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

03-09-2016 01:39PM

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 · 03-09-2016 01:40PM

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 · 03-09-2016 01:47PM

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 · 03-09-2016 01:48PM

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 · 03-09-2016 01:51PM

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 · 03-09-2016 01:53PM

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. · 03-09-2016 01:54PM

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

Arcade_Tryer · 03-09-2016 01:57PM

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 · 03-09-2016 02:06PM

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 · 03-09-2016 02:13PM

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 · 03-09-2016 02:20PM

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 · 03-09-2016 02:28PM

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 · 03-09-2016 02:28PM

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 · 03-09-2016 02:31PM

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 · 03-09-2016 02:38PM

This post has been deleted.

crustyjuggler · 03-09-2016 02:41PM

He he . It's kinda funny but inappropriate .

meeeeh · 03-09-2016 02:45PM

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 · 03-09-2016 02:54PM

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 · 03-09-2016 02:56PM

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 · 03-09-2016 03:00PM

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.

Xaracatz · 03-09-2016 03:09PM

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!

Jeez. So, I, as a known satirist, publish a piece that is entirely devoid of satire and is, in fact, just plain cruel. Some person on the Internet goes - "Hey - that's some mighty fine satire there. I get it". And bam - satIre status satisfied.

A lot of the Hebdo cartoons promoted awareness and discussion. This is just a horrible joke on children / parents / family / friends which will achieve nothing more than lessening the regard in which these publications are held.

Sure - free speech. They can put it out there. But why?

maudgonner · 03-09-2016 03:24PM

Arcade_Tryer wrote: »

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.

I really doubt that my argument is the most ridiculous thing on this thread. You may be as unaware of the definition of irony as you are of satire.

How would you define satire? Simply saying that the creators call it satire so it must be so, or if one person considers it satirical it is - that's ridiculous. Satire is a defined category of humour with certain characteristics that mark it out. In the same way that jazz is a category of music with defined characteristics. Just because I might come up with a notion that Justin Bieber is a jazz singer that does not make it so.

There are degrees of satire and elements of satire can be combined with other forms of humour, but if there are no satirical elements to it then it's not satire. Not just because one person says it is. Not just because a magazine that claims to be satirical publishes it. Not just because the creator may have intended it to be.

CMOTDibbler · 03-09-2016 03:27PM

Xaracatz wrote: »

Jeez. So, I, as a known satirist, publish a piece that is entirely devoid of satire and is, in fact, just plain cruel. Some person on the Internet goes - "Hey - that's some mighty fine satire there. I get it". And bam - satIre status satisfied.

A lot of the Hebdo cartoons promoted awareness and discussion. This is just a horrible joke on children / parents / family / friends which will achieve nothing more than lessening the regard in which these publications are held.

Sure - free speech. They can put it out there. But why?

It's just puerile humour. There's no satire in it, unless you consider it to be a satire on Italian food.

There are always jokes after some disaster or other. It's often viewed as an attempt to deal with a tragedy by making jokes about it. Perhaps that's what this cartoon is about, but as somebody else asked; were there similar jokes about the killings in Paris and Nice?

hairyslug · 03-09-2016 03:27PM

Is satire considered a form of art.

RobertKK · 03-09-2016 03:27PM

Freedom of speech comes with responsibility, just look at boards, it has standards that one must adhere to, or else get in trouble.

When what is said under the guise of freedom of speech goes below an acceptable standards, the person or group lose their argument to say it is should be allowed under freedom of speech.
You wouldn't use the excuse of freedom of speech if you are going through airport security and you say you 'have a bomb', even if uou dn't, as that is not being responsible, it is being stupid.
Making little of people who died in an earthquake and all those who had their lives destroyed is not funny.
If a person actually cared they would not do this, hundreds dead, many more injured, thousands left homeless and we are suppose to see the what Charlie Hebdo did as funny.
Decent people will actually think of the victims and not feel a reason to smile.

Chorus_suck · 03-09-2016 03:29PM

This post has been deleted.

RobertKK · 03-09-2016 03:37PM

Chorus_suck wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

They were nice to themselves after they were attacked.

After the Charlie Hebdo attack, their headline was 'All is forgiven' with a Muslim holding a 'Je suis Charlie' sign.
They decided to be respectful when the tragedy was at home.

Koptain Liverpool · 03-09-2016 03:47PM

Arcade_Tryer wrote: »

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.

It's true though.

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.

It's not true.

lcwill · 03-09-2016 03:53PM

The different types of pasta imagery is probably not just because Italy is famous for pasta, but because the town most severely affected is Amatrice, home of a particular type of pasta: pasta all'amatriciana.

Still not funny but I'm not going to start cutting off heads about it....

keith16 · 03-09-2016 04:07PM

I'll probably get slaughtered for this but I think it's somewhat funny. A bit too soon perhaps.

If nothing else, it's a cheap and even distasteful laugh at Italy's expense. And why not? The country is a joke when it comes to development of housing and we see many more lives lost whenever an earthquake strikes in Italy vs. one of a similar size in Japan for example.

No harm in asking why so many people lost their lives, even if those questions come in some very uncomfortable forms.

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

Comments