Support NeoGAF

[brainchild]

So your argument boils down to being "too soon"?

Even if that were the point (which it's probably not), it wouldn't matter. There is no such thing as 'too soon' in satire.

Even if the public contested it, Hebdo would just make a satirical cartoon about the public outcry, lol.

 

[Maninthemirror]

Again, it depends on the point. The point being made here justifies the use of such a horrific incident. You have yet to give even a hypothetical point that would be made with a person falling from the WTC. If you did I can tell you specifically whether or not I personally find the use of the image as justified or not.

No it doesn't.. It is not justifiable despite being free to do so to offend using images which hypersensitize a people they only end up offending the victims and the people who from the other side more than making a dent to who you are saying you are trying to offend. See people didn't make use of victims of 911 for good satire because they didn't want to offend sensitivities so no one should think it is a good idea to use an image which is a sensitive one to make a point which ends of offending both sides

 

[KHarvey16]

No it doesn't.. It is not justifiable despite being free to do so to offend using images which hypersensitize a people they only end up offending the victims and the people who from the other side more than making a dent to who you are saying you are trying to offend. See people didn't make use of victims of 911 for good satire because they didn't want to offend sensitivities so no one should think it is a good idea to use an image which is a sensitive one to make a point which ends of offending both sides

This post is worse than 9/11.

 

[Staccat0]

See people didn't make use of victims of 911 for good satire because they didn't want to offend sensitivities so no one should think it is a good idea to use an image which is a sensitive one to make a point which ends of offending both sides

What people?

 

[genjiZERO]

Even if that were the point (which it's probably not), it wouldn't matter. There is no such thing as 'too soon' in satire.

Even if the public contested it, Hebdo would just make a satirical cartoon about the public outcry, lol.

You misunderstand me. I'm specifically trying to figure out Maninthemirror's issue with it. From reading his posts it's clear that he understands what the piece is about, but still finds it problematic. To me, he seems to be arguing either a) that it's too soon after the event to use it in satire, or b) that it's per se distasteful.

But both of those miss the mark because it's supposed to be distasteful. The piece is a condemnation of European attitudes, and what one man finds distasteful another finds poignant.

 

[brainchild]

No it doesn't.. It is not justifiable despite being free to do so to offend using images which hypersensitize a people they only end up offending the victims and the people who from the other side more than making a dent to who you are saying you are trying to offend. See people didn't make use of victims of 911 for good satire because they didn't want to offend sensitivities so no one should think it is a good idea to use an image which is a sensitive one to make a point which ends of offending both sides

(at the bolded) Another non-sequitur!!

There was satire around 9/11 that included the context of victims in the 9/11 attack. You have no idea what you're talking about!

 

[injurai]

 

[MUnited83]

See people didn't make use of victims of 911 for good satire because they didn't want to offend sensitivities so no one should think it is a good idea to use an image which is a sensitive one to make a point which ends of offending both sides

... but they did exactly that. Are you making shit up as you go along? You don't stop claiming things that are utterly false. I will let you figure out was the most widely fucking satirized thing in 2001. Can you guess what? Some of them were made merely a couple of days after it happening.

 

[injurai]

Humor based on the September 11 attacks (Wikipedia)

 

[Maninthemirror]

... but they did exactly that. Are you making shit up as you go along? You don't stop claiming things that are utterly false. I will let you figure out was the most widely fucking satirized thing in 2001. Can you guess what? Some of them were made merely a couple of days after it happening.

Humor based on the September 11 attacks (Wikipedia)

(at the bolded) Another non-sequitur!!

There was satire around 9/11 that included the context of victims in the 9/11 attack. You have no idea what you're talking about!

Oh including dead victims or dying ? Satire has been done with refugees running away as well but I want to see that 911 humor which has a dead or dying victim similar to this as you say exists

 

[brainchild]

You misunderstand me. I'm specifically trying to figure out Maninthemirror's issue with it. From reading his posts it's clear that he understands what the piece is about, but still finds it problematic. To me, he seems to be arguing either a) that it's too soon after the event to use it in satire, or b) that it's per se distasteful.

But both of those miss the mark because it's supposed to be distasteful. The piece is a condemnation of European attitudes, and what one man finds distasteful another finds poignant.

OK. It seems like it could be both, but as you said, they both miss the mark, quite extravagantly, I might add.

 

[Christine]

...it would certainly be fine with me.

...Note the date of publication.

The goal isn't to make your nana chuckle over tea.

I read that piece on publication, so going back to it was a little heady.

And yes, this does make use of the victims to make a point. The primary metaphor is one that trivializes them as backdrop in an action movie. The subtext subverts this to make a point, but the primary metaphor is overtly petty and shallow, verging on contemptuous.

 

[brainchild]

Oh including dead victims or dying ? Satire has been done with refugees running away as well but I want to see that 911 humor which has a dead or dying victim similar to this as you say exists

There isn't an exact equivalency (that I know of), because the contexts are entirely different. The iconic imagery of the attacks were the twin towers, which reflected the victims in those buildings. You could say that putting the towers in satire would be just as insensitive, considering what that imagery meant to the families of those victims.

 

[Staccat0]

Oh including dead victims or dying ? Satire has been done with refugees running away as well but I want to see that 911 humor which has a dead or dying victim similar to this as you say exists

At what point does it stop being the thread's job to google things for you?

 

[Maninthemirror]

There isn't an exact equivalency (that I know of), because the contexts are entirely different. The iconic imagery of the attacks were the twin towers, which reflected the victims in those buildings. You could say that putting the towers in satire would be just as insensitive, considering what that imagery meant to the families of the victims.

One is the attacks and one is the refugee crisis, both have been satirized, tell me the satire of 911 where victims who are dead or dying and especially sensitive images of death as a ploy were used for satire, like this one, where a dead toddler picture to cartoon copy was used to make a point about europe disregarding sensitivies of the victims

At what point does it stop being the thread's job to google things for you?

Go ahead and tell me if they were sensitive and fine if they exists as you say they do (dead victims)

 

[injurai]

Oh including dead victims or dying ? Satire has been done with refugees running away as well but I want to see that 911 humor which has a dead or dying victim similar to this as you say exists

 

[akira28]

I absolutely did not. Apparently you did though.

is it so apparent foxy fellow? the accusation was referred to whoever it was referred to. They know who they are and I hope they stir in shame.

 

[Maninthemirror]

blood has been used in other good satire as well. I wanted to know the satire where the actual victim has been used especially from the horrific pictures and using that victim to make a point. I think you are completely missing the point that this is about using a sensitive image as a cartoon of an actual dead toddler which hypersensitized the situation as a ploy.

 

[MrHoot]

 

[Maninthemirror]

now that is an offensive satire . but of course people will accept it as fine even if it offends the victims families whose point was that look at these 911 victims and see why torture is fine. he is a right wing cartoonist. I am sure you are fine with this cartoon right?

 

[Jpop]

Charlie Hebdo has never been clever or amusing he caters to racist and intolerant crowd who finds it humurous simply because it is middle eastern/Islamic in nature.

 

[Staccat0]

One is the attacks and one is the refugee crisis, both have been satirized, tell me the satire of 911 where victims who are dead or dying and especially sensitive images of death as a ploy were used for satire, like this one, where a dead toddler picture to cartoon copy was used to make a point about europe disregarding sensitivies of the victims



Go ahead and tell me if they were sensitive and fine if they exists as you say they do (dead victims)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vt_tv7t79WY
BEHOLD THE GENIUS^ (bad example)

now that is an offensive satire . but of course people will accept it as fine even if it offends the victims families.

What people?

 

[brainchild]

One is the attacks and one is the refugee crisis, both have been satirized, tell me the satire of 911 where victims who are dead or dying and especially sensitive images of death as a ploy were used for satire, like this one, where a dead toddler picture to cartoon copy was used to make a point about europe disregarding sensitivies of the victims



Go ahead and tell me if they were sensitive and fine if they exists as you say they do (dead victims)

You're MISSING THE POINT!

The twin towers being on fire would be those sensitive images!!! Those were the images that were burned into our minds regarding the attack, and ABSOLUTELY reflected the tragedy of the victims. To this day, they bring up tragic memories in the minds of the families and friends of the victims, or even Americans in general.

Are you going to tell me that you're going to selectively decide which sensitive images are validly offensive?

 

[soul creator]

I just watched Guardians of the Galaxy today, so this thread reminded me of Drax taking everything so literally, and everyone else trying to explain to him how metaphors work.

 

[injurai]

now that is an offensive satire . but of course people will accept it as fine even if it offends the victims families.

First off it doesn't disparage or belittle the victim. In fact the absurdity of it is what promotes the exact opposite.

 

[freenudemacusers]

I just watched Guardians of the Galaxy today, so this thread reminded me of Drax taking everything so literally, and everyone else trying to explain to him how metaphors work.

what does this have to do with this thread? please explain?

 

[Siegcram]

Satire isn't about copying and pasting what other people would do. Satire exposes the logical conclusions of their actions.

An anti-immigrant publication wouldn't create imagery like that. They would do everything to hype their values while excusing or ignoring the negatives. The negatives in this case would be the drowning child juxtaposed next to Europe being a commercial land of plenty or filled with awesome Christians.

Satire like the one in these articles forces these people to confront the ugly side of their marketing / image management.

His argument was that the mere existence of this extreme anti-muslim/-immigrant sentiment in the wild somehow invalidated these cartoons as satire, which is insane.

Removing the context from satire may make it indistinguishable from something horrible, but that's not a knock against satire. That was my point, not the intricacies of hypothetical right-wing publications.

 

[PdotMichael]

Charlie Hebdo has never been clever or amusing he caters to racist and intolerant crowd who finds it humurous simply because it is middle eastern/Islamic in nature.

So didn't understand the satire here?

 

[TheLostBigBoss]

Oh look, someone posted an actual satire of a man falling and a reporter asking them if they feel their soon to be death is a good excuse to torture people, I'm sure Maninthermirror will admit defeat and take the L

EDIT: It seems the cartoon is somehow advocating torture strangely enough. Even if, it is still satire and someone made a picture of a man jumping off a building to make a point (even if you don't agree with it)

now that is an offensive satire . but of course people will accept it as fine even if it offends the victims families whose point was that look at these 911 victims and see why torture is fine. he is a right wing cartoonist. I am sure you are fine with this cartoon right?

 

[Zaraki_Kenpachi]

People really thought this was made with the sole intention of cheering the death of Muslim babies? All the reports of places refusing or worrying about Muslim immigrants and that's the takeaway? Come on guys.

 

[Maninthemirror]

First off it doesn't disparage or belittle the victim. In fact the absurdity of it is what promotes the exact opposite.

you do know it it drawn by Ramirez right? whose point was that look at torture techniques and those offended by it should see that victim falling from the building to hint that torture is needed or it will happen again. do you agree with the cartoon and fine with his depiction?

 

[Staccat0]

you do know it it drawn by Ramirez right? whose point was that look at torture techniques and those offended by it should see that victim falling from the building to hint that torture is needed or it will happen again. do you agree with the cartoon and fine with his depiction?

YOU DON'T HAVE TO AGREE WITH SOMEONE'S POLITICS IN ORDER FOR SOMETHING TO BE VALID
That'd be confirmation bias.

 

[Kinvara]

I understand the point the cartoon is going for but I don't find it insightful or effective.

As far as I can tell, Charlie Hebdo is nothing more than this circle-jerk of people patting each other on the back with how "clever" they are then chuckling at the "outrage" they cause.

 

[Maninthemirror]

I understand the point the cartoon is going for but I don't find it insightful or effective.

As far as I can tell, Charlie Hebdo is nothing more than this circle-jerk of people patting each other on the back with how "clever" they are then chuckling at the "outrage" they cause.

this is how i view them too.pick what will offend and offend everyone but free speech advocates and don't move the conversation forward at all. i see them having no power in moving conversation forward and a lot of power to offend..nearly everyone

 

[Siegcram]

Charlie Hebdo has never been clever or amusing he caters to racist and intolerant crowd who finds it humurous simply because it is middle eastern/Islamic in nature.

Sure, the outspoken anti-racist, leftist, atheist magazine panders to the religious right. I also like how this post seems to mistake Charlie Hebdo as an actual person.

 

[Staccat0]

I understand the point the cartoon is going for but I don't find it insightful or effective.

As far as I can tell, Charlie Hebdo is nothing more than this circle-jerk of people patting each other on the back with how "clever" they are then chuckling at the "outrage" they cause.

As opposed to other political cartoons which are people patting each other on the back with how "clever" they are then crying into their pillow because their art doesn't make anyone feel anything.

 

[Laughing Banana]

I understand how it can be easily considered as offensive since the image of the drowned child is powerful and a cartoon can be easily found as making light of the situation but I am a Muslim and I can understand the "point" they're trying to make just fine.

However IMO it is still such a crass thing to do.

 

[Terra]

free speech advocates and don't move the conversation forward at all

Well, if you are not advocating free speech, then what are you advocating?
Having the right to free speech is something we should be proud of.

ANYONE should be able to write/paint ANYTHING at ANYTIME.

 

[WickedLaharl]

this is how i view them too.pick what will offend and offend everyone but free speech advocates and don't move the conversation forward at all. i see them having no power in moving conversation forward and a lot of power to offend..nearly everyone

Lol you are just here fishing for people to agree with you

 

[Maninthemirror]

As opposed to other political cartoons which are people patting each other on the back with how "clever" they are then crying into their pillow because their art doesn't make anyone feel anything.

except in all of their cartoons they offend to offend and put a nuanced point in there which is only accepted as valid by some free speech advocates while offending both the oppressed and the oppressor. in this regard their satire is actually poor satire and the defense only comes because the offended speak and some free speech advocates defend even if it is insensitive. the sad part is people find freedom to offend more sacrosanct than anyone innocent who is offended due to personal sensitivities.

 

[MUnited83]

Charlie Hebdo has never been clever or amusing he caters to racist and intolerant crowd who finds it humurous simply because it is middle eastern/Islamic in nature.

How are these dumb posts still a thing? Damn. I will give you that they aren't clever most of the time, and try too hard to go for shock value. But catering to racist and intolerants? It does the exact opposite!
It's like you looked only at their cartoons about Mohammed and the muslim world, and then misinterpretated them, and then somehwo thought that's all their magazine is about. It routinely satures absolutely everybody (Christians just as much), and you can even see that in this cartoon. Do you understand what is being criticized here?

 

[Siegcram]

except in all of their cartoons they offend to offend and put a nuanced point in there which is only accepted as valid by some free speech advocates while offending both the oppressed and the oppressor. in this regard their satire is actually poor satire and the defense only comes because the offended speak and some free speech advocates defend even if it is insensitive.

This is squaring the circle of circular logic. You can't even keep your own straw-man consistent.

 

[Kinvara]

As opposed to other political cartoons which are people patting each other on the back with how "clever" they are then crying into their pillow because their art doesn't make anyone feel anything.

Charlie Hebdo political cartoons don't make me feel anything nor are they effective satire.

Opinions.

 

[Staccat0]

except in all of their cartoons they offend to offend and put a nuanced point in there which is only accepted as valid by some free speech advocates while offending both the oppressed and the oppressor. in this regard their satire is actually poor satire and the defense only comes because the offended speak and some free speech advocates defend even if it is insensitive. the sad part is people find freedom to offend more sacrosanct than anyone innocent who is offended due to personal sensitivities.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Modest_Proposal

 

[brainchild]

except in all of their cartoons they offend to offend and put a nuanced point in there which is only accepted as valid by some free speech advocates while offending both the oppressed and the oppressor. in this regard their satire is actually poor satire and the defense only comes because the offended speak and some free speech advocates defend even if it is insensitive. the sad part is people find freedom to offend more sacrosanct than anyone innocent who is offended due to personal sensitivities.

Confirmation bias is a helluva drug...

 

[PdotMichael]

If only reality would care to not offend people.

 

[Staccat0]

Charlie Hebdo political cartoons don't make me feel anything nor are they effective satire.

Opinions.

They don't make me feel anything, but they certainly get a react that draws attention to something for better or worse. I can't speak to the "effectiveness" of art. I'm not saying "I think this cartoon is great" I'm saying that it's nothing I'd condemn.

Not really arguing here just talking, BTW.

PS I decided to see what the most recent New Yorker cartoons was
http://www.newyorker.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/daily_cartoon_150915Terminator-600.jpg
HoooooBooooooooyyyy

 

[Maninthemirror]

Confirmation bias is a helluva drug...

that works both ways. lets agree to disagree

 

[DECK'ARD]

that works both ways. lets agree to disagree

That would flatter your incoherent argument.

 

[Staccat0]

that works both ways. lets agree to disagree

No it does not.