|
albany academy posted:also lol Yeah let's overmilitirize our cops, it's not a military state it's a safe state.
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 16:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 15:18 |
|
|
albany academy posted:I don't really find Hebdo's cartoons to be ironic though. Sorry you're ignorant I guess? Like, they super clearly are satire, said over and over, going to constant absurd lengths to show 'hey we're just loving around guys', and, ya know, when it comes to actually DOING things (vs making lovely blog posts) they've been constantly on the side of minority rights and against oppressive forces.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 16:18
|
|
|
albany academy posted:I don't really find Hebdo's cartoons to be ironic though. Here, this should help.  http://o.onionstatic.com/images/18/18053/16x9/700.jpg?1577
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 16:19
|
|
|
WitchFetish posted: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. I want to know if the Boko Haram one is meant to be satirising daily mail type MUSLIM BENEFIT SCROUNGERS TAKING ARE TAXES stuff, or if it's just a terrible joke
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 16:22
|
|
|
idk, i don't really see any sort of platform for saying that a minority that thinks something is racist isn't racist... and saying it's just satire, or they're just sensitive, or people just don't get it (me i guess from your reactions) just seems to lack empathy. like the kelly comics are very definitely satire, and are very subversive and subtle typically - but hebdo's seem to rely primarily on shock value, and subtext can be easily lost if you're the offended party.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 16:25
|
|
|
Hey uh I don't mean to interrupt the shitstorm or anything but How exactly can Lester convince himself that Obama is on the attackers' side here?  Like, I get that every time something bad Obama does a thing it is bad and every time a bad thing happens Obama did it, but this just seems particularly shameless and I have no idea how he or anyone else can swallow it e: Come to think of it maybe that's just a kid who happens to look a lot like Lester's Obama caricature; he's not wearing a rainbow tie after all 
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 16:26
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:I occasionally doodle people with huge noses and goofy expressions, I guess I uphold the racist combined white-Zionist tyranny. Great big honkers are also stereotypically French. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 16:26
|
|
|
Broken Cog posted:Honest question: How many mainstream satirical publications are published in the US these days? Besides Mad magazine and The Onion, I can't think of any, but publications themselves are weird not-really-things in modern U.S. media. Much of our satire is televised, with I think South Park as probably the biggest satirical show of the last ten years. And I find it really amusing that people here on a site that prides itself on its reputation of goatse links and over-the-top trolling are being diffident on whether they would want to be seen as really supporting Charlie Hebdo.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 16:26
|
|
|
You disappointed me Kirschen
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 16:26
|
|
|
Eschers Basement posted:with I think South Park as probably the biggest satirical show of the last ten years. South Park ain't got poo poo on Colbert
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 16:27
|
|
|
albany academy posted:idk, i don't really see any sort of platform for saying that a minority that thinks something is racist isn't racist... and saying it's just satire, or they're just sensitive, or people just don't get it (me i guess from your reactions) just seems to lack empathy. It is possible for minorities (just like everyone else) to misinterpret things from time to time.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 16:28
|
|
|
Eschers Basement posted:Besides Mad magazine and The Onion, I can't think of any, but publications themselves are weird not-really-things in modern U.S. media. Much of our satire is televised, with I think South Park as probably the biggest satirical show of the last ten years. Dont forget the Daily Show/Colbert Report. Americans have never been big on reading so tv shows and stand-up comics have been the most widely consumed cultural commentary at least as far back as the 80's
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 16:28
|
|
|
fool_of_sound posted:It is possible for minorities (just like everyone else) to misinterpret things from time to time. i think 'misinterpret' is a bit of an understatement if it leads to 12 people being shot to death imo
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 16:29
|
|
|
loquacius posted:South Park ain't got poo poo on Colbert 420 Gank Mid posted:Dont forget the Daily Show/Colbert Report. Americans have never been big on reading so tv shows and stand-up comics have been the most widely consumed cultural commentary at least as far back as the 80's poo poo, yeah, good point, my bad.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 16:30
|
|
|
If Lester wants Obama's response to be Islam sucks and Muslims are dumb and they should all convert to Mike Lester's Rome, GA, Pentecostal Megachurch, then I'm not sure who he expects to ever be President saying that poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 16:31
|
|
|
Eschers Basement posted:
I do not support the general mentality of the over-the-top trolling phenomenon either though
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 16:33
|
|
|
albany academy posted:i think 'misinterpret' is a bit of an understatement if it leads to 12 people being shot to death imo I think it's a combination of "misinterpret", "react unacceptably", and "overreact". (It's not like it would have been okay if they'd killed just one person.)
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 16:33
|
|
|
albany academy posted:i think 'misinterpret' is a bit of an understatement if it leads to 12 people being shot to death imo Misinterpretation combined with mental illness. Non-mentally-ill people don't kill over a cartoon.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 16:33
|
|
|
Even Colbert and Daily Show are just milquetoast, non-offensive shows prepared by a staff of writers. As compared to the author-oriented, non-compromising and unapologetic nature of old satire papers. And still there was the whole #CancelColbert shitshow when somebody on the staff for once used a mildly provocative means to get a point across.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 16:35
|
|
|
Does France actually have a decent culture of free speech, or does it just pay lip service to it when it benefits them? Is there an Anjem Choudary type that's currently locked up for using his free speech to say something the government didn't like?
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 16:35
|
|
|
You know, maybe newspapers that aren't printing depictions of Mohammed aren't doing it out of fear or capitulation, but MAYBE because they have readers who are, you know, Muslims? Those people with religious beliefs, the overwhelming majority of whom are not guilty of ideological murder? And maybe just want to read the loving news without having their religious sensibilities offended? Like, it's fuckin' great that we have free speech and that nobody considers drawing Mohammed to be anything that should be punished in any way, be it fine, jail or extrajudicial murder. But you know what? It's a little bit rude.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 16:37
|
|
|
Mellow Seas posted:You know, maybe newspapers that aren't printing depictions of Mohammed aren't doing it out of fear or capitulation, but MAYBE because they have readers who are, you know, Muslims? Those people with religious beliefs, the overwhelming majority of whom are not guilty of ideological murder? And maybe just want to read the loving news without having their religious sensibilities offended? If you require that the news never offend your sensibilities, I think you're doing it wrong.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 16:38
|
|
|
Eschers Basement posted:Besides Mad magazine and The Onion, I can't think of any, but publications themselves are weird not-really-things in modern U.S. media. Much of our satire is televised, with I think South Park as probably the biggest satirical show of the last ten years. loquacius posted:South Park ain't got poo poo on Colbert 420 Gank Mid posted:Dont forget the Daily Show/Colbert Report. Americans have never been big on reading so tv shows and stand-up comics have been the most widely consumed cultural commentary at least as far back as the 80's Thanks all. I was never big into the Colbert report or the Daily show, as I caught them a couple of times, and they seemed rather America-centric and toothless to me as a foreigner. The crudeness of South Park is maybe the closest you'd get to the style of Charlie Hebdo, but it's a bit unfair to compare the two, as from what I've heard, the creators of either are on fairly different sides of the political scale. People should remember that Charlie Hebdo actually is a leftist, anti-racist, anti-authority(including religions) satirical paper.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 16:38
|
|
|
fool_of_sound posted:Misinterpretation combined with mental illness. Non-mentally-ill people don't kill over a cartoon. What do sane people kill for
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 16:39
|
|
|
prefect posted:If you require that the news never offend your sensibilities, I think you're doing it wrong. What does printing a "drawing of Mohammed" (stereotypical Arab guy with the word "Mohammed" next to him) add to the reader's understanding of a story?
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 16:39
|
|
|
Mellow Seas posted:You know, maybe newspapers that aren't printing depictions of Mohammed aren't doing it out of fear or capitulation, but MAYBE because they have readers who are, you know, Muslims? Those people with religious beliefs, the overwhelming majority of whom are not guilty of ideological murder? And maybe just want to read the loving news without having their religious sensibilities offended? A humorous satire magazine isn't the same as a newspaper. You buy it knowing that you should be offended regardless of your particular conviction.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 16:40
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:A humorous satire magazine isn't the same as a newspaper. You buy it knowing that you should be offended regardless of your particular conviction. I'm not talking about Charlie, I'm talking about the "cowardly" American newspapers people have been referencing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 16:40
|
|
|
Mellow Seas posted:What does printing a "drawing of Mohammed" (stereotypical Arab guy with the word "Mohammed" next to him) add to the reader's understanding of a story? Because some people got so worked up about the drawing that they flipped out and killed people. I think the reader benefits by seeing what the fuss is about. My memory isn't perfect, but I could swear they printed pictures of "Piss Christ" when that was a big deal.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 16:41
|
|
|
Bicyclops posted: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. Thankfully most people use the neutral images of "We are Charlie" (which don't mean endorsment in the slightest, in my opinion) or the general "pen mightier than the sword, free speech!" rather than using the deaths as an excuse to openly endorse hateful poo poo or do another silly "Draw a Muhammad Day". People died for their views and the method of expression, it is a tragedy, it is right to empathize with victims (we don't evaluate the personal qualities and views of civilians dying in drone strikes or terrorist attacks) and it is right to evoke the oft-quoted (even if misattributed) Voltaire line.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 16:42
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:A humorous satire magazine isn't the same as a newspaper. You buy it knowing that you should be offended regardless of your particular conviction. The whole point of satire is to shake you up and for a moment lift the self-satisfied complacency that's so easy to fall into. If you don't want that kind of experience, you should avoid satire altogether. Also, that's one of the failings of Colbert and Daily Show - from all I've seen of them it's just a circle jerk that serves to reassure people about their sense of right and wrong rather than the opposite.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 16:42
|
|
|
prefect posted:I think it's a combination of "misinterpret", "react unacceptably", and "overreact". (It's not like it would have been okay if they'd killed just one person.) fool_of_sound posted:Misinterpretation combined with mental illness. Non-mentally-ill people don't kill over a cartoon. It wasn't "misinterpreted" and it wasn't "over a cartoon". It was a calculated act with an intended effect http://www.juancole.com/2015/01/sharpening-contradictions-satirists.html An intended effect that thus far appears to be working, btw.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 16:43
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:It wasn't "misinterpreted" and it wasn't "over a cartoon". It was a calculated act with an intended effect Yeah, I think "misinterpret" is not right. My bad. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 16:44
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:It wasn't "misinterpreted" and it wasn't "over a cartoon". It was a calculated act with an intended effect I didn't realize it was an organizational attack. That's pretty interesting.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 16:47
|
|
|
fatherboxx posted:Thankfully most people use the neutral images of "We are Charlie" (which don't mean endorsment in the slightest, in my opinion) or the general "pen mightier than the sword, free speech!" rather than using the deaths as an excuse to openly endorse hateful poo poo or do another silly "Draw a Muhammad Day". I agree that most of the images used in the wake of the tragedy have been tasteful, impactful, and powerful, and that we should empathize deeply with those who are killed for merely expressing themselves. It is horrible. I still have a hard time thinking I could I could say "We are Ramirez!" or "We are McCoy!" if, God forbid, one of them were to be killed. I think cartoons like the ones that were produced about the massacre, expressing and lamenting how people were silenced, the pen being mightier than the sword, and even images of Ramirez with a pen would be appropriate. Posting his bad cartoons and saying "We are Ramirez!" would be too much for me though, and it is too much for me in this case. I know Charlie Hebdo has a considerably better viewpoint than Ramirez, but I still think the cartoons are hopelessly offensive in a South Park sort of way. I hope that makes sense and that in each of my posts, I have effectively expressed how much of a tragedy I still feel it is, and that I am very upset about it primarily because of the deaths involved, which can never be undone.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 16:49
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Also, that's one of the failings of Colbert and Daily Show - from all I've seen of them it's just a circle jerk that serves to reassure people about their sense of right and wrong rather than the opposite. Yeah, this is one of the problems I had with the shows when I tried watching them. Good satire makes you take a step back(often by employing shock value) to actually think about what is being depicted and maybe go "You know, this is pretty hosed up." You don't get that when the butt of the jokes is just "Well, here's some dumb thing a politican said." It's toothless and pointless as anything but pure entertainment.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 16:50
|
|
|
Broken Cog posted:Yeah, this is one of the problems I had with the shows when I tried watching them. Good satire makes you take a step back(often by employing shock value) to actually think about what is being depicted and maybe go "You know, this is pretty hosed up." You don't get that when the butt of the jokes is just "Well, here's some dumb thing a politican said." It's toothless and pointless as anything but pure entertainment. Last Week Tonight is doing the best American political satire at the moment.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 16:51
|
|
|
So what was initially thought to be a reaction to depictions of Mohammed turned out to be an organized attack Hebdoghazi
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 16:52
|
|
|
Broken Cog posted:Yeah, this is one of the problems I had with the shows when I tried watching them. Good satire makes you take a step back(often by employing shock value) to actually think about what is being depicted and maybe go "You know, this is pretty hosed up." You don't get that when the butt of the jokes is just "Well, here's some dumb thing a politican said." It's toothless and pointless as anything but pure entertainment. "Lucky Ducky" is probably the best since it really pisses me off.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 16:53
|
|
|
Broken Cog posted:Thanks all. I was never big into the Colbert report or the Daily show, as I caught them a couple of times, and they seemed rather America-centric and toothless to me as a foreigner. Yeah, I think it's a cultural difference. As an American, I see Colbert as the pinnacle of satire, both funny and incisive, whereas everything posted here from Charlie Hebdo seems crude and juvenile.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 16:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 15:18 |
|
|
Bicyclops posted:the cartoons are hopelessly offensive in a South Park sort of way and nobody should be offended ever.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 16:54
|
|