Support NeoGAF

[1.21Gigawatts]

Its hilarious how someone actually think this might be a right-wing cartoon.

Not even Hitler himself would have used dead children to promote racism.. are people really this dense?

Which kinda proves my point that this cartoon isn't a good depiction of the thought process of racists, since some here claim thats the message of the cartoon.

 

[DOWN]

Mind blowing how many on GAF misread these

They are saying it's ridiculous not to help the dying innocent immigrant victims because you are painting them with fear in the media using only the criminal example

But hey, maybe I'm wrong and Hebdo isn't a satire paper

 

[1.21Gigawatts]

You called it pure racism, why is it pure racism?

I already explained that in my first post here.

"lol, immigrants are monkey-like* rapists. We're better off when they land dead on european shores"

*I would probably change that to "pig-like" because the nose in the cartoon looks more like a pigs nose, but the head is monkey-ish.

 

[DOWN]

I already explained that in my first post here.


*I would probably change that to "pig-like" because the nose in the cartoon looks more like a pigs nose, but the head is monkey-ish.

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of satire. You're that guy who read the most famous satire piece ever, "A Modest Proposal" and took it literally with disgust.

 

[Gruso]

I see it as commentary on how quickly popular opinion changes from somewhat sympathetic to absolutely intolerant.

Bang on. It's a jab at the outpouring of a grief over the image of a dead child, which was followed by the widely held sentiment that "yeah, but we don't want the adults here."

It's confronting and exploitative, but so is mainstream media on these issues every day, and no one takes them to task on it. The cartoon holds a mirror up to the shifting sands of mob opinion, and it cuts right to the bone. Of course it's unpleasant.

I'm stunned that so many people lack the critical thought to see what's being said.

 

[1.21Gigawatts]

Mind blowing how many on GAF misread these

They are saying it's ridiculous not to help the dying innocent immigrant victims because you are painting them with fear in the media.

But hey, maybe I'm wrong and Hebdo isn't a satire paper

And yet another interpretation on what the cartoons message might actually be. Based purely on fact that its a Charlie Hebdo cartoon and not on its content...

Isn't that a sign how terrible and shallow the satire is when the content doesn't matter but only the source?

 

[ghostjoke]

Isn't that a sign how terrible and shallow the satire is when the content doesn't matter but only the source?

Can you please stop advocating for ignorance to a situation as a virtue?

 

[Real Hero]

Isn't that a sign how terrible and shallow the satire is when the content doesn't matter but only the source?

It's only terrible when you twist it into fitting your claims of racism when it's clearly not racist at all.

 

[LaserBuddha]

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of satire. You're that guy who read the most famous satire piece ever, "A Modest Proposal" and took it literally with disgust.

Well all A Modest Proposal did was state a bunch of ugly ideas without ever identifying itself as satire. Sorry but that's not how it works!

 

[Siegcram]

In that case it also failed miserably, because the racist logic regarding the boy was(and thats always the obvious route the far right takes) coming up with a conspiracy theory.
If this cartoon is supposed to anticipate the right wing/racist arguments then it failed.
Their reaction to what happened in Köln was a "told you so"-dance. They felt reassured.
There is a whole lot going on on right right now, but what the cartoon depicted isn't it.

What's going on is that the initial "all are welcome" mentality and willingness of the public to help refugees has done a 180 in the light of the events in Köln.

The cartoon depicts said change by using the picture of the dead child, formerly a symbol for the humanitarian challenge this crisis respresents, as being overshadowed and drowned out by the very people you're mentioning doing the dancing. And why people are idiots by falling for that.

It does so in such outstanding clarity that even without the notice at the top of the page I'd expect 9th graders to analyze it in class, not grown adults struggling to even comprehend it. Whether or not the exact sentiment has been uttered by someone in a non-satiric context is as irrelevant as whether you perceive it as funny.

 

[Mr Waluigi]

And yet another interpretation on what the cartoons message might actually be. Based purely on fact that its a Charlie Hebdo cartoon and not on its content...

Isn't that a sign how terrible and shallow the satire is when the content doesn't matter but only the source?

... Have you ever seen any satirical cartoon (nevermind, satirical anything) that worked without context?

For a religious example: Jesus said he came not to bring peace but a sword. That alone is a rather violent and aggressive statement, except it makes sense in context and the shocking aspect of it is to trigger a strong reaction and ponder the sense of the context surrounding it in the first place.

Honestly... are you the sort of person who gets heavily offended at the excessive use of swear words by certain communities? Or who refuses to read literary classics like Voltaire's Candide?

 

[Clockwork5]

Well all A Modest Proposal did was state a bunch of ugly ideas without ever identifying itself as satire. Sorry but that's not how it works!

What? Satire cannot expose itself or else it loses its effectiveness.

That is why I think using a dead child as the subject is a bit insensitive. Not everyone sees the "correct" interpretation of the ambiguity.

 

[1.21Gigawatts]

It's only terrible when you twist it into fitting your claims of racism when it's clearly not racist at all.

Okay, just to recap.
-Some people here say the cartoon is supposed to depict the racist thought process of a racist and thereby expose it.
-You say the cartoon doesn't depict anything racist at all.
-Someone said the cartoon shows the swift change from compassion to hate in the public.

I think this shows pretty clearly that the actual cartoon isn't the reason why people are sensing satire. They just read that its by Charlie Hebdo and then try to come up with whatever satirical message might be conveyed here, because its Charlie Hebdo, so there has to be one.

In my opinion, thats failed satire.

Can you please stop advocating for ignorance to a situation as a virtue?

Nah, I'm still hoping Charlie Hebdo is just putting this shit out there as part of a satire stunt to show how ridiculous it is that people will defend anything, because satire...

 

[OverBlood 3]

Okay, just to recap.
-Some people here say the cartoon is supposed to depict the racist thought process of a racist and thereby expose it.
-You say the cartoon doesn't depict anything racist at all.
-Someone said the cartoon shows the swift change from compassion to hate in the public.

I think this shows pretty clearly that the actual cartoon isn't the reason why people are sensing satire. They just read that its by Charlie Hebdo and then try to come up with whatever satirical message might be conveyed here, because its Charlie Hebdo, so there has to be one.

In my opinion, thats failed satire.



Nah, I'm still hoping Charlie Hebdo is just putting this shit out there as part of a satire stunt to show how ridiculous it is that people will defend anything, because satire...

How long have you been an expert on satire? Where can I read your works?

 

[LaserBuddha]

What? Satire cannot expose itself or else it loses its effectiveness.

That is why I think using a dead child as the subject is a bit insensitive. Not everyone sees the "correct" interpretation of the ambiguity.

I know, I'm satirizing another poster with that post.

I N C E P T I O N

Satire loses its teeth as soon we try to account for whatever percent of the population will always not get it and will turn away with hurt feelings. Also the French would probably give less of a fuck about that than most. I dont think anyone who reads Charlie Hebdo wont get it, and I honestly don't think people who come across a picture on the internet should matter to them.

 

[Mr Waluigi]

What? Satire cannot expose itself or else it loses its effectiveness.

That is why I think using a dead child as the subject is a bit insensitive. Not everyone sees the "correct" interpretation of the ambiguity.

It's a resonating image in a wave of important current social events.
When Christiane Taubira was called a monkey by the far-right parties (it was that, right?) and Charlie Hebdo mocked the absurdity of the situation by effectively drawing her as a monkey, it caused debate but the how and why of it wasn't ambiguous at all. Obviously it wouldn't do its job very well at all if the situational aspect was completely displaced (it IS a drawing of a black person as a monkey...), and this is true for this cartoon too. I can understand why Americans would feel some ambiguity but does anyone in Europe actually not understand what point it's trying to make?

 

[Siegcram]

Okay, just to recap.
-Some people here say the cartoon is supposed to depict the racist thought process of a racist and thereby expose it.
-You say the cartoon doesn't depict anything racist at all.
-Someone said the cartoon shows the swift change from compassion to hate in the public.

I think this shows pretty clearly that the actual cartoon isn't the reason why people are sensing satire. They just read that its by Charlie Hebdo and then try to come up with whatever satirical message might be conveyed here, because its Charlie Hebdo, so there has to be one.

In my opinion, thats failed satire.

Point 1 and 3 are the same and in the context of the page and the magazine as a whole, point 2 is also correct.

Disregarding that the notion that satire has to have an unanimous interpretation to be designated as such is utterly false to begin with.

 

[Kid Kamikaze10]

Satire is a witty social critique tool, but when your fans are then taking it upon themselves to harass and insult the intellect of those you are "defending" to protect your product, meanwhile the actual targets are just critiqued. I think you need to ask how effective it is.

It's not meant to cater to your entitlement, but stir debate and foster forward movement in discourse. Not a discussion of your methodology.


But alas, it's probably a lost in translation issue. And I don't bother with Charlie Hebdo anyway. Not a fan, and I feel there's better satire elsewhere.

 

[Clockwork5]

I know, I'm satirizing another poster with that post.

I N C E P T I O N

Satire loses its teeth as soon we try to account for whatever percent of the population will always not get it and will turn away with hurt feelings. Also the French would probably give less of a fuck about that than most. I dont think anyone who reads Charlie Hebdo wont get it, and I honestly don't think people who come across a picture on the internet should matter to them.

You got me. Or maybe you didn't. Failed/genius satire and whatnot.

 

[1.21Gigawatts]

How long have you been an expert on satire? Where can I read your works?

How about you attack my point(you didn't quote it just to ignore it, did you?) instead of attacking me?

Point 1 and 3 are the same and in the context of the page and the magazine as a whole, point 2 is also correct.

Disregarding that the notion that satire has to have an unanimous interpretation to be designated as such is utterly false to begin with.

Point 2 directly contradicts 1 and 3. If 2 is correct, 1 and 3 are false.
1 and 3 are also not the same, but entirely different.
One is about the alleged thoughts of racists, the other is about the flip-flopping nature of public opinion.

I'm not saying that interpretation of satire is automatically a bad thing, my point is that interpretation in this case is caused by the lack substance in the cartoon. People guess what it might mean because they know it has to be satire because its by Charlie Hebdo.
They aren't intrigued by the complex meaning of the cartoon and try to analyze it.
Thatswhy I'm saying it failed.

 

[ghostjoke]

Okay, just to recap.
-Some people here say the cartoon is supposed to depict the racist thought process of a racist and thereby expose it.
-You say the cartoon doesn't depict anything racist at all.
-Someone said the cartoon shows the swift change from compassion to hate in the public.

I think this shows pretty clearly that the actual cartoon isn't the reason why people are sensing satire. They just read that its by Charlie Hebdo and then try to come up with whatever satirical message might be conveyed here, because its Charlie Hebdo, so there has to be one.

In my opinion, thats failed satire.

Nah, I'm still hoping Charlie Hebdo is just putting this shit out there as part of a satire stunt to show how ridiculous it is that people will defend anything, because satire...

Four questions:
1) How exactly does one depict racism without using racism?
2) Do you take everything at face value? How exactly do you distinguish satire then? I'm genuinely curious. Do you need a nudge, nudge, wink, wink?
3) You seem to want it to be a post-modern statement, but that requires looking beyond face value, so how is this baseline satire so hard to understand? (okay, this one is rhetorical)
4) Do you think the Irish should have sold their children to the rich as food to ease their financial burden?

 

[MMaRsu]

We can absolutely be upset at cartoons, especially ones as disgusting as this one. It's for sure 150% not ok to kill people over cartoons, but it's perfect fine to be upset at a cartoon depicting Muslim immigrants as molestors, and use a dead child to prove your point.

It's the exact same as if the US had cartoons depicting a dead child as a terrorist or something.

But its satire. It pokes fun at the enormous media hype by leftwing german media who made a show and set this kid as an example of the types of refugees.

Sadly there are a lot of rapist and molesters among the refugees. And yes they are muslim.

The dead child is not to prove a point but its a great cartoon imo. Sadly people just think there is no problem letting in thousands of people who are brainwashed by a backwards thinking, female unfriendly religion and region.

Not saying all muslims are rapist or have backwards thinking, but the group who terrorized and molested ppl in Köln most certainly do.

 

[OverBlood 3]

How about you attack my point(you didn't quote it just to ignore it, did you?) instead of attacking me?

Never.

You haven't made a coherent point yet.

 

[1.21Gigawatts]

Four questions:
1) How exactly does one depict racism without using racism?

Ask the guy who thinks the cartoon doesn't depict anything racist at all(Real Hero)

2) Do you take everything at face value? How exactly do you distinguish satire then? I'm genuinely curious. Do you need a nudge, nudge, wink, wink?

There are plenty of indicators for satire. The only one here is sadly the tag of the creator and in my opinion thats not enough.
None of the(contradicting) intepretations I heard here made much sense to me.

3) You seem to want it to be a post-modern statement, but that requires looking beyond face value, so how is this baseline satire so hard to understand? (okay, this one is rhetorical)

A "post-modern statement"? whats that even supposed to mean?
I just want it to convey a smart message. Just printing a racist cartoon and saying "Look! Its satire!" is neither smart nor funny.

4) Do you think the Irish should have sold their children to the rich as food to ease their financial burden?

As far as I know they actually did.

But its satire. It pokes fun at the enormous media hype by leftwing german media who made a show and set this kid as an example of the types of refugees.

Sadly there are a lot of rapist and molesters among the refugees. And yes they are muslim.

The dead child is not to prove a point but its a great cartoon imo. Sadly people just think there is no problem letting in thousands of people who are brainwashed by a backwards thinking, female unfriendly religion and region.

Not saying all muslims are rapist or have backwards thinking, but the group who terrorized and molested ppl in Köln most certainly do.

Thats another interpretation yet again.



Slowly but surely I start to think that the cartoon lacks substance on purpose so that everyone can just project their own prefered message into it.
That would be brillant.

 

[Siegcram]

Point 2 directly contradicts 1 and 3. If 2 is correct, 1 and 3 are false.
1 and 3 are also not the same, but entirely different.
One is about the alleged thoughts of racists, the other is about the flip-flopping nature of public opinion.

I'm not saying that interpretation of satire is automatically a bad thing, my point is that interpretation in this case is caused by the lack substance in the cartoon. People guess what it might mean because they know it has to be satire because its by Charlie Hebdo.
They aren't intrigued by the complex meaning of the cartoon and try to analyze it.
Thatswhy I'm saying it failed.

Depiciting racism in a satiric manner doesn't make something racist in and of itself. So taken as a whole the cartoon doesn't depict something racist. Ergo point 2 is valid.
The other two points don't contardict themselves, if anything they show the extreme view, which may be held by some or serve as a hyperbolic stand-in for the people getting swayed by right-wing demagogues in the wake of NYE to a lesser degree, but swayed nonetheless.

And as you can see in this very thread, many people are indeed able to analyze and interpret this cartoon and illustrate their findings with more evidence than simply saying "it's in CH, must be satire". You have yet to do the same to back up your claim of it "failing".

And your continuing line of argument that multiple interpretations show something "lacks substance" would suggest maybe you should stop judging art altogether.

 

[LaserBuddha]

Depiciting racism in a satiric manner doesn't make something racist in and of itself. So taken as a whole the cartoon doesn't depict something racist. Ergo point 2 is valid.
The other two points don't contardict themselves, if anything they show the extreme view, which may be held by some or serve as a hyperbolic stand-in for the people getting swayed by right-wing demagogues in the wake of NYE to a lesser degree, but swayed nonetheless.

And as you can see in this very thread, many people are indeed able to analyze and interpret this cartoon and illustrate their findings with more evidence than simply saying "it's in CH, must be satire". You have yet to the same to back up your claim of it "failing".

And your continuing line of argument that multiple interpretations show something "lacks substance" would suggest maybe you stop judging art alltogether.

When he acknowledges that knowing who printed provides clarity, he says in the same breath that it is not enough for him. He doesn't want to understand it, even once he does:

There are plenty of indicators for satire. The only one here is sadly the tag of the creator and in my opinion thats not enough.

And I guess it doesn't matter that this is a small print run weekly paper with a decades-long readership and their goal wasn't to disseminate a singular image across the world for everyone to immediately understand without any knowledge of CH or French satire. God forbid we give them credit for the ACTUAL, undeniable context that accompanies these cartoons.

 

[ghostjoke]

.

Depicting racism =/= racism. Here's something I never thought I'd have to explain, but here we are.

Nice no answer. You know what the biggest indicator of satire is? A magazine that is listed as a satirical magazine.

No one is claiming Charlie Hebdo is smart (I hope), which makes the inability for people to easily grasp this all the more tragic.

I can confirm the vast majority of us didn't. We are quite proud of Mr. Swift as a matter of fact, but then again we also grasp basic satire and didn't lynch him on the spot.

The way your brain works is fascinating.

 

[Siegcram]

Morris, Juvenal or Voltaire would positively break some people in here.

 

[LaserBuddha]

Also Gigawat, you went on and on about how racist this cartoon itself was, and then when someone says "It's not a racist cartoon, it depicts the thoughts of racist people" you try to counter with "So you're saying this cartoon doesn't depict anything racist, so how is it depicting racist thoughts huh?"

Try to argue honestly, please. I don't believe for a second you think a cartoon being racist and a cartoon tackling racism are the same thing.

 

[CyclopsRock]

And here we go for another round of "I don't understand satire, therefore I am offended; but I definitely won't take a minute to think about the issue it's addressing, because why would I want to attempt to tackle a serious issue happening in the world when I can go after the low hanging fruit of a shitty comic strip". This is not a hard thing to understand if you have any inkling of the current climate in Europe. It's maddening about how this will probably generate more "discussion" on the internet than the actual hate going on.

Further to this, satire in general (though admittedly less so with cartoons) is so intrinsically linked with the specific language used - it is often a specific play on words or riff on a popular idiom or cultural saying - that people reading translations and interpreting the satire via that can't possibly get the intended meaning, whether they end up liking it or not. In other words, I think it's hard to meaningfully critique Charlie Hebdo's work unless you actually speak fluent French.

 

[1.21Gigawatts]

Depiciting racism in a satiric manner doesn't make something racist in and of itself. So taken as a whole the cartoon doesn't depict something racist.

Yet again, the only distinguishing factor is the creator. Thats not enough in my book.
If this cartoon would have been shown anywhere else people wouldn't think twice about its racist nature.

Question is: If someone is not racist and says something racist, does that make the statement not racist, or does its make the person who said it racist?

Spoiler

Answer: Depends.

The other two points don't contardict themselves, if anything they show the extreme view, which may be held by some or serve as a hyperbolic stand-in for the people getting swayed by right-wing demagogues in the wake of NYE to a lesser degree, but swayed nonetheless.

They don't contradict, but its two entirely different points.
Anticipating potential arguments of right wing extremists and showing the flip-flopping nature of public opinion don't have much in common in my opinion.

And as you can see in this very thread, many people are indeed able to analyze and interpret this cartoon and illustrate their findings with more evidence than simply saying "it's in CH, must be satire". You have yet to the same to back up your claim of it "failing".

The only one who actually refered to something in the cartoon was the guy who said that its satire because the dead kid is in a bubble and its says "butt-grabbing" instead of just "molesting".

Everyone else just stated their interpretation without referencing specific parts of the cartoon.
And honestly, I don't think there is much you could reference, because, as I said in my last post, the cartoon has very little substance.

And I guess it doesn't matter that this is a small print run weekly paper with a decades-long readership and their goal wasn't to disseminate a singular image across the world for everyone to immediately understand without any knowledge of CH or French satire. God forbid we give them credit for the ACTUAL, undeniable context that accompanies these cartoons.

But my point is that its weak satire if the the content is so shallow and irrelevant that the creator is the deciding factor.

Thats what critics are saying. They aren't saying CH is racist. They are saying this piece of satire is bad.

Nice no answer. You know what the biggest indicator of satire is? A magazine that is listed as a satirical magazine.

Yeah, that one again.

No one is claiming Charlie Hebdo is smart (I hope)

Then this whole thing is a non issue.
People criticise CH for its poor work on this cartoon(free speech also means that you can tell other people when what they did is shit) and others defend them by saying that they're known for that.(free speech also means that you are allowed to make shit and people are allowed to like it)


In that case, both sides are right.
From the ones sides view it makes no sense to criticise CH's cartoons, because thats just what they do and whoever doesn't like it should just not read it.
The other side is right to criticise these cartoons because afterall they are public and everyone has a right to have on opinion on them.

Also Gigawat, you went on and on about how racist this cartoon itself was, and then when someone says "It's not a racist cartoon, it depicts the thoughts of racist people" you try to counter with "So you're saying this cartoon doesn't depict anything racist, so how is it depicting racist thoughts huh?"

But thats no what Real Hero said.
Real Hero never said that this cartoon is supposed to depict the throughts of racist, he just asked me why I think the content of the cartoon is racist.

For example the monkey/pig-like depiction of the immigrant. Thats a racist thing. Doesn't mean that the author is racist or that its meant in a racist way, but its a racist depiction and it was used for a reason.

Try to argue honestly, please. I don't believe for a second you think a cartoon being racist and a cartoon tackling racism are the same thing.

I already said a couple of times what I think.
I think the satire in this cartoon is bad because there is no substance and basically all the speculation on its meaning is based on the fact that its by CH and therefore had to be satire.
So whats left is just a tasteless cartoon without substance. No smart message, just provocation for provocations sake.
And even if some people might like that, I think its fair and right for people to state that this kind of satire is shit in their opinion.(and thats what happened).

But people in this thread immediately said that whoever criticises the cartoon didn't understand the satire, but thats not the case. The people were of course aware that its satire and criticised the quality of the satire.
So in a sense, all the people in this thread who thought the critics missed the satire, missed the point.
This isn't about whether this is satire or not or whether someone notices that its satire or not. Its about whether its good satire or bad satire.

 

[Llyranor]

Using imagery of dead children or proposing the selling off of children as food is NOT being used to promote bigotry and racism. Their use in satire is to remove the dogwhistles being used by bigots and exposing them. As that other poster said, not even Hitler would have used dead children to promote his thing. It is exposing people with that mindset and exaggerating it to show just how ridiculous it is. It is ridiculing people with that mindset.

 

[ksan]

But people in this thread immediately said that whoever criticises the cartoon didn't understand the satire, but thats not the case. The people were of course aware that its satire and criticised the quality of the satire.
So in a sense, all the people in this thread who thought the critics missed the satire, missed the point.
This isn't about whether this is satire or not or whether someone notices that its satire or not. Its about whether its good satire or bad satire.

Man, you literally said that you didn't understand why it was funny a couple of pages back.

 

[1.21Gigawatts]

Using imagery of dead children or proposing the selling off of children as food is NOT being used to promote bigotry and racism. Their use in satire is to remove the dogwhistles being used by bigots and exposing them. As that other poster said, not even Hitler would have used dead children to promote his thing. It is exposing people with that mindset and exaggerating it to show just how ridiculous it is. It is ridiculing people with that mindset.

The thing is that the actual things the right wingers are saying are so outrageous that this is barely an exaggeration of their rhetoric.

Man, you literally said that you didn't understand why it was funny a couple of pages back.

I never said that. I just said it isn't funny. Which is a position most people in the thread share.
But satire doesn't have to be funny, as multiple people already mentioned in this thread.

Is your point that I didn't understand that its satire because I didn't think it was funny?

I can easily say that this is not funny while at the same time acknowledge that it is satire. There is no contradiction.
Or what was the point you are trying to make?

 

[Siegcram]

Yet again, the only distinguishing factor is the creator. Thats not enough in my book.
If this cartoon would have been shown anywhere else people wouldn't think twice about its racist nature.

Question is: If someone is not racist and says something racist, does that make the statement not racist, or does its make the person who said it racist?

Spoiler

Answer: Depends.

They don't contradict, but its two entirely different points.
Anticipating potential arguments of right wing extremists and showing the flip-flopping nature of public opinion don't have much in common in my opinion.

The only one who actually refered to something in the cartoon was the guy who said that its satire because the dead kid is in a bubble and its says "butt-grabbing" instead of just "molesting".

Everyone else just stated their interpretation without referencing specific parts of the cartoon.
And honestly, I don't think there is much you could reference, because, as I said in my last post, the cartoon has very little substance.

Not once in this post are you able to abstract your points beyond your own subjective, incredible narrow and ultimately wrong perception of what constitutes satire. To illustrate that I've boldended those instances.

As long as you're unable to look past your own viewpoint or at least base it on logic or ties to the source material, it is a fool's errand for anyone to discuss it with you. I don't know if you're being willfully dense or if there's a genuine lack of understanding here, but until you have anything to offer besides your own warped perspective on all things satire, I don't think anything is going to come of this.

 

[King Tubby]

Why? Actuall racists were just as fine with using the picture as anyone else.
Many people were shocked by the picture, some were delighted.

I have not seen any of that. And in any case, fools will appropriate whatever they want. The image of the child is enough evidence to indicate that the person who made this is not intending to demonize immigrants/muslims, because racists always downplay the struggles of their targets and attempt to dehumanize them, not arouse sympathy in any way.

Yet again, the only distinguishing factor is the creator. Thats not enough in my book.
If this cartoon would have been shown anywhere else people wouldn't think twice about its racist nature.

False.

But people in this thread immediately said that whoever criticises the cartoon didn't understand the satire, but thats not the case. The people were of course aware that its satire and criticised the quality of the satire.
So in a sense, all the people in this thread who thought the critics missed the satire, missed the point.
This isn't about whether this is satire or not or whether someone notices that its satire or not. Its about whether its good satire or bad satire.

You clearly are not reading the same thread as I am.

The thing is that the actual things the right wingers are saying are so outrageous that this is barely an exaggeration of their rhetoric.

Exactly, and the point of this piece is to make the right wingers seem that much more callous and deranged by juxtaposing it with the image of a dead child.

Racists don't work that way. They present the negative image as the ONLY image.

 

[shrek]

Very against political correctness and I know the cartoon is supposed to be satire but this seems pretty tasteless and easily prone to misinterpretation. Why should we be surprised when violence results from shit like this? The satire doesn't blend well with western involvement in these places either.

 

[Siegcram]

I'm very against political correctness but this is just tasteless. Why should I pity them when they attacked by terrorists?

I have a hard time figuring out which of your statements is the stupidest.

 

[ghostjoke]

Yeah, that one again.

Then this whole thing is a non issue.
People criticise CH for its poor work on this cartoon(free speech also means that you can tell other people when what they did is shit) and others defend them by saying that they're known for that.(free speech also means that you are allowed to make shit and people are allowed to like it)

In that case, both sides are right.
From the ones sides view it makes no sense to criticise CH's cartoons, because thats just what they do and whoever doesn't like it should just not read it.
The other side is right to criticise these cartoons because afterall they are public and everyone has a right to have on opinion on them.

Yup, amazing how simple it is. Even says it in the first google results search. "French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo is back in the news again". I'm going to keep repeating this because the counterargument is ignorance.

The people defending this didn't make this an issue, they're trying to correct people who are. A lot of them are only defending the claims against CH in this stop and have no love for the magazine; maybe they'd like an actual discussion on how to improve it even or they rather the disgust be directed towards the xenophobes who are actually saying this shit.

Of course free speech allows you to say whatever you want short of inciting hatred/violence about CH, but if you're going to open your mouth, you might want to actually criticise it for something it's actually doing, otherwise you just come across as a person who saw a twitter hastag and decided to jump on board the wave of ignorance. As someone above said, things can get lost in translation, but there is a certain level of understanding that can be easily grasped by simple deduction. I can respect someone with a different opinion, but when the backbone of their argument is "we're ignorant and refuse to be educated, so we'll stay offended" it's worrying.

Can you pick and stance and stick to it? (unless you're genuinely changing your opinion on the matter, then please stop fighting it and embrace logic) I feel like I'm talking to two different people. Not even sure where you think I said CH was beyond criticism. With how it's become representation of free speech in the world, I would like it to improve how it handles situations, but nope, it pops up most of the time because people fail/refuse to grasp basic concepts.

 

[Vampire On Titus]

I'm not saying that interpretation of satire is automatically a bad thing, my point is that interpretation in this case is caused by the lack substance in the cartoon. People guess what it might mean because they know it has to be satire because its by Charlie Hebdo.
They aren't intrigued by the complex meaning of the cartoon and try to analyze it.
Thatswhy I'm saying it failed.

Aren't people using the context of the full page? And presumably wouldn't a Charlie Hebdo reader use the context of the full issue?

 

[ksan]

I never said that. I just said it isn't funny. Which is a position most people in the thread share.
But satire doesn't have to be funny, as multiple people already mentioned in this thread.

Is your point that I didn't understand that its satire because I didn't think it was funny?

You made that as a criticism toward the comic, it was pretty clear what you were trying to get at. In addition to that you explicitly stated that it had no message or political value, where as many people could see how it relates to the common sentiment after the picture of the dead child was released to the current one after the recent events in Europe.

The fact is that you didn't get it, got upset, and now you won't back down.

Then again, I would say it's good satire, not due to its quality, but due to reactions like in this thread. Once again it proves that people prefer to get upset about a comic rather than the real world issue, after all it takes a lot less effort.

 

[OverBlood 3]

I'm very against political correctness but this is just tasteless. Why should we call these guys heroes when they're attacked by terrorists for shit like this?

Interesting point, care to expand on this?

 

[Real Hero]

I'm very against political correctness but this is just tasteless. Why should we call these guys heroes when they're attacked by terrorists for shit like this?

this is more disgusting and offensive than anything the magazines ever done

 

[OverBlood 3]

I'm having deja vu.

 

[Dicktatorship]

Am I the only one that thinks drawing cartoons of dead kids is perhaps the wrong medium to spread a message and much more likely to be misinterpreted by uh, I dunno just coming out and saying what the fuck you're about? Perhaps there are certain things that should be treated with less flippancy to begin with.

 

[Vampire On Titus]

I'm having deja vu.

This thread is actually a collaborative satirical performance on the way GAF reacts to Charlie Hebdo cartoons.

 

[Siegcram]

Am I the only one that thinks drawing cartoons of dead kids is perhaps the wrong medium to spread a message and much more likely to be misinterpreted by uh, I dunno just coming out and saying what the fuck you're about? Perhaps there are certain things that should be treated with less flippancy to begin with.

Then maybe satire and dark humour aren't for you. And after this and the other CH thread we had recently, I can assure you that you're not the only one.

 

[shrek]

this is more disgusting and offensive than anything the magazines ever done

Sorry to play devil's advocate. I realize the comment came across as harsh but in the climate we live in today, it seems rather unwise to publish stuff like this. Obviously the attacks are evil but should people be surprised they happen? And this one isn't nearly as bad as some of the others from earlier, but I feel like this so-called satire is really missing the mark here and is coming across as extremely offensive to many people more than anything.

 

[daviyoung]

Am I the only one that thinks drawing cartoons of dead kids is perhaps the wrong medium to spread a message and much more likely to be misinterpreted by uh, I dunno just coming out and saying what the fuck you're about? Perhaps there are certain things that should be treated with less flippancy to begin with.

actually, they're drawing cartoons of a photograph of a dead kid

 

[ksan]

This thread is actually a collaborative satirical performance on the way GAF reacts to Charlie Hebdo cartoons.

Nah.

It's much larger than that, the whole internet is always taking part!