is Willem &#8212; give the reader a sense of how CB feels about these folks:

&#8220;We vomit on all these people who suddenly say they are our friends.&#8221;
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom