|
Thank you. That screaming primate thing was giving me the willies.
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 21:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 04:15 |
|
|
Who the gently caress is Lam? Is he a new one?
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 21:17
|
|
|
Internet Webguy posted:
Yeah, I never heard of Hindus having issues with religious satire... 
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 21:21
|
|
8
|
Greenberg is such an rear end in a top hat when it comes to Muslims.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 21:22
|
|
|
Pretty sure it's the guy in the top left corner. Quo usque tandem abutere, Catalino, patientia nostra? quam diu etiam furor iste tuus nos eludet? quem ad finem sese effrenata iactabit audacia? 
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 21:25
|
|
|
I think it's probably a fair guess that a bunch of anti-racist cartoonists wouldn't want people to firebomb random mosques in response to their killings. That seems like a really important point to make, what with all the "I'm not saying that all Muslims everywhere are responsible and that we must engage in violent reprisals but" statements being thrown around.Broken Cog posted:People are saying "Well, first I want to say that these killings were absolutely horrible and inexcusable", and then immediately following ip up with "Besides, I think what CH did was racist and/or in bad taste, and they should not have been doing that!", which not only shows that they are putting some of the blame on the paper(why else bring it up?), but also an absolute ignorance for what it stands for. pussy riot police posted:It's pretty hard to not come across as victim blaming when criticizing victims of an attack right after an attack. I've also noticed that some of the criticism I'm seeing here on SA is structurally identical to arguments I've heard in rape threads. There's more nuance in this case than that, in that there's actually a semblance of loving nuance, but I don't blame people for thinking people are doing the same bullshit they do in the wake of other tragedies when it looks like the same bullshit people do in the wake of other tragedies. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 21:29
|
|
|
Broken Cog posted:Yes, but we're talking about a bloody massacre, that's the context of this entire event. If this was just some intellectual blowback against Charlie Hebdo for what they did, that would be entirely fine, that's expected from a civilised society. Remember, this is literally the first exposure a lot have had to Charlie Hebdo. Including mine. It is rather callous to be having this discussion while their bodies are still fresh, but I don't think that the discussion could be avoided given the shock value of the images and the uncomfortable lack of shock value from brutal mass killings.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 21:29
|
|
|
A Fancy 400 lbs posted:I didn't say you should think how necessary it is to say something, I said you should think about how necessary it is to say something in the way you're saying it. If you're having a religiously themed strip show at Christmas to make a point about the commercialization of Christmas or how Christians try to make everything take a religious bent around Christmastime, cool. If you're having a religiously themed strip show at Christmas because it seems like a quick way to make publicity/money or because "HA, loving CHRISTIANS, EAT IT", that's not cool. A gay pride parade is also fine because increased visibility of gay people, letting people know that gay people are their neighbors and friends and family and a significant part of society, is the entire point of the event. Basically, if you're going to depict Mohammad in a cartoon, make sure depicting Mohammad is actually helping you make your point and he's not just there because you felt like using him as an easy shorthand for Islam instead of making the effort to use something else or because you're trying to attract controversy. But why can't he be an easy shorthand? Jesus is a shorthand for Christianity, elephants are for republicans, etc. Those are easily identifiable shorthands, if at times a bit lazy. You can come up with something else and maybe make the cartoon more nuanced, but you don't really have to go an extra mile just because one particular religion has one rule that in theory is supposed to be applied exclusively to people who follow that religion. If your cartoon has a point about Islam, there's no reason not to draw Mohammed just as you don't have to come up with a way not to depict God as bearded men not to offend Orthodox Christians. If a cartoonist things it works for what he's trying to say, they have every right to go for it. There is nothing edgy about a neutral portrayal of the prophet either. I agree that maybe a certain amount of tact should be applied if you're aiming to do something along the lines of infamous Danish Mohammed cartoons, but if Mohammed is just there, there shouldn't be a second thought about this. And well, let's face it, even though I am in no way an atheist, but if an atheist cartoon artist wants to make a satirical cartoon about Islam or any other religion, not just fundamentalists, why on earth would or should they care about one specific rule when they draw a cartoon against all of them? I may roll my eyes at some anti-religious cartoons, but I would never tell cartoonists whose worldview is fundamentally different from my own to tread carefully around certain subjects just because I might not like it due to my belief system that they try to attack. E: Another think worth mentioning, I think, is that a who lot of borderline islamophobic cartoons posted here do not, in fact, feature Mohammed. It's almost like cartoonists with lovely messages really think their cartoons through not to break this one rule that everyone is supposed to be angry about, because everything else is fair game. Paladinus fucked around with this message at 21:37 on Jan 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 21:31
|
|
|
It's actually possible to both espouse an opinion and have commercial interests in doing something in the same act so that distinction is not really practical, Fancy.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 21:36
|
|
|
Could you run that by me one more time? My eyes reflexively glaze over when I see Day by Day, even in edits.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 21:41
|
|
|
JT Jag posted:Normally I'm against putting words into dead people's mouths comics in general, but this one is ok because I agree with it The survivors also definitely agree with it, at least the two whose statements I've seen. Willem pissed off a bunch of far right opportunists with his statements that he vomits at them and their false tears. quote:
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 21:43
|
|
|
Kurtofan posted:Who the gently caress is Lam? Is he a new one? It's Cam. Cameron Cardow. You'd think he'd be able to write Cs, but apparently not. He's a Canadian shitlord who artistically comes across as the halfway point between Ramirez and Lester, only far duller than either. Here's a recent sampling.      
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 21:46
|
|
|
pussy riot police posted:Could you run that by me one more time? My eyes reflexively glaze over when I see Day by Day, even in edits. Liberals say (and think) the exact same things Hitler did if you replace all the nouns and adjectives in an article with Holocaust terminology and words for liberals. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 21:47
|
|
|
pussy riot police posted:Could you run that by me one more time? My eyes reflexively glaze over when I see Day by Day, even in edits.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 21:48
|
|
|
Nyarai posted:Liberals say (and think) the exact same things Hitler did if you replace all the nouns and adjectives in an article with Holocaust terminology and words for liberals. Ah, so it was a regular Day by Day then. Good to know. Irony Be My Shield posted:"Thing A and Thing B have superficial similarities if you replace all of the words involved" is not a good argument. Ah, so you're loving retarded then. Good to know.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 21:49
|
|
|
Thanks, looks like a shithead, but his Quran cartoon basically says "extremism is to blame, not Islam", which seems odd considering this recent one.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 21:50
|
|
|
Kurtofan posted:Thanks, looks like a shithead, but his Quran cartoon basically says "extremism is to blame, not Islam". "Extremism butchers the Koran" it's called, just in case you didn't get it. A Good Cartoon out of the context of his other works.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 21:51
|
|
|
Pilchenstein posted:gently caress me, I was absolutely sure he'd pull out all the stops hatred wise - did he call for genocide and holy war earlier in the week and I missed it? I mean, he posted this earlier in the week, and everyone seemed to miss it. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 21:55
|
|
|
pussy riot police posted:Remember, this is literally the first exposure a lot have had to Charlie Hebdo. Including mine. It is rather callous to be having this discussion while their bodies are still fresh, but I don't think that the discussion could be avoided given the shock value of the images and the uncomfortable lack of shock value from brutal mass killings. Yeah, I suppose you're right. I've just been getting worked up because of what I see as people drawing a connection between the attacks and the muslim community, when I feel it shares about as much of a connection as Breivik had with the christian community. If anyone is still interested in learning what Charlie Hebdo actually stood for, and haven't seen it yet, Flowers for Algerie did a really good translation of last week's issue earlier in the thread: http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3691509&pagenumber=48&perpage=40#post439990492
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 21:58
|
|
|
Paladinus posted:But why can't he be an easy shorthand? Jesus is a shorthand for Christianity, elephants are for republicans, etc. Those are easily identifiable shorthands, if at times a bit lazy. A lot of the portrayals of Mohammad are using him as a stand-in for muslims in general and showing him as a violent fundamentalist, which is both insulting on the face of it and not something that'd look good to moderate muslims. I think I could get some people pretty mad if I drew a cartoon of Jesus flying the stars and bars lynching blacks, and the intentionally insulting ones tar the rest by association. Honestly the thing I'm wondering most is about the role of satire that is so context-dependent in potentially deepening feelings of otherization because that context is stripped when it leaves the culture it's part of. I think that's a discussion that could well be worth having.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 21:59
|
|
|
But wait. Defacing the Holy Quran is actually another thing that is very discouraged in Islam. Maybe he should have gone with a non-descriptive stick-figure with a word 'terrorist' on it and a text bubble that says 'Despite my nominal affiliation with Islam, I actually do more damage to the very religion I say I adhere with my deeply wrong actions'. It wasn't necessary to depict the holy book cut in two to make the same point. Sheesh, some cartoonists need to think twice before drawing cartoons on such a touchy subject. I don't want to say I want anything bad happen to them, but they really should think twice next time.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 22:05
|
|
|
Xylo told people to stop it with the moratoriums on certain topics after a tragedy That is why people went ahead and started commenting on CH's content. And, as one of the people who thought it was in poor taste to bring up that stuff right after the murders happened, I think Xylo is right in that nobody was ever going to come in here and say "Alright, it's okay to discuss their cartoons now!" So, knock it off with the meta "Too Soon?" discussion, and stop acting like people feel the murders were in any way justified.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 22:06
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:A lot of the portrayals of Mohammad are using him as a stand-in for muslims in general and showing him as a violent fundamentalist, which is both insulting on the face of it and not something that'd look good to moderate muslims. I think I could get some people pretty mad if I drew a cartoon of Jesus flying the stars and bars lynching blacks, and the intentionally insulting ones tar the rest by association. Honestly the thing I'm wondering most is about the role of satire that is so context-dependent in potentially deepening feelings of otherization because that context is stripped when it leaves the culture it's part of. I think that's a discussion that could well be worth having. From my very first post I've been saying that I am talking only about the act of drawing Mohammed in itself, not drawing him as a baby-eating monster who is also a stand-in for all Muslims. Just because someone might actually draw a cartoon of Jesus like you described doesn't mean no one should ever use Jesus in their cartoons. If the author's intent is to offend Muslims, it doesn't matter if they draw Mohammed or not. If it's not their intent, then it shouldn't matter either.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 22:13
|
|
|
Rorus Raz posted:Dale - Extremely conservative, total nutbag. Paints over GIS'd images and accompanies each post with an insane rant full of puns. Claimed to be going on a hiatus after the 2012 elections, but continues to put out garbage (albeit it at a much slower rate).
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 22:15
|
|
|
Absolute Lithops posted:Is this guy still angry at Kaiser Wilhelm II? Who isn't?
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 22:21
|
|
|
bunnyofdoom posted:Who isn't? He's been my bro a lot in Civ 4
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 22:23
|
|
|
pussy riot police posted:He's been my bro a lot in Civ 4 That was Bismarck, ya rube.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 22:26
|
|
|
Absolute Lithops posted:Is this guy still angry at Kaiser Wilhelm II? I'm still pretty mad at him
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 22:30
|
|
|
I've forgiven the Kaiser not Kurtofan fucked around with this message at 22:39 on Jan 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 22:30
|
|
|
paranoid randroid posted:That was Bismarck, ya rube. Well that explains why he didn't get on my nerves then 
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 22:32
|
|
|
bunnyofdoom posted:Who isn't? Imperial Germany was our last hope.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 22:48
|
|
|
Absolute Lithops posted:Is this guy still angry at Kaiser Wilhelm II? Seriouspost Kaiser Wilhelm was one of history's foremost tossers.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 22:48
|
|
|
I went on DeviantArt again and sifted through the filth to bring you all life-affirming support for CH from the artistic community. There are at least 2000 of these things there, most of them aren't any better than this heap. Regardless on where you stand on the free speech issue or Kaiser Wilhelm II (rear end in a top hat) I'm pretty sure that we can all agree that most of the DeviantArt community should never draw anything again. 1. Islamofascism killed Charlie by skewering a bleeding hat on their crescent. Charlie is survived by a swastika, a sweet sword and a pen. 2. Jesus, Charle. 3. Charlieje Suis. The watermark prevents me from using this masterpiece as an avatar. 4. Et tu Heman? 5. Not OK 6. What do the Liberal Democrats have to do with this? 7. Tasteful 8. Tasteful and lazy 9. Lazy and worthless 10. Worthless and furry 11. Worthless 12. Bronies are also Charlies 13. You'll be ok 14. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 22:56
|
|
|
Rorus Raz posted:So, knock it off with the meta "Too Soon?" discussion, and stop acting like people feel the murders were in any way justified. I don't think anyone has said it's too soon since before Xylo posted, but there are plenty of people who are saying 'nobody should be murdered, but'. For me the most hosed up thing is the after the fact painting of Charlie Hebdo as being in the spirit of Der Stürmer instead of Private Eye or The Onion. I've seen the same four or five covers (including the unambiguously anti-racist Christiane Taubira one) being used to sum up a thirty-year-old magazine and smear a bunch of murdered soixante-huitards. Gives the impression that if somebody shot up The Onion's offices all we'd hear about is the time they called Quvenzhané Wallis a oval office. whatever. Here's a 2006 video of CH discussing one of the Mohammed covers  
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 22:59
|
|
|
Internet Webguy posted:
Fun fact! I didn't see a single mime or stripy shirt when I was in Paris the week before the attack, but everybody smoked and people really do carry unwrapped baguettes around. It was kind of surreal seeing a stereotype in action. Internet Webguy posted:
Greenberg out of nowhere with the dumbest and most point-missing response.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 23:00
|
|
|
This is the best one.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 23:01
|
|
|
Gilganixon posted:
The underwear doesn't even make sense unless that's just a random loop of elastic hanging off the butt...
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 23:05
|
|
|
Internet Webguy posted:
Does anyone actually shout this
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 23:06
|
|
3
|
SuperHappy posted:Does anyone actually shout this That's what one of the attacker shouted.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 23:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 04:15 |
|
|
Why is it so appalling to say that you should only do something you know a lot of people find offensive if the offense serves a point? Is it really that hard to not be a dick for no reason?
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2015 23:11
|
|