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…910121415

Comments

  • Options
    #332
    volchitsa
    Registered Users Posts: 7,041 ✭✭✭volchitsa


    melissak wrote: »
    I understand satire. Satire was traditionally the only way of highlighting injustice the lower classes could resort too. I believe charlie is a provocateur. Bear in mind the scenario in france. Charlie is a french magazine that the state police is shielding with 24hr protection. France is bombing syria. Refugees from that bombing are now being refused entry to france. France is extremely polarised on the issue. There are extremists on both sides of the devide that will be fuelled by this cartoon. Extremists tend to be blinded by what they think they see. There are thousands of people who have made that terrible jouney that killed so many of their people including this little boy. There has already been a major incident that strongly suggests at least some people don't get the joke

    You need to explain what you mean here, because it looks as though you're using this latest Charlie Hebdo cartoon to explain the attack on the Amsterdam-Paris train.

    Also, if people are blinded by what they "think" they see, how far do you suggest other people need to censor themselves to prevent an extremist seeing something that isn't there at all? Should women wear burkas so that extremists don't think they are all sluts?


  • Options
    #333
    melissak
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,873 ✭✭✭melissak


    volchitsa wrote: »
    No, no, no, you mustn't start looking for indirect references or some sort of key to reading these things. It's absolutely essential to remain at the level of the gut reaction of the least informed person imaginable. How else would satire work?? If it walks like a duck, then it's a duck, you've just had that explained to you!

    Satire is only to be used by the oppressed - though I'd say many of the ex-Muslims who've been threatened or even physically attacked by Muslim extremists for daring to openly reject Islam should fit that definition but apparently they don't matter.

    And of course Dean Swift's famous satire about the Irish eating their children which I mentioned earlier doesn't really fit this new redefined bill either - not many people would claim that Jonathan Swift was in any way part of the oppressed class he was writing about. Would they?

    No no no. I said it might be a duck. It might equally be a chicken dressed up in a clever way to satarise injustice.


  • Options
    #334
    melissak
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,873 ✭✭✭melissak


    volchitsa wrote: »
    You need to explain what you mean here, because it looks as though you're using this latest Charlie Hebdo cartoon to explain the attack on the Amsterdam-Paris train.

    Also, if people are blinded by what they "think" they see, how far do you suggest other people need to censor themselves to prevent an extremist seeing something that isn't there at all? Should women wear burkas so that extremists don't think they are all sluts?

    To me it is there. I am not an extremist. Women should wear burkas or not as they choose. We all need to censor ourselves on occasion in order to get on with others. The right to free speech should come with the responsibility to not use that right to hurt others


  • Options
    #335
    melissak
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,873 ✭✭✭melissak


    volchitsa wrote: »
    So other than your complete lack of understanding of the concept of satire, do you have any other explanation for why a group of people most of whom have a long personal history of anti-racist actions and writings would in fact be secret racists masquerading as anti-racists and fooling all those around them (but not you)?

    Or is it in fact necessary to know nothing whatsoever about the individuals involved in order to maintain your gut reaction-level assumptions about them?

    Not necessarily racist. Provocateurs


  • Options
    #336
    melissak
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,873 ✭✭✭melissak


    zombieHanalei wrote: »
    Not true, you can believe in freedom of speech while at the same time believe people must be held accountable for how they use that freedom.

    Yes. This is my position also. Thanks. I was beginning to think i was the only one.. b


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #337
    melissak
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,873 ✭✭✭melissak


    volchitsa wrote: »
    You need to explain what you mean here, because it looks as though you're using this latest Charlie Hebdo cartoon to explain the attack on the Amsterdam-Paris train.

    Also, if people are blinded by what they "think" they see, how far do you suggest other people need to censor themselves to prevent an extremist seeing something that isn't there at all? Should women wear burkas so that extremists don't think they are all sluts?

    What do you want me to explain. I had not heard of a train attack tbh. I was referring to the shooting.


  • Options
    #338
    volchitsa
    Registered Users Posts: 7,041 ✭✭✭volchitsa


    melissak wrote: »
    What do you want me to explain. I had not heard of a train attack tbh. I was referring to the shooting.

    Then you're making even less sense. How could a cartoon published in September, and for that matter, French military action which hasn't even occurred yet and has only just been announced, have had any effect on a shooting in January??

    You're basically searching desperately for any link however tenuous, that will justify religious violence against civilians.


  • Options
    #339
    eet fuk
    Registered Users Posts: 263 ✭✭eet fuk


    zombieHanalei wrote: »
    Not true, you can believe in freedom of speech while at the same time believe people must be held accountable for how they use that freedom.

    Well of course everyone should be held accountable for everything they say and do. There may be other things that I feel are inappropriate but you don't have any issues with, that's life.

    Perhaps people should be asking the authors what they meant by the cartoons, rather than jumping to conclusions. I would argue that they wanted to start a healthy debate - similar to this one. Mission accomplished if that's the case!


  • Options
    #340
    Dry Rain
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 32 ✭Dry Rain


    Oh no, someone better take Charlie Hebdo's crayons away!

    I hope this isn't too off topic but is Charlie Hebdo the guy behind "Je suis Charlie"? What was that about and what was the thing he did that Muslims got angry about? I only heard about these things, I'm not really into international news.


  • Options
    #341
    DarkyHughes
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,393 ✭✭✭DarkyHughes


    RobertKK wrote: »
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/charlie-hebdo-cover-cartoon-jokes-about-death-of-drowned-syrian-toddler-aylan-kurdi-10499645.html

    https://twitter.com/islamaideology/status/642647579306684416?ref_src=twsrc^tfw

    Jokes about Muslims drowning -

    https://twitter.com/SimplyRim/status/643025434830065664

    I never found drowned children or people for that matter as good material for satire.

    Je ne suis pas Charlie.

    France has a very large far-right fascist movement & it's vulgar crap like Charlie Hebdo that helps fuel these ideologies.

    I'm all for free speech but also all for taking action against hate speech which is just what this magazine is.

    I can't imagine Charlie Hebdo making fun of the 3 Israeli teens who killed right before the massacre on Gaza last year.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #342
    kunst nugget
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,375 ✭✭✭✭kunst nugget


    DarkyHughes wrote: »
    France has a very large far-right fascist movement & it's vulgar crap like Charlie Hebdo that helps fuel these ideologies.

    I'm all for free speech but also all for taking action against hate speech which is just what this magazine is.

    The problem with your narrative is that Charlie Hebdo operates on the far left of the political spectrum, is anti-racist and one of its main targets is the National Front.


  • Options
    #343
    Realt Dearg Sec
    Registered Users Posts: 10,839 ✭✭✭✭Realt Dearg Sec


    Dry Rain wrote: »
    Oh no, someone better take Charlie Hebdo's crayons away!

    I hope this isn't too off topic but is Charlie Hebdo the guy behind "Je suis Charlie"? What was that about and what was the thing he did that Muslims got angry about? I only heard about these things, I'm not really into international news.

    http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Charlie+Hebdo


  • Options
    #344
    melissak
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,873 ✭✭✭melissak


    volchitsa wrote: »
    Then you're making even less sense. How could a cartoon published in September, and for that matter, French military action which hasn't even occurred yet and has only just been announced, have had any effect on a shooting in January??

    You're basically searching desperately for any link however tenuous, that will justify religious violence against civilians.

    No. I referred to earlier events to illustrate that they were aware that some people might not get their humour. Have you read my posts at all?
    Are you saying France are not participating in the war?


  • Options
    #345
    melissak
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,873 ✭✭✭melissak


    kunst nugget wrote: »
    The problem with your narrative is that Charlie Hebdo operates on the far left of the political spectrum, is anti-racist and one of its main targets is the National Front.

    So did hitler. Not that they are the same but the nazis were supposedly socialist to begin with I think.


  • Options
    #346
    DarkyHughes
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,393 ✭✭✭DarkyHughes


    kunst nugget wrote: »
    The problem with your narrative is that Charlie Hebdo operates on the far left of the political spectrum, is anti-racist and one of its main targets is the National Front.

    It's like the Bill Maher leftists. They say their liberal then come out with what can only be described as far-right comments. It reminds me of Joan Rovers comments about kids being massacred in the Gaza.


  • Options
    #347
    melissak
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,873 ✭✭✭melissak


    volchitsa wrote: »
    Then you're making even less sense. How could a cartoon published in September, and for that matter, French military action which hasn't even occurred yet and has only just been announced, have had any effect on a shooting in January??

    You're basically searching desperately for any link however tenuous, that will justify religious violence against civilians.

    No. I referred to earlier events to illustrate that they were aware that some people might not get their humour. Have you read my posts at all?
    Are you saying France are not participating in the war?


  • Options
    #348
    melissak
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,873 ✭✭✭melissak


    DarkyHughes wrote: »
    It's like the Bill Maher leftists. They say their liberal then come out with what can only be described as far-right comments. It reminds me of Joan Rovers comments about kids being massacred in the Gaza.

    It is genius really. Evil genius but genius none the less. The blinded far right take it as support for their position. The extremists on the other side use it as propaganda for why the French are awful, the refugees are made to feel unwelcome and mocked and the intellectuals debate the right to free speech. Marketing genius. Also a good way to ensure polarised views allowing the government to maintain it's unfair regime, all the more so if some Muslims overreact


  • Options
    #349
    volchitsa
    Registered Users Posts: 7,041 ✭✭✭volchitsa


    melissak wrote: »
    No. I referred to earlier events to illustrate that they were aware that some people might not get their humour. Have you read my posts at all?
    Are you saying France are not participating in the war?

    I'm saying that a left wing, anti-authority and anti-war satirical magazine cannot possibly have any responsibility for acts that the government of the country it exists in have not yet committed at the time the magazine was attacked.

    In what way did France's policy on Syria in January 2015 (I bet you don't even know what their policy was back then!) cause Muslim extremists to attack Charlie Hebdo?

    I ask because the attackers themselves said that they did it for religious, not political reasons: namely, they objected to the cartoonists of Charlie Hebdo printing any likeness of the prophet.

    Are you saying they were wrong about their own reasons, and that you know what was in their minds better than they knew themselves?


  • Options
    #350
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Ignatius in bloom wrote: »
    Good man Conor nail on head. Yes ignore the reality of statistics and concentrate on the nice shiny picture.

    I would have thought the very definition of simplistic analysis and sweeping generalisations was your "people don't care about children and buying nice phones demonstrates that". You think that was "nail on head" stuff? It was laughable.


  • Options
    #351
    kunst nugget
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,375 ✭✭✭✭kunst nugget


    melissak wrote: »
    So did hitler. Not that they are the same but the nazis were supposedly socialist to begin with I think.

    Actually, Hitler considered the Nazis neither left nor right.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #352
    Insect Overlord
    Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 30,860 Mod ✭✭✭✭Insect Overlord


    Ha, sweet! I haven't seen Godwin's Law in action in a while. :D


  • Options
    #353
    kunst nugget
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,375 ✭✭✭✭kunst nugget


    melissak wrote: »
    It is genius really. Evil genius but genius none the less. The blinded far right take it as support for their position. The extremists on the other side use it as propaganda for why the French are awful, the refugees are made to feel unwelcome and mocked and the intellectuals debate the right to free speech. Marketing genius. Also a good way to ensure polarised views allowing the government to maintain it's unfair regime, all the more so if some Muslims overreact

    So Charlie Hebdo published cartoons critical of Europe's response to the refugee crisis as an elaborate plot to help the French government justify their military involvement in Syria?

    Elvis had left the building in terms of logic when it comes to an argument like that.


  • Options
    #354
    kunst nugget
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,375 ✭✭✭✭kunst nugget


    DarkyHughes wrote: »
    It's like the Bill Maher leftists. They say their liberal then come out with what can only be described as far-right comments. It reminds me of Joan Rovers comments about kids being massacred in the Gaza.

    Even the smallest bit of research on Charlie Hebdo would show you they're nothing like Bill Maher.


  • Options
    #355
    stunmer
    Registered Users Posts: 279 ✭✭stunmer


    DarkyHughes wrote: »
    France has a very large far-right fascist movement & it's vulgar crap like Charlie Hebdo that helps fuel these ideologies.

    I'm all for free speech but also all for taking action against hate speech which is just what this magazine is.

    In what way is it hate speech? Against who? Examples please?

    Do you call it hate speech because you don't understand it?

    Let me leave this here for you... http://www.understandingcharliehebdo.com/


  • Options
    #356
    Ignatius in bloom
    Closed Accounts Posts: 240 ✭✭Ignatius in bloom


    Deleted User wrote: »
    I would have thought the very definition of simplistic analysis and sweeping generalisations was your "people don't care about children and buying nice phones demonstrates that". You think that was "nail on head" stuff? It was laughable.

    Its often the most simplest of things that make the most valid points. As for laughable? Some self reflection might help you.


  • Options
    #357
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Ignatius in bloom wrote: »
    Its often the most simplest of things that make the most valid points.

    Well we agree on one thing. Claiming that spending money on phones instead of on children demonstrates that we don't care is very simple indeed.

    By that nonsense, even parents who buy nice phones instead of spending the money on their children, don't really care about them!


  • Options
    #358
    Ignatius in bloom
    Closed Accounts Posts: 240 ✭✭Ignatius in bloom


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Well we agree on one thing. Claiming that spending money on phones instead of on children demonstrates that we don't care is very simple indeed.

    By that nonsense, even parents who buy nice phones instead of spending the money on their children, don't really care about them!

    Yes Conor it's a broad statement but one with purpose, No? Do you not agree if people were less selfish and more concerned about others welfare that the world indeed would be a better place and wouldn't it be a better world if we stopped letting powerful institutions control the worlds financial landscapes and all that this incurs? I include myself in being selfish and not doing enough BTW. We have more power than we think but it only works in unity and most people can't be bothered or do not care enough to change things for the better and whether you agree or not but most people would spend 600 euro on a phone in a split second without thought but would never give that amount of money to a good solid foundation that can make a difference to the welfare of children or any others in need of desperate help.

    The world has become far to judgemental.


  • Options
    #359
    ilkhanid
    Registered Users Posts: 901 ✭✭✭ilkhanid


    Korbin Witty Neck wrote: »
    No I didn't. That's how you interpreted it. Freedom of speech is no excuse to be a díck or to ridicule people. Nobody has the right to act that way. Twist and turn my words however you like. The picture itself doesn't offend me, however, the rag of a magazine that it is, does.

    That's exactly what satire is about! Right back to Gilray and Rowlandson. Not to mention that many people deserve ridicule.
    melissak wrote: »
    Oh but they were making a satirical point that was oh so clever.... If someone insists on poking a bear, whilst saying, I'm not really poking you, if you were smarter you'd get it, I for one won't lose sleep when the bear eats them.

    The implication being that Muslims, or Syrians-or some group-are equivalent to mindless animals, who react with rage,without thought. Something as offensive as any cartoon.
    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.
    KingBrian2 wrote: »
    During the Nuremburg trial some of the convicted war criminals claimed their publications were satirical publications. Der Stormer. Peoples tempers are rising due to this carton being published. I hope French Muslims use the courts to sue them.

    How do you make that out? Was the child's religion obvious to to the casual viewer? The refugees include Christians and Yazidis too, you know. All the image showed was a dead child.
    Eugene Norman wrote: »
    Nevertheless the solution to these migrations from the ME is to stop bombing the place.

    Right now, bombing is one of the most useful things that can be done and the Kurds are among several groups grateful for it, else Kobane would be a graveyard.
    asherbassad wrote: »
    Then how come they weren't fleeing in droves BEFORE NATO turned Libya, Iraq and Syria into unimagineable hellholes?

    I can't seem to recall exactly when NATO turned Syria into an "unimaginable" hellhole. It seems to be Assad and Daesh who bear the responsibility for that.

    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

    I am aware that humour is not a homogenous concept. So western societies, rarher than banning this, that or t'other have instituted freedom of speech so people can battle it out in the marketplace of idea and images. Would you prefer we return to the way of doing things that we had in the century before last? Or the last century in the case of this country.

    Yes, France is actively bombing Daesh...the group that most of these people are freeing from.
    melissak wrote: »
    I understand satire. Satire was traditionally the only way of highlighting injustice the lower classes could resort too. I believe charlie is a provocateur. Bear in mind the scenario in france. Charlie is a french magazine that the state police is shielding with 24hr protection. France is bombing syria. Refugees from that bombing are now being refused entry to france. France is extremely polarised on the issue. There are extremists on both sides of the devide that will be fuelled by this cartoon. Extremists tend to be blinded by what they think they see. There are thousands of people who have made that terrible jouney that killed so many of their people including this little boy. There has already been a major incident that strongly suggests at least some people don't get the joke


    The refugees are fleeing French bombing? Eh? What a crazy notion! France is bombing Daesh (and the depredatiuons of Assad) in Syria. ...unless you think Daesh and Syria are one and the same. The war has been waging for years now, well before France raised a finger.
    What incident exactly?


  • Options
    #360
    bnt
    Registered Users Posts: 12,965 ✭✭✭✭bnt


    I read that as a reaction to the hype surrounding the kid's death, not the death itself. The kid is beyond all care at this point, all that's left are the family's sorrow and the media's (over-)reaction.

    From out there on the moon, international politics look so petty. You want to grab a politician by the scruff of the neck and drag him a quarter of a million miles out and say, ‘Look at that, you son of a bitch’.

    — Edgar Mitchell, Apollo 14 Astronaut



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #361
    melissak
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,873 ✭✭✭melissak


    volchitsa wrote: »
    I'm saying that a left wing, anti-authority and anti-war satirical magazine cannot possibly have any responsibility for acts that the government of the country it exists in have not yet committed at the time the magazine was attacked.

    In what way did France's policy on Syria in January 2015 (I bet you don't even know what their policy was back then!) cause Muslim extremists to attack Charlie Hebdo?

    I ask because the attackers themselves said that they did it for religious, not political reasons: namely, they objected to the cartoonists of Charlie Hebdo printing any likeness of the prophet.

    Are you saying they were wrong about their own reasons, and that you know what was in their minds better than they knew themselves?

    Frances policy in the middle east has not changed much since they lost control of tgeir colonies there.


Advertisement