Another Charlie Hebdo thread - satire in mocking earthquake victims??

Koptain Liverpool

I'm not a fan of Charlie Hebdo. I'm in favour of free speech and all but reckon that this brings with it responsibility to have a bit of cop on.

While many of there covers such as the refugee child, Mohammad Ali coffin playing football etc made me shudder I at least saw what they were trying to satirize.

But I don't see any satire in this latest one at all (not sure how to insert image).

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-37260217

Just seems that to be the work of a bunch of cnuts.

Can anyone explain the satire in this to me?

gillad

My first thought was "its more about making money and headlines than free speech"...but will this make them more money?...
Charlie Hebdo is having a public mental breakdown

Koptain Liverpool

Not about making money I don't think ( although I remember thinking it quite expensive when i saw it at a newsstand in Paris €6 I think??)

The_Valeyard

It's about getting attention. Seems to be working.

Arcade_Tryer

Koptain Liverpool wrote: »

I'm not a fan of Charlie Hebdo. I'm in favour of free speech and all but reckon that this brings with it responsibility to have a bit of cop on.

You're really not.

While many of there covers such as the refugee child, Mohammad Ali coffin playing football etc made me shudder I at least saw what they were trying to satirize.

But I don't see any satire in this latest one at all (not sure how to insert image).

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-37260217

Just seems that to be the work of a bunch of cnuts.

Can anyone explain the satire in this to me?

Lots of people fail to see the satire in lots of satirical publications. I don't see any satire here either. That doesn't mean it is not there. Nor is it mandatory for it to be there. We're all a bunch of c**ts. Some of us are just better at admitting it than others! I thought the lasagne image was slightly amusing. That doesn't mean I still don't have sympathy for all of those who suffered.

The most important thing is that they are allowed to produce work like this. Just like that was the most important thing a year or two ago when their colleagues were murdered. Nobody ever said they had to be spot on with their satire or sensitive to people's tastes or responsible for their productions. Except people who not understand nor believe in any form of freedom of speech.

The Backwards Man

I wouldn't be the biggest fan of unrestricted free speech in the world, but if it's a vehicle to allow us see exactly who someone is and what their values are, let them at it.

Koptain Liverpool

Arcade_Tryer wrote: »

You're really not - Oh but I am

The most important thing is that they are allowed to produce work like this - agreed, just as I am allowed to comment on my distaste for their work

You sound like your opposed to free speech yourself

Arcade_Tryer

Koptain Liverpool wrote: »

You sound like your opposed to free speech yourself

You're not opposed to it maybe. But it's clear you don't understand it.

I didn't accuse you of not supporting free speech due to your criticism of Charlie Hebdo. I accused you of it due to your below statement.

I'm in favour of free speech and all but reckon that this brings with it responsibility to have a bit of cop on.

Which is nonsense.

Bonzo Delaney

Arcade_Tryer wrote: »

You're not opposed to it maybe. But it's clear you don't understand it.

I didn't accuse you of not supporting free speech due to your criticism of Charlie Hebdo. I accused you of it due to your below statement.
Which is nonsense.

There's s fine line between free speech and been an out and out cünt

Winterlong

Pure attention seeking money making arseholery.
Nothing more and nothing less.

jacksie66

This post has been deleted.

Phoebas

Early days yet, but going by previous threads on this topic, it'll soon be full of people trying to silence critics of Charlie Hebdo by accusing them of being anti free speech.

It'll also have a smattering of people who don't think some of what Charlie Hebdo put out is satire being dismissed as being incapable of understanding satire.

Mr. FoggPatches

Je ne suis pas Charlie?

Even Charlie Hebdo was a tad conditional in the past it seems when it comes to defining what is and isn't free speech.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/4351672/French-cartoonist-Sine-on-trial-on-charges-of-anti-Semitism-over-Sarkozy-jibe.html

Arcade_Tryer

Bonzo Delaney wrote: »

There's s fine line between free speech and been an out and out cünt

Ok. But if you think you, I, or anybody else gets to decide where that line is, you quite obviously do not have a clue about freedom of speech.

Winterlong wrote: »

Pure attention seeking money making arseholery.
Nothing more and nothing less.

In your opinion. Which matters to some. And not to others.

Winterlong

Arcade_Tryer wrote: »

In your opinion. Which matters to some. And not to others.

Yeah, that is kinda the point of discussion forums. To express your opinion.

Muff_Daddy

So this publication is 'lampooning' a tragic earthquake by saying oh pasta and pizza comes from Italy, let's show some people covered in pasta and pizza after the destruction of a natural disaster which left over 200 dead, that also just happened to be in Italy.

Forgive me for missing the satire, or any hidden messages but this just seems like pure out and out nastiness for the sake of it.

I'm not critising free speech, just Charlie Hebdo.

Arcade_Tryer

Winterlong wrote: »

Yeah, that is kinda the point of discussion forums. To express your opinion.

Then the poster should probably include that kind of important part, don't you think? Rather than making absolute statements.

My post was emphasizing the importance of people's own point of views in relation to things like this.

Wibbs

Winterlong wrote: »

Yeah, that is kinda the point of discussion forums. To express your opinion.

Ah here WL, don't be daft like. Though more and more the interwebs is going the way of echo chambers. This can throw newbies in a place like Boards where their opinions may not be treated so preciously. That's a general observation BTW, rather than being about this thread in particular. *shoots self for off topic post*

Muff_Daddy wrote: »

I'm not critising free speech, just Charlie Hebdo.

As far as I'm concerned they should be allowed print what the hell they like and the audience be allowed praise or berate them however the hell they like. So long as it is non violently. In other news stupid cartoon is stupid.

Winterlong

Arcade_Tryer wrote: »

Then the poster should probably include that kind of important part, don't you think? Rather than making absolute statements.

What? You want everyone who posts on internet forums to state whether what they are writing is fact or is an opinion?
Regardless that it is blatantly obvious that it is an opinion?
Yeah, ok.

Arcade_Tryer

Winterlong wrote: »

What? You want everyone who posts on internet forums to state whether what they are writing is fact or is an opinion?
Regardless that it is blatantly obvious that it is an opinion?
Yeah, ok.

No. But it's an important distinction to make in a thread like this was my point.

Koptain Liverpool

Arcade_Tryer wrote: »

Then the poster should probably include that kind of important part, don't you think? Rather than making absolute statements.

My post was emphasizing the importance of people's own point of views in relation to things like this.

Ah give it a break would you :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Arcade_Tryer

Koptain Liverpool wrote: »

Ah give it a break would you :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Maybe you should stick to the soccer forum? These topics seem to sail over your ahead. At least try to add something constructive.

maudgonner

For a magazine that claims to be satirical, I don't think they really know what satire is.

satire
ˈsatʌɪə/
noun
noun: satire
the use of humour, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people's stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues.

How is this exposing the stupidity or vices of the Italians? I must be missing it. Satire is meant to have a point, meant to tell a truth, and I don't see the point in this cartoon. I don't think it's satire, I think it's a bad visual pun and it's just mean.

Bonzo Delaney

Arcade_Tryer wrote: »

Ok. But if you think you, I, or anybody else gets to decide where that line is, you quite obviously do not have a clue about freedom of speech.

True but it's all subjective like the fine line between bravery and stupidity
If it has a happy ending its bravery if it's tragic - stupidity

Is free speech been used as a licence to insult community's of race and beliefs and as soon as someone says "ah here that's a bit much" they claim Jesuis Charlie well feck off Charlie you've burned your bridges there

Arcade_Tryer

maudgonner wrote: »

For a magazine that claims to be satirical, I don't think they really know what satire is.

How is this exposing the stupidity or vices of the Italians? I must be missing it. Satire is meant to have a point, meant to tell a truth, and I don't see the point in this cartoon. I don't think it's satire, I think it's a bad visual pun and it's just mean.

Maybe it's just bad satire?

YFlyer

Do they have any satire on the holocaust?

Noveight

Their reputation for being divisive is what got them international recognition in the first place after the shootings last year and it seems like they are trying to keep riding the wave that caused. Referencing the earthquake victims like that is utterly crass however.

maudgonner

Arcade_Tryer wrote: »

Maybe it's just bad satire?

What is it satirising though? Even to be bad satire you must be satirising something? What point are they making? What insightful commentary is contained in the cartoon?

I may be missing it, but to me calling that satire is an insult to actual satirists, who can be brilliant and very valuable.

Koptain Liverpool

Arcade_Tryer wrote: »

Maybe you should stick to the soccer forum? These topics seem to sail over your ahead. At least try to add something constructive.

Go and fukc yourself - twat.

My opinion is clearly stated. I believe in free speech. I understand satire. I fail to see the satire in the publication I refer to.

What have you added? - no opinions on the publication? Or do you just hang out here trying to feel clever by spewing nonsense.

Pac1Man

Are we allowed to speculate or is that not allowed here either???

maudgonner

maudgonner wrote: »

For a magazine that claims to be satirical, I don't think they really know what satire is.

How is this exposing the stupidity or vices of the Italians? I must be missing it. Satire is meant to have a point, meant to tell a truth, and I don't see the point in this cartoon. I don't think it's satire, I think it's a bad visual pun and it's just mean.

I think so too, it's hard to satirize the wholesale loss of life and misery of something like an earthquake. By definition, they tend to be short on laughs.

The one merit of free speech is that it makes it exceptionally easy to spot the bigots, the heartless, and the out-and-out A-holes.

Arcade_Tryer

maudgonner wrote: »

What is it satirising though? Even to be bad satire you must be satirising something? What point are they making? What insightful commentary is contained in the cartoon?

I may be missing it, but to me calling that satire is an insult to actual satirists, who can be brilliant and very valuable.

No. Bad satire may be an attempt at satire that simply does not work. Nobody knows the intention of the author here. And there still may be a satirical element to it, that very few people admittedly have seen. Including myself.

Satire is not an exact science. Nor is even the greatest satirist always going to produce great satire. The Onion in the US is excellent, though they play it mostly safe and stick to sensible targets. WWN is mostly crap but their most successful satirical articles are those which generate most controversy (e.g. Government handing out free hangers to pregnant women).

Koptain Liverpool

Arcade_Tryer wrote: »

No. Bad satire may be an attempt at satire that simply does not work. What is Hebdo attempting to satirize here????

WWN is mostly crap but their most successful satirical articles are those which generate most controversy (e.g. Government handing out free hangers to pregnant women). Wouldn't be my cup of tea but I'm guessing the aim here was to satirize the fact that the government is out of touch with the reality of the abortion issue - so again, what is this issue of Hebdo attempting?

Any answers?

RobertKK

When Charlie Hebdo were attacked, I did not bother with Je suis Charlie, given irrespective of the terrible events that happened to them, their values are not my values.

If a family member of the dead sees what Charlie Hebdo did here, it will hurt, it just shows there is a heartless element to this publication.

Satire is suppose to be funny.

maudgonner

Arcade_Tryer wrote: »

No. Bad satire may be an attempt at satire that simply does not work. Nobody knows the intention of the author here. And there still may be a satirical element to it, that very few people admittedly have seen. Including myself.

But that's not bad satire. Failed satire maybe. If you fail so badly to make any legitimate point then I don't believe it is satire.

You can't judge a cartoon or an article on what may or may not have been in the creator's mind when they sat down to make it, only on what they put on the page.

If there is a satirical element in it, that's different. But until someone successfully explains to me what that is then as far as I'm concerned it is not satire, not even bad satire.

Arcade_Tryer

RobertKK wrote: »

When Charlie Hebdo were attacked, I did not bother with Je suis Charlie, given irrespective of the terrible events that happened to them, their values are not my values.

Je Suis Charlie was not about supporting Charlie Hebdo's values specifically. It was about supporting freedom of speech, which just happened to be a value they shared.

Satire is suppose to be funny.

Not necessarily. I find the best satire makes you sit back and smile, and even sometimes just makes you think about the subject being satirized in a new or different manner.

Ken.

Mod- Knock off the personal attacks folks. Koptain and Arcade this goes double for ye.

Arcade_Tryer

maudgonner wrote: »

But that's not bad satire. Failed satire maybe. If you fail so badly to make any legitimate point then I don't believe it is satire.

You can't judge a cartoon or an article on what may or may not have been in the creator's mind when they sat down to make it, only on what they put on the page.

If there is a satirical element in it, that's different. But until someone successfully explains to me what that is then as far as I'm concerned it is not satire, not even bad satire.

Do you not see the irony of your post? Many successful satirical publications entirely divide opinion. Which means hundreds and thousands of people may not consider it satire. But that doesn't necessarily mean it isn't satire. Even if only one person in the whole world considers this recent publication by Charlie Hebdo as satire, then it is satire. By your logic, satire needs to be explicitly explained and perhaps even reach a certain consensus on whether it is satire or not. Ludicrous!

Akrasia

Is it possible to satirize a natural disaster?

I don't get their point.

Maybe it's not supposed to be satire, maybe it's just a joke made in very bad taste. Comparing a collapsed building with Lasagne is kinda funny, I suppose, in an absurd way.

Will people be offended, of course, but that's life. People laugh at funerals, people tell jokes standing over open graves of people they loved and will miss dearly.

Dark humour is a coping mechanism.

If the Leaning tower of Pisa collapsed and squashed some people, there would probably be lots of people making jokes afterwards that relate to pizza...

Regardless of whether the joke is funny or not, there should be the freedom to express it. Most people exercise their own judgement and choose their targets carefully, Some people like to rile others up for their own amusement. Others take on the role of unasked caretaker of other people's 'dignity' and even though they have nothing to do with Italy or the earthquake victims, they'll take it upon themselves to be offended on their behalf.

Freedom of expression allows all views and people will inevitably say the wrong thing and piss others off. That's the price of freedom

maudgonner

Arcade_Tryer wrote: »

Do you not see the irony of your post? Many successful satirical publications entirely divide opinion. Which means hundreds and thousands of people may not consider it satire. But that doesn't necessarily mean it isn't satire. Even if only one person in the whole world considers this recent publication by Charlie Hebdo as satire, then it is satire. By your logic, satire needs to be explicitly explained and perhaps even reach a certain consensus on whether it is satire or not. Ludicrous!

Did you miss the part where I said 'as far as I'm concerned'? As far as I'm concerned, in my opinion, it is not satire. It contains no satirical elements. It makes no point. Gives no insight. Exposes no truths.

If someone can come along and show me that I'm wrong, point out to me what I'm missing, then I will reconsider. Until then it's not satire, in my opinion.

By your definition 'if one person in the whole world considers it satire, then it is satire', absolutely anything could be considered satire. Which is daft. There must be some objective measure by which it can be deemed to be satirical, otherwise the definition is pointless. If I consider this post satirical does that make it so? Of course not.

Arcade_Tryer

maudgonner wrote: »

If I consider this post satirical does that make it so? Of course not.

It does actually. It also means however that others may not view it as satire, and so you may not be able to start a satirical publication and make a living from such posts.

bear1

Being half Italian myself I had seen that shown on Italian newspapers and the reaction in Italy was completely understandable.
Its a terribly timed and terribly thought out article which I just cant see the funny side to it.
I wonder how the French would have reacted if the Italians had made a stereotypically bad joke after the Paris and nice attacks?
I doubt they'd also see the funny side.

maudgonner

Arcade_Tryer wrote: »

It does actually. It also means however that others may not view it as satire, and so you may not be able to start a satirical publication and make a living from such posts.

No, it doesn't. I'll refer you again to the definition of satire: "the use of humour, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people's stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues.".

Unless I can show that the post fulfils the definition is it not satire. My thinking it is satirical does not simply make it so. It is not like saying something is 'good' or 'bad'.

Koptain Liverpool

Arcade_Tryer wrote: »

It does actually. It also means however that others may not view it as satire, and so you may not be able to start a satirical publication and make a living from such posts.

No. No it doesn't

Chorus_suck

This post has been deleted.

crustyjuggler

He he . It's kinda funny but inappropriate .

meeeeh

I don't think it's overly satirical cartoon. I think it's a decent attempt at black humor. It might be a bit insensitive, especially to Italians, but I don't think it's that bad. I certainly heard worse jokes before.

Anyway what would twitterati do if they couldn't be outraged by something every day?

andekwarhola

Free speech means the freedom to do it although personally I despise this kind of intellectual vindictiveness and bad taste masquerading as satire.

Arcade_Tryer

maudgonner wrote: »

No, it doesn't. I'll refer you again to the definition of satire: "the use of humour, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people's stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues.".

Unless I can show that the post fulfils the definition is it not satire. My thinking it is satirical does not simply make it so. It is not like saying something is 'good' or 'bad'.

Your insistence on labeling satire as something that is black and white is the most idiotic argument in this thread. Which is saying something. You seem more concerned with reading the dictionary than understanding satire.

Chorus_suck wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

It's true though.

Charlie Hebro support free speech do they? If you really believe this perhaps you could point me to where they satarise the holocast. Or the Paris attacks? Or even the attack in Nice?

Just because they did not satirize any of those things, does not in any way whatsoever mean they still don't support freedom of speech.

FA Hayek

Distasteful but like I said in another thread, they use the medium of outrage against itself. All you need now to get attention is say something outrageous, others will pick up on it expressing their outrage and low and behold your message is amplified 10 fold.

People need to relax, its a cartoon at the end of the day.