Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Charlie Hebdo makes fun of drowned Syrian boy.

Options
1…457910…15

Comments

  • Options
    #182
    m5ex9oqjawdg2i
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,221 ✭✭✭✭m5ex9oqjawdg2i


    Custardpi wrote: »
    Free speech without the right to ridicule, satirise, joke etc is no freedom at all. No one has ever been oppressed by someone articulating controversial ideas or mocking principles which they hold dear. Freedom of expression should be at the heart of liberal democracy & the extent to which it is not there as yet is one of the flaws of Western society, although we are better at it than many other parts of the world.

    Well I guess my opinion is that, while free speech is essential, one should not hide behind that right to make an attack on another with malicious intent. What purpose does it serve if not to intice anger, and what good is that?

    Free speech is abused, as are other laws intended to protect people. Did you ever see those damned videos of Americans refusing to cooperate with border control because of the 4th amendment? Failing to see that it's for their own good.


  • Options
    #183
    daRobot
    Registered Users Posts: 2,380 ✭✭✭daRobot


    Custardpi wrote: »
    No one has ever been oppressed by someone articulating controversial ideas

    You might want to rethink that one.


  • Options
    #184
    StinkyMunkey
    Registered Users Posts: 1,398 ✭✭✭StinkyMunkey


    Custardpi wrote: »
    If you have a talent for art & have some points about CH & the role of cartoons, satire etc in society that can be expressed through that medium then why wouldn't you? I'd be very interested to check out such a blog & I'm sure plenty of cartoonists, including those employed by CH would be too. We may not share the same opinions but provocative humour from the other side of a debate can often be useful in informing & developing our own ideas, even if such humour can be "upsetting" to some people.

    It's ironic people are arguing freedom of speech using a medium where there is no freedom of speech. I believe in boundaries, I don't believe someone should exercise what they see as their god given right to insult, inflame, disgust or enrage just for ****s and giggles. It is what it is, CH grabbing headlines and hiding behind freedom of speech to insult a plethora of people. Has anyone stopped to think how this attention seeking would effect the family or plight of millions of refugees, I wonder how much they would appreciate the provocative humour. I personally find CH's "satire" offensive, I'm a father and I really see nothing funny or witty in the subject matter they are using.


  • Options
    #185
    Custardpi
    Registered Users Posts: 2,807 ✭✭✭Custardpi


    daRobot wrote: »
    You might want to rethink that one.

    No need to, the mere articulation of ideas with which others may disagree cannot in & of itself oppress people, so long as they also enjoy similar freedom of speech. The restriction of people's freedom of expression is what causes problems, not the exercise of said freedom.


  • Options
    #186
    testaccount123
    Registered Users Posts: 1,023 ✭✭✭testaccount123


    StinkyMunkey wrote: »
    I personally find CH's "satire" offensive, I'm a father and I really see nothing funny or witty in the subject matter they are using.
    It doesn't matter if you find it offensive or funny or witty or anything else. Plenty of people find things offensive, we dont curtail speech in those cases.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #187
    Insect Overlord
    Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 30,873 Mod ✭✭✭✭Insect Overlord


    StinkyMunkey wrote: »
    I personally find CH's "satire" offensive, I'm a father and I really see nothing funny or witty in the subject matter they are using.

    "Speakin' as a parent, Joe!"

    :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #188
    Custardpi
    Registered Users Posts: 2,807 ✭✭✭Custardpi


    An File wrote: »
    "Speakin' as a parent, Joe!"

    :rolleyes:

    Gaah, if you had kids you'd understand!


  • Options
    #189
    RDM_83 again
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,116 ✭✭✭RDM_83 again


    R P McMurphy wrote: »
    I assume the two for the price of one is in reference to the fact that two brothers died but media focus was on one.

    Thanks that actually makes sense I could see the logic of the anti-migrant (that economics is driving it) and the pro-refugee stance that it was highlighting our disregard for them but that reading of it seems clearest.
    CH is a fairly nasty publication according to french people I know so the assumption that its a caring message shouldn't be leapt too.


  • Options
    #190
    daRobot
    Registered Users Posts: 2,380 ✭✭✭daRobot


    Custardpi wrote: »
    No need to, the mere articulation of ideas with which others may disagree cannot in & of itself oppress people, so long as they also enjoy similar freedom of speech. The restriction of people's freedom of expression is what causes problems, not the exercise of said freedom.

    Oh god, please stop embarassing yourself.

    Did the "articulation of ideas" ever lead to people acting on such ideas? Such as genocide where the object of hate is dehumanised to the point that killing on a mass scale is made easy.

    The idea itself kills no one, I think that's clear Captain Obvious. Your lack of logic is staggering. I'm done here.


  • Options
    #191
    stunmer
    Registered Users Posts: 279 ✭✭stunmer


    StinkyMunkey wrote: »
    I personally find CH's "satire" offensive, I'm a father and I really see nothing funny or witty in the subject matter they are using.

    https://i.imgur.com/84yvB5p.jpg


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #192
    Custardpi
    Registered Users Posts: 2,807 ✭✭✭Custardpi


    daRobot wrote: »
    Oh god, please stop embarassing yourself.

    Did the "articulation of ideas" ever lead to people acting on such ideas? Such as genocide where the object of hate is dehumanised to the point that killing on a mass scale is made easy.

    The idea itself kills no one, I think that's clear Captain Obvious. Your lack of logic is staggering. I'm done here.

    I knew exactly where you were going to go with that one. If people are acting on such ideas or are clearly about to then obviously there's a problem. Here's the thing however, in healthy societies where peoples liberties are properly respected things like genocides generally don't happen. They are the product of great social upheavals & historic enmities. In such a context, whether in Rwanda, Bosnia or wherever you can think of the mere presence of restrictions on people's speech would not be enough to stop any violence. The speech of Sinn Féin was severely restricted (remember the actor that played Gerry Adams in interviews?) during the Troubles, which did little or nothing to stem the flow of violence in the North & Britain. In some parts of Europe, such as France & Germany denial of the Holocaust is illegal, yet the Far Right are thriving throughout the continent, they're just careful about what opinions they air in the mainstream media. Assuming that restricting people's liberties is some kind of magic wand which will protect others is naive at best & may actually be dangerous.


  • Options
    #193
    Custardpi
    Registered Users Posts: 2,807 ✭✭✭Custardpi


    Interesting article from a few months ago in the New Yorker which mentions restrictions on speech in Weimar Germany among other things & would appear to contradict the views of those who believe that banning offensive speech is enough to prevent genocide.
    to claim that the Holocaust could have been prevented if only anti-Semitic speech and Nazi propaganda had been banned has little basis in reality. Leading Nazis such as Joseph Goebbels, Theodor Fritsch, and Julius Streicher were all prosecuted for anti-Semitic speech. Streicher served two prison sentences. Rather than deterring the Nazis and countering anti-Semitism, the many court cases served as effective public-relations machinery, affording Streicher the kind of attention he would never have found in a climate of a free and open debate.


  • Options
    #194
    testaccount123
    Registered Users Posts: 1,023 ✭✭✭testaccount123


    Custardpi wrote: »
    the views of those who believe that banning offensive speech is enough to prevent genocide.
    Nobody is making these claims


  • Options
    #195
    Custardpi
    Registered Users Posts: 2,807 ✭✭✭Custardpi


    testaccount123 wrote: »
    Nobody is making these claims

    DaRobot has spoken of how as he/she sees it the articulation of certain ideas can lead to the dehumanisation of people, which in turn can lead to genocide. On the other hand, as the New Yorker article argues the restriction of such vile views can actually give their proponent a kind of twisted legitimacy in the eyes of their disaffected & angry followers.


  • Options
    #196
    R P McMurphy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,129 ✭✭✭R P McMurphy


    Custardpi wrote: »
    I knew exactly where you were going to go with that one. If people are acting on such ideas or are clearly about to then obviously there's a problem. Here's the thing however, in healthy societies where peoples liberties are properly respected things like genocides generally don't happen. They are the product of great social upheavals & historic enmities. In such a context, whether in Rwanda, Bosnia or wherever you can think of the mere presence of restrictions on people's speech would not be enough to stop any violence. The speech of Sinn Féin was severely restricted (remember the actor that played Gerry Adams in interviews?) during the Troubles, which did little or nothing to stem the flow of violence in the North & Britain. In some parts of Europe, such as France & Germany denial of the Holocaust is illegal, yet the Far Right are thriving throughout the continent, they're just careful about what opinions they air in the mainstream media. Assuming that restricting people's liberties is some kind of magic wand which will protect others is naive at best & may actually be dangerous.

    Bonus points if you can name the actor that did Gerry's speaking parts. An interesting sidenote as the censorship in Ireland spawned a side industry. Was indeed a futile exercise and a pretty embarrassing one


  • Options
    #197
    allibastor
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,520 ✭✭✭allibastor


    eet fuk wrote: »
    They should be shot for that type of carry on

    I think this is a stupid re-attack on Muslims after they shot at the ragazine, but I dont think many will find a drowned 3 year old funny in the world.


  • Options
    #198
    RWCNT
    Registered Users Posts: 1,430 ✭✭✭RWCNT


    stunmer wrote: »
    https://i.imgur.com/84yvB5p.jpg

    I've always wondered what the context of this quote was.


  • Options
    #199
    eet fuk
    Registered Users Posts: 263 ✭✭eet fuk


    allibastor wrote: »
    I think this is a stupid re-attack on Muslims after they shot at the ragazine, but I dont think many will find a drowned 3 year old funny in the world.

    I don't think it's supposed to be funny.


  • Options
    #200
    crazygeryy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,065 ✭✭✭crazygeryy


    Custardpi wrote: »
    Do you seriously think that they're making fun of the plight of the dead boy? Really? Did it not enter your head that they could instead be trying to provoke a reaction in people & get them thinking about the situation in a new light by using dark humour? There are a hell of a lot of people looking at Charlie cartoons using their own particular cultural lens without actually recognising that different countries have different styles of humour. I doubt very much that the CH cartoonists meant the cartoon to be interpreted in the manner which you & others have done.

    i dont really care what they are doing.its despicable that they put a drawing of that dead kid on the front page of any magazine in a cartoon form.the definition of cartoon is"a simple drawing showing the features of its subjects in a humorously exaggerated way theres nothing simple or humorous about this.this isnt any kind of humour dark or otherwise.and anyone including you who sees it that way needs their head examined.

    what if it was your kid on the front page would you feel the same?
    id like you to answer that,that is if you do have kids.


  • Options
    #201
    Realt Dearg Sec
    Registered Users Posts: 10,864 ✭✭✭✭Realt Dearg Sec


    eet fuk wrote: »
    I don't think it's supposed to be funny.

    Exactly. Why are people assuming it's meant to be a laugh? And, once again, another poster who has assumed that the drowned boy, and not Europe and its supposed Christianity, is the target of the cartoon.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #202
    Realt Dearg Sec
    Registered Users Posts: 10,864 ✭✭✭✭Realt Dearg Sec


    crazygeryy wrote: »
    s"a simple drawing showing the features of its subjects in a humorously exaggerated way theres nothing simple or humorous about this..

    Well if the dictionary definition of it says it is supposed to be funny then clearly that's what the artist meant. Would it help if we called it something else then? Would the quite clear intended effect of it be legitimate if we don't refer to it as a cartoon?


  • Options
    #203
    crybaby
    Registered Users Posts: 852 ✭✭✭crybaby


    eet fuk wrote: »
    I don't think it's supposed to be funny.

    Why are so many people missing this? It's making a very sincere statement of disgust at people who don't want refugees to come to Europe.

    Do people get so wound up by a drawing of a dead child that they lose all common sense?


  • Options
    #204
    melissak
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,873 ✭✭✭melissak


    Custardpi wrote: »
    Which they are almost certainly not doing. If you don't understand the cartoon (which is fine, it comes from different satirical tradition, humour isn't an homogenous concept) then maybe dialling back the outrage would be advisable.

    But thats exactly the point. Humour is not a homogenous concept, given the reaction of the muslim people in france to their previous attempts at oh so smart satire, how do you expect the syrians who are arriving in france now after making that perilous journey and watching people die, to take it? Bear in mind that France has a long involvement in syria and is actively bombing the country right now


  • Options
    #205
    Realt Dearg Sec
    Registered Users Posts: 10,864 ✭✭✭✭Realt Dearg Sec


    melissak wrote: »
    But thats exactly the point. Humour is not a homogenous concept, given the reaction of the muslim people in france to their previous attempts at oh so smart satire, how do you expect the syrians who are arriving in france now after making that perilous journey and watching people die, to take it? Bear in mind that France has a long involvement in syria and is actively bombing the country right now

    In other words, "don't do that, someone might be offended".


  • Options
    #206
    melissak
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,873 ✭✭✭melissak


    Realt Dearg Sec wrote: »
    In other words, "don't do that, someone might be offended".

    Not someone might be offended. A whole group of innocent people who are arriving in your country from a warzone that your country is funding, will be offended. It looks to me like an oh so clever way to instigate extremists to do something stupid to justify a hardline stance on syrians, whilst being able to hide behind a what i meant was, freedom of speech shield and sure if it sells the craprag that I'm peddling s so much the better. But maybe i just don't get it because it is too clever


  • Options
    #207
    melissak
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,873 ✭✭✭melissak


    R P McMurphy wrote: »
    Bonus points if you can name the actor that did Gerry's speaking parts. An interesting sidenote as the censorship in Ireland spawned a side industry. Was indeed a futile exercise and a pretty embarrassing one

    Was it the guy from the crying game?


  • Options
    #208
    melissak
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,873 ✭✭✭melissak


    Realt Dearg Sec wrote: »
    Exactly. Why are people assuming it's meant to be a laugh? And, once again, another poster who has assumed that the drowned boy, and not Europe and its supposed Christianity, is the target of the cartoon.

    If people on boards don't get it will every refugee who doesn't speak french or have you clever intellectual people to spell it out to them?


  • Options
    #209
    Realt Dearg Sec
    Registered Users Posts: 10,864 ✭✭✭✭Realt Dearg Sec


    melissak wrote: »
    If people on boards don't get it will every refugee who doesn't speak french or have you clever intellectual people to spell it out to them?

    I don't judge the legitimacy or worth of any art on the ability of randomly chosen people to understand it. Anyway, so far I've not heard any actual reactions of Syrians to it. But evidently someone does have to spell it out to you.


  • Options
    #210
    R P McMurphy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,129 ✭✭✭R P McMurphy


    melissak wrote: »
    Was it the guy from the crying game?

    Yeah Stephen Rea. There were others as well as used to take it in turns. Pretty bizarre process looking back at it now


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #211
    Realt Dearg Sec
    Registered Users Posts: 10,864 ✭✭✭✭Realt Dearg Sec


    melissak wrote: »
    Not someone might be offended. A whole group of innocent people who are arriving in your country from a warzone that your country is funding, will be offended. It looks to me like an oh so clever way to instigate extremists to do something stupid to justify a hardline stance on syrians, whilst being able to hide behind a what i meant was, freedom of speech shield and sure if it sells the craprag that I'm peddling s so much the better. But maybe i just don't get it because it is too clever

    There's no need to be defensive about it (maybe I'm just not as clever as you clever intellectual clever people with your clever cleverness...get over yourself ffs). It's perfectly simple. The cartoon is targetting the hypocrisy of so-called Christian Europe, which in some instances have expressly said they will only take in Christian refugees. These same Europeans, standing on their supposedly Christian principles can let innocent children drown in the Meditteranean rather than actually do the obviously Christian thing and let them in.

    Now maybe you don't get it because it's too clever, but to me your ability to get it is neither here nor there as far as its value as satire is concerned. What I think is more likely is that it's nothing to do with whether you're clever, it's to do with the fact that you had an emotional response to the actual image of the child drowning being portrayed in a cartoon, and that has overridden any rational effort to interpret the actual content of the thing. That's your problem though, not the cartoonist's.


Advertisement