Charlie Hebdo makes fun of drowned Syrian boy.

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

Are these Charlie Hebdo crowd any different to the Nazi publication Der Sturmer
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Der_St%C3%BCrmer ?

Where they published pictures like this ebrei.jpg

This is now termed as Nazi Propaganda. What's the difference with the Hebdo stuff?

Well for a start one is an attack on western hypocrisy while the other is anti-Semitic.

Realt Dearg Sec wrote: »

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.

I don't need anything these people have to say spelled out to me. I get what they are trying to achieve.

Realt Dearg Sec wrote: »

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.

Actually i thought that the massive response to the photo of this poor dead boy was a bit strange considering that this war has been going on for four years and a quarter of a million people have already died, no doubt many of them photogenic children. The cynic in me thinks it might be because they are now in france and germany and the powers that be wanted to elicit an emotional response from countries before they hand out their mandatory quotas. But this is beside the point. I don't like charlie needlessly provoking people who have done them no harm that are arriving in their country right now fleeing from a warzone that was their home, a war that right or wrong is actively funded by france. Frances involvement in syria goes way back, im sure these clever people know their country's history, and present..

Realt Dearg Sec wrote: »

You think that what they're doing is trying to get a reaction that is clearly the opposite of the actual meaning of their cartoon in order to provoke extremism and therefore justify an equally extreme anti-refugee response from Europe. Which is basically a hare-brained conspiracy theory that doesn't make any sense whatsoever, and massively overestimates that actual power of any media, most of all magazines with very small distribution. So...yeah, you're right, you have it all figured out.

I can interpret it any way i like. As can you.

Realt Dearg Sec wrote: »

That doesn't make you right. An interpretation can be wrong. I mean, if you can interpret it any way you like, why do you like to interpret it in the way that makes it the most offensive to you? Why not interpret it as hilarious and harmless? Or as having no political implications whatsoever? And if we all did that, then there'd be no problem, right?

g
I am not offended. I am not a muslim or syrian in France

The outrage over this is just fueled by a bunch of hypocrites.

I saw the picture of the dead child plastered all over social media by morons who were just fishing for likes. So it's okay to share a picture of a dead child in order to get likes and show everyone how deeply it affected you, but then cry outrage when a satirical newspaper use a cartoon of the image to actually make people think about the wider context of the situation? Get real.

And as for those newspapers who printed the original image, do you think they did it because they actually care? The printed it because they knew it would sell copies, and would attract more clicks to their websites. They used a dead child to increase their traffic and advertising revenue. Ohhhhh but let's all get outraged over a satirical newspaper, who had their staff members murdered by Muslims extremists, when they use a cartoon to highlight European attitudes to the refugee crisis.

It baffles me that some people can be so short-sighted, narrow minded, and generally brain dead.

Charlie Hebo are nothing more than pathetic attention seeking trolls.

Charlie Hebdo's satire is not aimed at the little child. It's aimed at Europe, which cries out "Come on, we'll shelter you, and you can have our luxuries" - then slams the gates, while desperate people are drowning and starving on their way.

Qualitymark wrote: »

Claire Chazal, queen of the news anchors in France for endless years past, has been sacked from her €1.4m job after younger presenters gained viewers. Big shock in France, where she's been the calm voice of reserved and fair news reporting for most people's lifetimes.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/claire-chazal-frances-queen-of-news-is-dead--and-with-her-a-countrys-deference-to-the-political-class-10497211.html

Here's Charlie Hebdo's razor-sharp take on the sacking:

http://charliehebdo.fr

Can someone translate it for me so I might be able to understand it?