|
Ballz posted:Also, have a Banksy: I saw a variant of this earlier.  WitchFetish posted:It feels like I'm arguing with people who have no idea what the gently caress they are talking about from the beginning, and this is honestly kinda scary. I think the word you're looking for is "Americans"
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 10:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 17:55 |
|
|
Finally a German newspaper with some balls:
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 10:55
|
|
|
ephex posted:Finally a German newspaper with some balls: It was predictably depressing that no English paper would reprint the cartoons, probably a meeting going on now at Private Eye to discuss whether they'll follow suit.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 11:00
|
|
|
ephex posted:Finally a German newspaper with some balls: Radio debate this morning between editors of BZ and The Independent (UK). Latter said basically "we support CH's right to publish cartoons but we won't republish because we have to protect our staff." He also added that he wouldn't republish unilaterally - implying that if all UK newspaper republish (and NONE of them have) that the situation might be different.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 11:00
|
|
|
The NZ Herald's cartoonist did the entirety of tomorrow's cover, but no idea if they'll publish any of CH's cartoons as well: They did publish some online though (with extremely bad translations)  actual: The UMP discovers democracy  actual: What an idiot! I should have worked[...]  actual: There, do you still recognise Palestine? exmarx fucked around with this message at 11:24 on Jan 8, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 11:21
|
|
|
The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam. AGC. (This is the most Willfully Dense poo poo I've seen in months.)
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 11:46
|
|
|
WarpedNaba posted:I can't find a good archive for Giles. But I think I'll be able to start scanning a mate's books (He's an old Irish bloke who's one helluva fan) in a few days. We still cool with that? Also anything with Grandma Giles in is great, although not generally political. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 12:35
|
|
|
Okay, Berlin newspapers are officially badass NO! YOU CAN'T MURDER OUR FREEDOM
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 13:12
|
|
|
ephex posted:Okay, Berlin newspapers are officially badass It's nice to see Germany and France on the same side of a fight. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 13:14
|
|
|
Sheng-ji Yang posted:
This was on the BBC earlier today. It's kind of weird seeing political cartoons in the wild.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 13:21
|
|
|
Shadeoses posted:
Ramirez has gotten a lot better. Sadly, as shown in the bottom left, he still can't draw spines. Fulchrum fucked around with this message at 13:41 on Jan 8, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 13:32
|
|
|
"French cartoonists killed for their satire? Why... This sounds like a great opportunity to really nail that Obama guy! Somehow! Because I am a baby who lacks the cognitive ability tob differentiate between people I don't like and events I don't like!"
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 13:36
|
|
|
This is from a few pages back, but it's been irking me since I read it.Jedit posted:No, it's the right time to bring it up. It's why Charlie Hebdo was targeted, and as such it is relevant - doubly so, considering that had it been one of the thread's right wing regulars who had been killed by extremists, you wouldn't be able to breathe in here for the schadenfreude. That is completely horse poo poo. Some nut-job claiming to be a radical feminist could murder Chris Muir tomorrow because they were offended by how terribly sexist his comic is, and Muir would deserve to be credited for exercising his free speech and being martyred for it. (Even more so is he had already been firebombed or otherwise attacked in the same manner as Charlie Hebdo and kept at it.) lovely opinions should be mocked, not silenced, and it's right to morn even when a lovely opinion is silenced by violence because no lovely opinion is as lovely as violence.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 13:43
|
|
|
Perfect.  I have no ide- oh.  
Post 9-11 User fucked around with this message at 13:53 on Jan 8, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 13:43
|
|
10
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 13:52
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 14:08
|
|
|
Did not expect Kirschen to blame pigeons.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 14:36
|
|
|
I would love to see more cartoons and perhaps even editorial excerpts from the publication in general, but of the victims in particular. I am ashamed to say that I was one of those who at first thought Charlie Hebdo was a person and not just the name of the publication. But please, PLEASE for the love of god, do provide context or at-least translation (perhaps not of the editorials, if there are links one can just google translate by yourself.) Would be interesting to see what they had to say outside of religious matters as well. A few cartoons have been posted, but would like to see more. I am no francophone and had never heard of this publication or artists before, and there are mostly a focus on the recent cartoons that sparked this atrocity being showcased (or lack of that even, aside from those German papers).
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 14:38
|
|
|
Exclamation Marx posted:This guys a freakin idiot Do cartoonists use a special kind of pen like this or did Bennet start drawing a pen and then forget he was drawing a pen? How is that pigeon going to peck at bread crumbs without a beak? 
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 14:49
|
|
|
Gravel Gravy posted:Do cartoonists use a special kind of pen like this or did Bennet start drawing a pen and then forget he was drawing a pen? It's an ordinary dip pen. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dip_pen
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 14:52
|
|
|
Well, the metaphor doesn't work as well with a wacom stylus
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 15:12
|
|
|
Art is a symbol and therefore inherently meaningless. For a symbol to have value to the viewer we need to understand the context and culture in which it was created. For instance, there is a 30,000+ year old piece of art in a cave that depicts a creature with the head of a lion and the body of a woman. Without a frame of context we can only guess at the meaning. Are we seeing an image of the goddess once worshiped by the artist, or is it scathing commentary on his ex-wife? We can only guess at the intent. The true meaning is forever lost. I draw a swastika. Is this a symbol of good luck? Am I calling for the death of the Jewish race? Is it a poorly thought-out pinwheel? Without understanding the context of my art it is up to you the viewer to decide. If I choose my symbolism poorly I can expect to be misunderstood. That’s why we have ”A Good Comic” as a thread meme. Artists who don’t understand the nature of the language they use create symbols that can be seen in unintended ways. On the other hand we have artists who deliberately choose commonly expressed symbols in order to mock either their accepted meaning or those who routinely utilize these symbols. Everybody’s favorite Onion cartoonist is the perfect example of this. However, when somebody new sees a Kelly piece away from the context of the obviously satirical Onion these cartoons are easily and often interpreted to be hateful and ignorant trash. Context is the only way to understand symbolism. Previous to the massacre in France I have seen a few of the comics produced by the staff of Charlie Hebdo. Not knowing the nature of the publication I could only see hateful scribbles; art that belonged in Dry Bones and a message worthy of a Muir or McCoy. In short, just another bunch of hate-mongers with a pen. With the context explained by a few helpful posters I can begin to understand the symbolic language used, and thus understand the intended message. With the help of a translator the artists have now communicated with me. Let this be the message: next time somebody posts a comment about the cartoons and points out that they look a whole lot like hate speech, take the time to educate them. Post some cartoons, talk about the context, the message, the events going on in France at the time of publication. Give us the translation we need to understand the art. Don’t go on the attack. Don’t give us more mindless hate. Enlighten us. Show us what these artists lived and died for.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 15:15
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:There's a pretty crucial difference between this situation and any post-mass shooting frenzy: While the NRA tries to prevent people from debating the means used by the killers to commit a violent crime, right now nobody seems interested in talking about how to prevent further terrorist attacks or about the attackers themselves, rather the focus is on whether the victims were bad people, while making half-hearted concessions that "what happened was bad". It seems that the fact twelve people were murdered is secondary to the fact that I don't agree with some cartoons. It's like making a breaking news story about the fact that some kids at Columbine had failing grades instead of about the shooting, its roots and implications. Actually it's more like making a breaking news story about whether or not some kids at Columbine were reacting to a bullying environment and what do you know, that was a major conversation that happened after that massacre! Turns out that they weren't, but the conversation about effects of bullying on unstable students still happened without a bunch of angry yelling about "victim blaming" because it was considered important to discuss a potentially toxic environment that leads to deplorable violence.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 15:28
|
|
|
Stultus Maximus posted:Actually it's more like making a breaking news story about whether or not some kids at Columbine were reacting to a bullying environment and what do you know, that was a major conversation that happened after that massacre! Turns out that they weren't, but the conversation about effects of bullying on unstable students still happened without a bunch of angry yelling about "victim blaming" because it was considered important to discuss a potentially toxic environment that leads to deplorable violence. I have real difficulty with the idea that bullying and publishing insulting cartoons are at all equivalent.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 15:32
|
|
|
I thought this was a great article on the whole hebdo thing https://medium.com/@asgharbukhari/charlie-hebdo-this-attack-was-nothing-to-do-with-free-speech-it-was-about-war-26aff1c3e998
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 15:32
|
|
|
also lol http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/01/07/after-paris-attack-fox-anchor-suggests-skin-col/202039
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 15:37
|
|
|
Honest question: How many mainstream satirical publications are published in the US these days? I know of The Onion, and by extension Kelly, but those are basically as simple and inoffensive as you can get. I'm asking because a lot of americans seem incapable of understanding the concept of political satire, and that is leading to a lot of people taking the Charlie Hebdo cartoons at face value. Some people seem to try to describe them as a political and left-leaning MAD magazine, so I suppose they are at least going strong still?
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 15:40
|
|
|
ephex posted:Okay, Berlin newspapers are officially badass Nah, that's actually a super racist depiction of Arab people. Racism is, sadly, the opposite of badass
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 15:42
|
|
|
Okay, you know what, if one of you finds a Charlie Hebdo cartoon he wants translated/some info on the context just tell me, I'll be glad to help.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 15:53
|
|
|
Broken Cog posted:Honest question: How many mainstream satirical publications are published in the US these days? I know of The Onion, and by extension Kelly, but those are basically as simple and inoffensive as you can get. Mad is still around and occasionally political, but unfortunately 
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 15:57
|
|
|
albany academy posted:I thought this was a great article on the whole hebdo thing you mean bad article
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 16:01
|
|
|
joeburz posted:you mean bad article idk enough about this thread to know if you have a bad opinion generally or just this one time
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 16:02
|
|
|
albany academy posted:idk enough about this thread to know if you have a bad opinion generally or just this one time quote:White people don’t like to admit it, but those cartoons upheld their prejudice, their racism, their political supremacy, and cut it how you will — images like that upheld a political order built on discrimination. quote:Cue some right wing media white dude (or some Zionist) to now accuse me of justifying the murder quote:Someone, more powerful than you or I reader, in the political elites has to have the sense to change the mood music of war and hate, re-look at our policies and have the courage to say: This person is either literally twelve or possibly an actual retarded person in the medical sense.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 16:07
|
|
|
Or some Zionist.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 16:07
|
|
|
Chomskyan posted:Nah, that's actually a super racist depiction of Arab people. Racism is, sadly, the opposite of badass I don't necessarily dispute that it is racist, but any negative caricature of a minority if going to appear at least somewhat racist. It's not an easy line to draw. albany academy posted:I thought this was a great article on the whole hebdo thing This article is poo poo. Ironically racist depictions, made to draw attention to racism, are not racist. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 16:10
|
|
|
I occasionally doodle people with huge noses and goofy expressions, I guess I uphold the racist combined white-Zionist tyranny.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 16:10
|
|
|
fool_of_sound posted:I don't necessarily dispute that it is racist, but any negative caricature of a minority if going to appear at least somewhat racist. It's not an easy line to draw. I don't really find Hebdo's cartoons to be ironic though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 16:12
|
|
|
Stultus Maximus posted:Actually it's more like making a breaking news story about whether or not some kids at Columbine were reacting to a bullying environment and what do you know, that was a major conversation that happened after that massacre! Turns out that they weren't, but the conversation about effects of bullying on unstable students still happened without a bunch of angry yelling about "victim blaming" because it was considered important to discuss a potentially toxic environment that leads to deplorable violence. I think the real issue is the "We are Charlie!" stuff for me. Of course, the enormous tragedy in this case is that people were murdered. Murder is awful. It's the worst thing, literally, that you can do to a person, besides doing something bad to them and then murdering them. It should not happen, not for any reason, least of all that they are drawing cartoons. But some of the cartoons were bigoted, and I do not feel comfortable identifying in a "We are Charlie!" kind of way with the people who drew them. If someone call Muir's balls off and then forced him to chock on them, I would think this was terrible behavior, which was unwarranted, in the face of pretty much anything, but I could not, under any circumstances say "We are Muir!" because I am about as far as I can be from being him. I would not post his cartoons in defiance of the people who killed him, because they are still bad and hateful cartoons. A lot of us are being exposed to the cartoons for the first time, which are making us uncomfortable because of the bigotry expressed therein, which is why they are being criticized now, even in the wake of the tragedy. We are not bringing it up because we are blaming the victims, we are bringing it up because we are just now seeing these cartoons, and we have been asked to identify with them, which I, at least, do not, beyond in a generalized and nebulous "free speech" sort of way. There's no government body censoring these cartoons and there never was; there is no need to proliferate them. They have already proliferated in their relevant circles. The people who created them were silenced by hateful, murdering hands, and that is indeed a horrible tragedy, and that they will no longer be able to speak or express themselves through drawing is horrible and sad. Still, that doesn't mean that all of us must needs identify with every point they made so much that we must post it in every corner of the internet, when the views expressed are in fact sometimes not good. It doesn't mean that each criticism blames them for what they are doing. I openly condemn what happened to Charlie, but I am not Charlie, and I will not identify with the viewpoints expressed by Charlie.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 16:15
|
|
|
albany academy posted:I don't really find Hebdo's cartoons to be ironic though. They're explicitly satirical. If you think they mean something else in their heart of hearts, that's on you. Maybe they go too far, but they are at least attempting satire.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 16:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 17:55 |
|
|
albany academy posted:I don't really find Hebdo's cartoons to be ironic though. Well, then that's your problem, isn't it?  Edit: And sheesh, I repeat: quote:Honest question: How many mainstream satirical publications are published in the US these days?
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 16:16
|
|