HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » If "Charlie Hebdo&qu...

Wed Jan 7, 2015, 10:32 PM

If "Charlie Hebdo" is satire, could someone please explain to me how this cover

satisfies the definition of 'satire'? Maybe it's a French thing, but I just don't see it. Here's how I translate the copy:

White headline text: The Koran is shit
Yellow textbox text: It {the Koran} doesn't stop bullets

From where I sit, this cover does NOT look like satire by any reasonable definition of the term. This cover looks like anti-Muslim hate speech pure and simple. I'm not Muslim but were I Muslim, I would be deeply offended at this cover and unable to see any humor in it whatsoever. (It reminds me a bit of the anti-Jewish depictions cooked up by the Nazis from 1922-39; it has that same dehumanizing caricature flavor to it.)






220 replies, 35055 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 220 replies Author Time Post
Reply If "Charlie Hebdo" is satire, could someone please explain to me how this cover (Original post)
KingCharlemagne Jan 2015 OP
El Supremo Jan 2015 #1
KingCharlemagne Jan 2015 #14
NewDeal_Dem Jan 2015 #169
Warpy Jan 2015 #137
Name removed Jan 2015 #159
The Velveteen Ocelot Jan 2015 #2
KingCharlemagne Jan 2015 #6
The Velveteen Ocelot Jan 2015 #7
Jamastiene Jan 2015 #23
3catwoman3 Jan 2015 #50
Jamastiene Jan 2015 #59
BeanMusical Jan 2015 #83
ananda Jan 2015 #49
Recursion Jan 2015 #89
KingCharlemagne Jan 2015 #98
Recursion Jan 2015 #100
KingCharlemagne Jan 2015 #102
jberryhill Jan 2015 #158
NewDeal_Dem Jan 2015 #171
Recursion Jan 2015 #97
NewDeal_Dem Jan 2015 #170
Lex Jan 2015 #3
alphafemale Jan 2015 #29
NewDeal_Dem Jan 2015 #172
MADem Jan 2015 #205
TexasMommaWithAHat Jan 2015 #4
KingCharlemagne Jan 2015 #17
LAGC Jan 2015 #52
jberryhill Jan 2015 #71
LAGC Jan 2015 #80
jberryhill Jan 2015 #91
Recursion Jan 2015 #95
NewDeal_Dem Jan 2015 #173
LAGC Jan 2015 #99
jberryhill Jan 2015 #109
LAGC Jan 2015 #113
jberryhill Jan 2015 #125
LAGC Jan 2015 #128
jberryhill Jan 2015 #134
Moonwalk Jan 2015 #145
jberryhill Jan 2015 #146
Moonwalk Jan 2015 #208
MADem Jan 2015 #206
KingCharlemagne Jan 2015 #111
jberryhill Jan 2015 #126
MADem Jan 2015 #207
Sen. Walter Sobchak Jan 2015 #147
jberryhill Jan 2015 #156
kelly1mm Jan 2015 #108
KingCharlemagne Jan 2015 #110
Adrahil Jan 2015 #218
Adrahil Jan 2015 #219
whatchamacallit Jan 2015 #20
m-lekktor Jan 2015 #25
Kelvin Mace Jan 2015 #5
still_one Jan 2015 #11
Kelvin Mace Jan 2015 #22
Warren DeMontague Jan 2015 #26
jberryhill Jan 2015 #138
whatchamacallit Jan 2015 #8
LiberalElite Jan 2015 #10
KingCharlemagne Jan 2015 #19
TexasMommaWithAHat Jan 2015 #35
grossproffit Jan 2015 #53
whatchamacallit Jan 2015 #56
Recursion Jan 2015 #84
whatchamacallit Jan 2015 #88
Recursion Jan 2015 #90
still_one Jan 2015 #9
Avalux Jan 2015 #12
uhnope Jan 2015 #13
whatchamacallit Jan 2015 #31
uhnope Jan 2015 #33
whatchamacallit Jan 2015 #36
uhnope Jan 2015 #37
whatchamacallit Jan 2015 #39
uhnope Jan 2015 #45
whatchamacallit Jan 2015 #48
uhnope Jan 2015 #51
KansDem Jan 2015 #32
SunSeeker Jan 2015 #61
KingCharlemagne Jan 2015 #42
Depaysement Jan 2015 #74
Recursion Jan 2015 #94
NewDeal_Dem Jan 2015 #174
Xithras Jan 2015 #82
NewDeal_Dem Jan 2015 #175
MohRokTah Jan 2015 #15
1000words Jan 2015 #16
Warren DeMontague Jan 2015 #18
KingCharlemagne Jan 2015 #24
Warren DeMontague Jan 2015 #28
zappaman Jan 2015 #47
SidDithers Jan 2015 #58
LineLineLineLineLineLineReply !
zappaman Jan 2015 #60
msanthrope Jan 2015 #120
SidDithers Jan 2015 #127
alcibiades_mystery Jan 2015 #188
SidDithers Jan 2015 #193
Warren DeMontague Jan 2015 #131
Warren Stupidity Jan 2015 #55
Depaysement Jan 2015 #92
nomorenomore08 Jan 2015 #101
840high Jan 2015 #133
RedCappedBandit Jan 2015 #184
LordGlenconner Jan 2015 #209
Depaysement Jan 2015 #77
MohRokTah Jan 2015 #21
KingCharlemagne Jan 2015 #34
NuclearDem Jan 2015 #38
hrmjustin Jan 2015 #40
Seeking Serenity Jan 2015 #41
KingCharlemagne Jan 2015 #57
Seeking Serenity Jan 2015 #70
Kelvin Mace Jan 2015 #202
unrepentant progress Jan 2015 #43
KingCharlemagne Jan 2015 #46
unrepentant progress Jan 2015 #75
SickOfTheOnePct Jan 2015 #217
cwydro Jan 2015 #87
AngryAmish Jan 2015 #27
Name removed Jan 2015 #160
msongs Jan 2015 #30
hrmjustin Jan 2015 #44
CrawlingChaos Jan 2015 #54
uppityperson Jan 2015 #63
UTUSN Jan 2015 #62
Scootaloo Jan 2015 #64
corkhead Jan 2015 #68
corkhead Jan 2015 #65
hack89 Jan 2015 #66
Daemonaquila Jan 2015 #67
Name removed Jan 2015 #162
Ken Burch Jan 2015 #69
Union Scribe Jan 2015 #72
Spider Jerusalem Jan 2015 #180
Yo_Mama Jan 2015 #73
1000words Jan 2015 #85
tavernier Jan 2015 #76
Xithras Jan 2015 #78
Solindsey Jan 2015 #105
babylonsister Jan 2015 #79
SidDithers Jan 2015 #81
Dr. Strange Jan 2015 #96
stevenleser Jan 2015 #200
Cleita Jan 2015 #204
Recursion Jan 2015 #86
wickerwoman Jan 2015 #93
nomorenomore08 Jan 2015 #103
starroute Jan 2015 #104
brentspeak Jan 2015 #112
msanthrope Jan 2015 #121
Name removed Jan 2015 #164
KingCharlemagne Jan 2015 #114
liberal_at_heart Jan 2015 #136
Mass Jan 2015 #106
Name removed Jan 2015 #167
Luminous Animal Jan 2015 #212
Luminous Animal Jan 2015 #213
freshwest Jan 2015 #107
treestar Jan 2015 #115
KingCharlemagne Jan 2015 #118
treestar Jan 2015 #123
7962 Jan 2015 #116
KingCharlemagne Jan 2015 #135
Name removed Jan 2015 #165
kelly1mm Jan 2015 #117
KingCharlemagne Jan 2015 #124
kelly1mm Jan 2015 #130
KingCharlemagne Jan 2015 #140
joeglow3 Jan 2015 #119
jberryhill Jan 2015 #139
joeglow3 Jan 2015 #143
jberryhill Jan 2015 #144
joeglow3 Jan 2015 #149
jberryhill Jan 2015 #150
joeglow3 Jan 2015 #152
jberryhill Jan 2015 #155
joeglow3 Jan 2015 #183
jberryhill Jan 2015 #186
Bluenorthwest Jan 2015 #196
jberryhill Jan 2015 #203
joeglow3 Jan 2015 #210
prayin4rain Jan 2015 #122
babylonsister Jan 2015 #129
polly7 Jan 2015 #187
Cleita Jan 2015 #132
dilby Jan 2015 #141
SkyDaddy7 Jan 2015 #142
LAGC Jan 2015 #148
NewDeal_Dem Jan 2015 #151
MindMover Jan 2015 #153
MFM008 Jan 2015 #154
jberryhill Jan 2015 #157
Name removed Jan 2015 #166
NutmegYankee Jan 2015 #161
Quantess Jan 2015 #163
pansypoo53219 Jan 2015 #168
JI7 Jan 2015 #176
Jappleseed Jan 2015 #177
get the red out Jan 2015 #178
deutsey Jan 2015 #179
Scuba Jan 2015 #181
Enrique Jan 2015 #182
polly7 Jan 2015 #185
TheSarcastinator Jan 2015 #189
randome Jan 2015 #190
TheSarcastinator Jan 2015 #191
randome Jan 2015 #192
TheSarcastinator Jan 2015 #194
polly7 Jan 2015 #199
FBaggins Jan 2015 #195
Bluenorthwest Jan 2015 #197
RussBLib Jan 2015 #198
stevenleser Jan 2015 #201
Sarah Ibarruri Jan 2015 #211
Albertoo Jan 2015 #214
Luminous Animal Jan 2015 #215
arthritisR_US Jan 2015 #216
Adrahil Jan 2015 #220

Response to KingCharlemagne (Original post)

Wed Jan 7, 2015, 10:36 PM

1. I'll just say that I don't understand their humor.

But they have a right to express their intolerance and not be murdered.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to El Supremo (Reply #1)

Wed Jan 7, 2015, 10:45 PM

14. It strikes me as downright racist. But I thought maybe there was some

French contextual clues I was missing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KingCharlemagne (Reply #14)

Thu Jan 8, 2015, 05:47 AM

169. "the koran is shit" funny stuff. yeah, it's bigoted shit.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to El Supremo (Reply #1)

Thu Jan 8, 2015, 01:14 AM

137. I've found them about on the level of Hustler back in the 70s

And lest someone take this cover completely out of the larger context, their satirization of the various flavors of Christianity were just as, er, emphatic and often obscene.

I'm too old to appreciate much of it but it's stuff that needs to exist to provide a pressure valve for people who are being bullied by the religious, social and governmental leaders.

Nothing was sacred to Charlie and that is likely a good thing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warpy (Reply #137)


Response to KingCharlemagne (Original post)

Wed Jan 7, 2015, 10:37 PM

2. It may indeed be very offensive.

It's still not OK to kill people over it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Velveteen Ocelot (Reply #2)

Wed Jan 7, 2015, 10:40 PM

6. I just wondered if there's some humor here that I'm not getting. From where

I sit, a plain reading of that cover goes as follows: Muslim under attack says, "This Koran is shit . . . (because) it doesn't stop bullets." Aside from the graphic caricature of the Muslim depicted, that sentiment just doesn't strike me as funny or as satire of anything or anyone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KingCharlemagne (Reply #6)

Wed Jan 7, 2015, 10:41 PM

7. I don't think it's funny, either.

But the French think Jerry Lewis is funny. So go figure.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Velveteen Ocelot (Reply #7)

Wed Jan 7, 2015, 10:49 PM

23. That explains it perfectly.

It must be their sense of humor. If they think Jerry Lewis is funny, that says a lot.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jamastiene (Reply #23)

Wed Jan 7, 2015, 11:07 PM

50. Even when I was a little girl...

...I thought Jerry Lewis was repulsive. It often seemed to me as if he were making fun of people with intellectual deficiencies and/or physical handicaps. Not funny at all.

OT - never cared for Lucille Ball either, or the 3 Stooges.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 3catwoman3 (Reply #50)

Wed Jan 7, 2015, 11:10 PM

59. Same here.

I don't find him the least bit funny. He is obnoxious. Lucille Ball talked so obnoxiously loud that I could never understand her. I did watch the 3 Stooges a little, but only if nothing better was on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 3catwoman3 (Reply #50)

Wed Jan 7, 2015, 11:32 PM

83. I remember something awfully racist that he was doing on stage and in movies.

It involved using false teeth with incredibly long front ones and "imitating" and Asian person. Even as a kid I found that disturbing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Velveteen Ocelot (Reply #7)

Wed Jan 7, 2015, 11:07 PM

49. I always thought Jerry Lewis was funny.

Well, that's just me.

I really don't like that Charlie Hebdo cover.
It's very offensive on so many levels.

But.. people can speak with the boycott
and counter it with their own free speech
and art.. without resorting to murder.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KingCharlemagne (Reply #6)

Wed Jan 7, 2015, 11:36 PM

89. Yes, it was after Egyptian police shot demonstrators who were praying

So, the humor is, "hey, why didn't the Qur'an stop the bullets? Ha ha religion is stupid!"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #89)

Wed Jan 7, 2015, 11:43 PM

98. OK, I think I see the reasoning behind it and why it might be seen as humorous. Thanks

for taking the time to explain it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KingCharlemagne (Reply #98)

Wed Jan 7, 2015, 11:44 PM

100. Like a lot of their stuff the humor comes second to the shock value. Think Southpark

I think ultimately the reaction they're going for is "holy shit those guys have balls to print that right now!"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #100)

Wed Jan 7, 2015, 11:48 PM

102. Yeah, I'm beginning to 'get it.' I think I"ll just retreat to listen to

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KingCharlemagne (Reply #98)

Thu Jan 8, 2015, 03:36 AM

158. Literally it says "the Koran is shit, it can't stop the bullets"

...and absent a description of the context of those funny people hilariously praying while being amusingly shot to death by goofy rifles, it could be misunderstood.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #89)

Thu Jan 8, 2015, 05:50 AM

171. that's nasty stuff, and not funny at all. threatening.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KingCharlemagne (Reply #6)

Wed Jan 7, 2015, 11:43 PM

97. I think the cover was mostly tweaking the Europeans who were so enamored of the Tahrir Square

protesters. The anti-Islamic bent was only collateral damage.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KingCharlemagne (Reply #6)

Thu Jan 8, 2015, 05:49 AM

170. it's creepy and threatening, actually.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KingCharlemagne (Original post)

Wed Jan 7, 2015, 10:38 PM

3. Reminds me a bit of the old Mad Magazine 'toons.

Didn't really get all of that humor either.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lex (Reply #3)

Wed Jan 7, 2015, 10:50 PM

29. That was my thought.

Reminds me a bit of early Mad magazine stuff.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alphafemale (Reply #29)

Thu Jan 8, 2015, 05:51 AM

172. it's nothing at all like mad

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NewDeal_Dem (Reply #172)

Thu Jan 8, 2015, 01:46 PM

205. Oh, a bit-maybe a combo between MAD and National Lampoon ....

-I seem to remember a rather offensive fake VW ad from NL starring Ted Kennedy...I believe the tag line was "If Ted Kennedy had been driving a Volkswagen, he'd be President today! Volkswagen...it floats!" or something on those lines. And maybe, as Warpy points out, a bit of HUSTLER, too...they all cover politics and culture--and other stuff, too.

MAD might have been a shade less sophisticated at times--and a shade less crude--but the idea was similar...they've dabbled in politics, too-- they simply don't get lewd or terribly nude, and as a consequence, they're viewed as slightly less offensive. But they DO "tweak" and they cover all sides of the street. Samples:





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KingCharlemagne (Original post)

Wed Jan 7, 2015, 10:39 PM

4. This does not appeal to my sense of humor

or my idea of satire, but I am not French.

I do know, however, that Charlie Hebdo was just as harsh against the Catholic Church and others.

Here, this is from BBC:

"Analysis: Hugh Schofield, BBC News, Paris
Charlie Hebdo is part of a venerable tradition in French journalism going back to the scandal sheets that denounced Marie-Antoinette in the run-up to the French Revolution.

The tradition combines left-wing radicalism with a provocative scurrility that often borders on the obscene. Its decision to mock the Prophet Muhammad in 2011 was entirely consistent with its historic raison d'etre.

The paper has never sold in enormous numbers - and for 10 years from 1981, it ceased publication for lack of resources.

But with its garish front-page cartoons and incendiary headlines, it is an unmissable staple of newspaper kiosks and railway station booksellers."

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-30710883

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TexasMommaWithAHat (Reply #4)

Wed Jan 7, 2015, 10:47 PM

17. This cover is, to put it bluntly, out and out racist. I fail to see how this cover has anything

whatsoever to do with 'left-wing radicalism'.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KingCharlemagne (Reply #17)

Wed Jan 7, 2015, 11:08 PM

52. Since when is mocking religious faith considered "racist?"

Harboring anti-religious sentiment has a long tradition amongst radical left-wing ideology, dating clear back to the French Revolution, at least...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LAGC (Reply #52)

Wed Jan 7, 2015, 11:22 PM

71. What is your opinion of this

This is a caricature drawing of an adherent of a particular religious faith.

Can you guess which religion?



Yes, you can.

The crime here is of course not in any way justified by offense to a cartoon.

Now, the threads condemning news organizations for not reproducing the image and calling them "cowards" are misplaced.

Yes, a free press can print what it wants, and of course these extremists have no justification or excuse.

By the same token, nobody else is required to republish stuff which demeans a group either.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #71)

Wed Jan 7, 2015, 11:31 PM

80. That seems like quite a stretch to me.

The cartoon in the OP was clearly mocking faith, as represented by the "holy book" being held up as a shield -- a non-effective shield at that.

Whereas the cartoon you posted is clearly making fun of the person -- namely the prominent nose and the apparent love of money -- neither of which have anything to do with faith whatsoever.

Seems like comparing apples and oranges to me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LAGC (Reply #80)

Wed Jan 7, 2015, 11:37 PM

91. Who is holding that book?

A hooked nose bearded Muslim. That's not a "Muhammad" drawing, it is a drawing of a Muslim holding the Koran.

Again, there is nothing that justifies or excuses the murders in Paris.

I was responding to your question.

The cartoon is not directed to criticizing some aspect of a religion. It is directed to an implicitly posited belief that a Koran could stop bullets. That is not, to my knowledge, a tenet of Islam.

But back to your question, you can tell from the cartoon that the person in it is Muslim. What are the visual stereotypical cues which communicate that?

Is it the fact that the unarmed subject is being shot at?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #91)

Wed Jan 7, 2015, 11:41 PM

95. Specfically, a Tahrir Square protester (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #95)

Thu Jan 8, 2015, 05:53 AM

173. so it's making fun of people who were shot dead? funny stuff

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #91)

Wed Jan 7, 2015, 11:43 PM

99. I think you're reading too much into the cartoon.

The only "stereotypical cues" that stood out to me was the white robe, the beard, and the fact that the character (a cleric, perhaps?) is holding a bloody Koran, regardless of whatever fantastical claims the author of the satirical piece is claiming about that particular religion.

Did you see the cartoon Sid posted down-thread?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6054922

Clearly "Charlie Hebdo" is an equal opportunity offender. They don't just target Muslims on a whim.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LAGC (Reply #99)

Thu Jan 8, 2015, 12:04 AM

109. Whether they are "equal opportunity" is beside the specific point here

It's not as if Muslims are lagging in the "being shot to death by extremists" sweepstakes.

You had asked how a racial stereotype could be conveyed by a cartoon directed at a religion.

Well, how could a racial stereotype be conveyed in a political cartoon?

The Google Image Search keywords I would use to answer that question would be "Obama racist cartoon". You'll find plenty. The image of Obama as "witch doctor" as an ACA criticism comes to mind.

Of course, speech which is offensive to no one is not in need of legal protection. But racial stereotypes are frequently used in all sorts of cartoons.

Is this image expressing sentiment about Japan's war aims or something more:









Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #109)

Thu Jan 8, 2015, 12:16 AM

113. Now that, my friend, is a racist cartoon.

I don't think the author of that piece was criticizing Shinto, do you?

I think we can all agree that cartoons that demean folks as a group for aspects they have no control over (such as race) ought to be called out.

But I don't get that vibe from the cartoon in the OP. I think Charlie Hebdo was just doing what Charlie Hebdo does best: criticizing ideas, in as blunt a way as possible.

And that has long been part of Western liberal tradition when it comes to candid free speech and journalism, wouldn't you agree?

In any case, people shouldn't have to live in fear of being slaughtered or self-censorship just because they dare ruffle a few feathers via free expression.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LAGC (Reply #113)

Thu Jan 8, 2015, 12:50 AM

125. Shinto was very much the point of imperial Japan


Cartoons often by necessity rely on stereotypes because it is easier than sticking labels on the characters in them.

Of course there is absolutely no argument that violence is not justified, excused, or anything less than deplorable.

How this works, in the larger picture, is simple, and these thugs know exactly what they are doing. They want the right wingers to take it out on all Muslims, thus generating resentment; and they want the left to double down on, yes as is their right to do free of violence, imagery which poorly educated and unsophisticated people find upsetting. This then proves the point the radicals are trying to make - they all hate us - and gets them more recruits.

It's not as if the murderers don't know exactly what the consequences of this will be. They are not "devout believers" in anything but chaos and death.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #125)

Thu Jan 8, 2015, 12:55 AM

128. Point taken, my friend. Point taken.

I have no doubts all the major players involved know exactly what they are doing.

All we can do is hope that cooler heads prevail in the end.

The united mass protests by French (of all stripes) in response to this incident is very heartening, and surely not the outcome the extremists wanted to see.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LAGC (Reply #128)

Thu Jan 8, 2015, 01:03 AM

134. Depends on how those masses act

The policeman trying to stop them was a Muslim.

How do you think Muslim participants in these demonstations might be treated?

Let me put it another way. If you were Muslim and French and also wanted to protest these murders, would you join the demonstrations which will ensue, or might you have some reservations?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #134)

Thu Jan 8, 2015, 01:50 AM

145. Reservations? Apparently not, as there is a picture going around of flowers and Arabic script....

...set outside the periodical's offices, words evidently protesting or offering condolences on what happened. So it would seem that those who are Muslim and French ARE protesting these murders AND joining in the demonstrations...sans reservations.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Moonwalk (Reply #145)

Thu Jan 8, 2015, 01:54 AM

146. Is every Arabic writer Muslim?

I'm sure this would come as a surprise to the remaining descendants of the original Christians in the Middle East.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #146)

Thu Jan 8, 2015, 02:28 PM

208. Now you're just trolling for a fight.

Good-bye.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LAGC (Reply #80)

Thu Jan 8, 2015, 01:55 PM

206. I think you're struggling too hard to ignore the obvious.

I'm betting you can find--without too much trouble if you're willing to visit "unsavory" websites--cartoons or images that will have the nose, the money, and a few "religious emblems" included that make it entirely clear what group they are insulting and deriding.

It's not cool, no matter who does it, and no matter why. It's a quick and cheap way to try to express a POV. The personal insult isn't welcome in many corners because it cuts deeply and that is its main purpose--to hurt, to cause pain and dismay.

Obligatory Caveat, Because These Things Are Necessary For Those Who Cannot Handle Nuance: This does not mean I endorse, condone or find in any way acceptable the murder--or mass murder--of people for expressing contrary ideas. Offensive speech should be met with MORE speech.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #71)

Thu Jan 8, 2015, 12:08 AM

111. Seeing that caricature made me mist up a bit, because we all know or should know what

happened after 20 years of this stuff in Weimar and Nazi Germany. Thanks for posting it. I just didn't have the stomach tonight to go digging through image archives.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KingCharlemagne (Reply #111)

Thu Jan 8, 2015, 12:51 AM

126. Oh come on, it's just a cartoon

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #126)

Thu Jan 8, 2015, 01:59 PM

207. I saw what you did there!

Of course, the Society for the Perpetually Offended might not read contextually and take umbrage, not realizing that your comment is quite plainly sarcastic in nature!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #71)

Thu Jan 8, 2015, 01:58 AM

147. I was going to say stripmall pentecostal...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Sen. Walter Sobchak (Reply #147)

Thu Jan 8, 2015, 03:27 AM

156. Hmmm

You know, on second thought....

I guess I'll have to find some of the better "European cartoons criticizing religion" from the early 20th century.

And, of course, the point of this stuff is that nobody got killed for making, say, "cartoons critical of Judaism" from that period. That is an astute observation and a true one. They offered little complaint at all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KingCharlemagne (Reply #17)

Thu Jan 8, 2015, 12:01 AM

108. Islam is a religion, not a race. How can this be racist? Bigoted, perhaps, racist, no. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kelly1mm (Reply #108)

Thu Jan 8, 2015, 12:06 AM

110. OK, bigoted. Islam actually finds adherents in many lands and of many races, so

I appreciate your annotation of my sloppy word choice.

I do think anti-Islamic bigotry in France and Germany verges on racism, if only because most Muslims there are Arabic by ethnicity. But, even so, your larger point still stands.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KingCharlemagne (Reply #17)

Sun Jan 11, 2015, 04:55 PM

218. I'm not sure how it's "racist." It doesn't appear to target a particular race to me...

Anti-Islam? Maybe, but even then it seems to me it's mainly satirizing the iconization of the Koran itself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Adrahil (Reply #218)


Response to TexasMommaWithAHat (Reply #4)

Wed Jan 7, 2015, 10:48 PM

20. Is there is anything similarly inflammatory for Christians or Jews?

I saw the condom comic and it's a softball compared to this shit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TexasMommaWithAHat (Reply #4)

Wed Jan 7, 2015, 10:49 PM

25. a friend on facebook likened it to Southpark humor. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KingCharlemagne (Original post)

Wed Jan 7, 2015, 10:39 PM

5. Let us assume for the sake of discussion it is "hate speech"

 

Does that mean the murders are justified? Is that a mitigating issue?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kelvin Mace (Reply #5)

Wed Jan 7, 2015, 10:44 PM

11. Not as long as free speech is tolerated

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to still_one (Reply #11)

Wed Jan 7, 2015, 10:49 PM

22. Yes, kind of my view

 

Some Muslims view such humor as "heresy", which I personally do not find worthy of a $2 fine, never mind murder, or even criminal prosecution.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to still_one (Reply #11)

Wed Jan 7, 2015, 10:49 PM

26. Free speech pisses some people off immesurably, ive noticed.

They have long breathy rationalizations full of bullshit babble about why it is totally the worst thing ever.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kelvin Mace (Reply #5)

Thu Jan 8, 2015, 01:17 AM

138. I don't think anyone is suggesting that

Of course it isn't a mitigating issue.

Have you ever seen Die Hard With A Vengeance? The scene where Bruce Willis is forced to hold a sign?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KingCharlemagne (Original post)

Wed Jan 7, 2015, 10:41 PM

8. Je Suis Charlie... Not!

Is there anything on the website that debased for other religions?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whatchamacallit (Reply #8)

Wed Jan 7, 2015, 10:43 PM

10. Pls. see post #4

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whatchamacallit (Reply #8)

Wed Jan 7, 2015, 10:48 PM

19. The French would be "Je Ne Suis Pas Charlie. Pas du tout!" or some

such.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whatchamacallit (Reply #8)

Wed Jan 7, 2015, 10:56 PM

35. Yes.

The Catholic Church. The Pope. Politicians. And on and on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whatchamacallit (Reply #8)

Wed Jan 7, 2015, 11:08 PM

53. Yes. Jews and Christians as well. eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grossproffit (Reply #53)

Wed Jan 7, 2015, 11:10 PM

56. So everyone says, I'd like to see some that reach that level of disrespect n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whatchamacallit (Reply #8)

Wed Jan 7, 2015, 11:32 PM

84. You mean other than masturbating nuns and condom-wearing popes? (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #84)

Wed Jan 7, 2015, 11:35 PM

88. Yeah, well

It fucking sucks what happened to these folks today. There is no justification for their murders. I also know I'm not a fan of this crap magazine.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whatchamacallit (Reply #88)

Wed Jan 7, 2015, 11:37 PM

90. It's usually at about the sophistication level of Southpark, which also isn't my bag (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KingCharlemagne (Original post)

Wed Jan 7, 2015, 10:43 PM

9. There are a lot of magazines that are offensive to a lot of folks, but nothing justifies murder.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KingCharlemagne (Original post)

Wed Jan 7, 2015, 10:44 PM

12. It's not appealing or funny to me, and it probably is offensive to devout Muslims.

BUT - what I think of it really doesn't matter. Charlie Hebdo has the right to express those views without fear of death.

As the saying goes "if you don't like it, don't read it".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KingCharlemagne (Original post)

Wed Jan 7, 2015, 10:45 PM

13. explanation: if the Koran were so great, it would stop bullets

 

like the bullets being fired by the Islamic terrorists ISIS that kill other Muslims.

That's my guess at the humor. It's probably something of an in-joke, something that the French would get immediately. But I do sense the humor, of the darkest type

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uhnope (Reply #13)

Wed Jan 7, 2015, 10:54 PM

31. Actual explanation or your apologia?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whatchamacallit (Reply #31)

Wed Jan 7, 2015, 10:55 PM

33. wtf?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uhnope (Reply #33)

Wed Jan 7, 2015, 10:57 PM

36. My bad if you read the official meaning of the cover

otherwise it's a creative interpretation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whatchamacallit (Reply #36)

Wed Jan 7, 2015, 10:58 PM

37. no idea what you mean by "apologia"

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uhnope (Reply #37)

Wed Jan 7, 2015, 11:00 PM

39. It seems you're trying to give it the most positive spin you can think of

That's what I mean.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whatchamacallit (Reply #39)

Wed Jan 7, 2015, 11:04 PM

45. I was speculating where the humor might be, as requested by the OP

 

and that's clear from my answer.

I wasn't apologizing for anything and I don't see what needs to be apologized for (not a cartoon, that's for sure).


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uhnope (Reply #45)

Wed Jan 7, 2015, 11:05 PM

48. I'm curious how old that cover is

Wonder if ISIS even existed when it was done.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to whatchamacallit (Reply #48)

Wed Jan 7, 2015, 11:07 PM

51. yeah, that's unclear. but terrorism by religious extremists certainly did. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uhnope (Reply #13)

Wed Jan 7, 2015, 10:55 PM

32. I thought the same thing

Kind of like the Mormons' "magic underwear."

Mormonism is a deeply patriarchal, misogynistic religion and this is well demonstrated by the female magic underwear - women are expected to wear a bra OVER THE TOP of their magic underwear. Some women will wear a sexy, lacy, coloured bra over the top of their passion-killing white garments.

Mormons like to downplay the 'magic' nature of their underwear and talk about "reminders of sacred ordinances", etc... However, every Mormon will have heard fellow mormons talk in hushed tones about how their underwear has saved them from fire, cuts, gunshot wounds and animal bites. This is why everyone refers to them as magic. and it is plainly ridiculous for mormons to deny the magical apsect

Mormon General Authority, Paul H Dunn often told how his magic underwear (mormon garments) protected his body from a hail of machine gun bullets in WW2

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Magic+Underwear+%28Mormon+Garments%29

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KansDem (Reply #32)

Wed Jan 7, 2015, 11:13 PM

61. Exactly what I was thinking. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uhnope (Reply #13)

Wed Jan 7, 2015, 11:02 PM

42. If there is a joke in this cover, I think that may be it. Funny the same way some of the scenes

in Tarantino's Pulp Fiction are funny.

Thanks (even though I'm not sure I get the joke).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uhnope (Reply #13)

Wed Jan 7, 2015, 11:25 PM

74. Actually the reference is to Egypt

Look at the upper left hand corner. "Tuerie en Egypt" - bloodbath in Egypt.

The cover was from July 2013 when President Morsi was overthrown in Egypt by the army and his supporters were being killed. Morsi was considered by many to have allowed the Muslim Brotherhood to dominate the Government with their strict religious policies.

But you're right. The joke is that the Koran isn't worth much because it can't stop bullets.

It can evoke a mild chuckle if you get the context.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Depaysement (Reply #74)

Wed Jan 7, 2015, 11:41 PM

94. Right, and it was in the context of the West breathlessly supporting the protesters

So this was also kind of a slap in the face to that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #94)

Thu Jan 8, 2015, 06:01 AM

174. doubtful, since they're breathlessly pro-american

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uhnope (Reply #13)

Wed Jan 7, 2015, 11:32 PM

82. Charlie Hebdo is also a lot like Colbert. It promotes left wing positions by satirizing the right.

And it rips into EVERYONE. No conservative target is safe from their mocking.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Xithras (Reply #82)

Thu Jan 8, 2015, 06:02 AM

175. they're not a bit left wing. their entire schtick is racism and its equivalents.

 

http://a2.img.talkingpointsmemo.com/image/upload/c_fill,fl_keep_iptc,g_faces,h_450,w_804/fopyfilykbtw23k6gokr.jpg


and one of their cartoonists got fired when he wouldn't retract an allegedly anti-Semitic cartoon about Sarkozy's son. so much for free speech.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KingCharlemagne (Original post)

Wed Jan 7, 2015, 10:46 PM

15. Oh for god's sake, THE FRENCH CONSIDER JERRY LEWIS A COMEDY GENIUS!!!

 

Nothing more needs to be said about French humor than that.

Americans will NEVER "get it".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KingCharlemagne (Original post)


Response to KingCharlemagne (Original post)

Wed Jan 7, 2015, 10:47 PM

18. Why would you feel the need to go off on how "offended" you are by it, right now?

Jesus fucking Christ on a segway, blame the victim much?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #18)

Wed Jan 7, 2015, 10:49 PM

24. I had never heard of the magazine before today to be honest. But when I heard it

was 'satire' and saw this cover, I couldn't help wondering just what was or is being satirized here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KingCharlemagne (Reply #24)

Wed Jan 7, 2015, 10:50 PM

28. You couldnt help it, huh.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren DeMontague (Reply #28)

Wed Jan 7, 2015, 11:04 PM

47. You better believe it!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zappaman (Reply #47)

Wed Jan 7, 2015, 11:10 PM

58. More like an unwilling coalition, surely...nt

Sid

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SidDithers (Reply #58)

Wed Jan 7, 2015, 11:11 PM

60. !

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SidDithers (Reply #58)

Thu Jan 8, 2015, 12:37 AM

120. Jeebus, you are good. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #120)

Thu Jan 8, 2015, 12:52 AM

127. "Operation shocking and awful" in quotes, into the google site search box...



Sid

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SidDithers (Reply #127)

Thu Jan 8, 2015, 10:43 AM

188. That's pretty definitive...PPR'd as "VanGoghRocks," too

Lawd.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alcibiades_mystery (Reply #188)

Thu Jan 8, 2015, 11:23 AM

193. There's a "HardTimes99" in there too..





Sid

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to msanthrope (Reply #120)

Thu Jan 8, 2015, 12:57 AM

131. He is.

I know if I ever try to come back from the great beyond, Sid will DeMontabust me in a New York minute.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KingCharlemagne (Reply #24)

Wed Jan 7, 2015, 11:09 PM

55. religious idiots are being satarized.

 

the shitty Koran of the great allah can't even stop a few bullets. The joke, for what it is worth, is that the religious idiot as he is dying realizes his beliefs are shit.

But what is your point? 12 people have been killed by real bullets by real religious fanatics. A drawing that fails to meet your standards for satire is your concern today?

That picture doesn't come close to depicting the actual revulsion I feel for the religious fanatics who think it is appropriate to murder people because they think their gods have been offended.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #55)

Wed Jan 7, 2015, 11:40 PM

92. +1

Well said.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #55)

Wed Jan 7, 2015, 11:47 PM

101. +1000

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #55)

Thu Jan 8, 2015, 01:02 AM

133. +10

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #55)

Thu Jan 8, 2015, 10:21 AM

184. /thread

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #55)

Thu Jan 8, 2015, 02:40 PM

209. The OPs point is to blame the victims

 

BTW, your post was great.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KingCharlemagne (Reply #24)

Wed Jan 7, 2015, 11:30 PM

77. Morsi is being satirized here

Read the whole damn cover and put it in the context of Egypt in July 2013, when that issue came out. What happened that month in Egypt?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KingCharlemagne (Original post)

Wed Jan 7, 2015, 10:48 PM

21. If this is satire, please explain to me how it's funny

 



Yeah, offensive speech is still free speech.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MohRokTah (Reply #21)

Wed Jan 7, 2015, 10:56 PM

34. Wow. that is a classic. Where did this ad appear, if you don't mind my

asking? I really hate and despise Falwell, so this one doesn't offend me as much. Even so, the suggestions of incest strike me as a bit over the top even for a scum like Falwell.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to KingCharlemagne (Reply #34)

Wed Jan 7, 2015, 11:01 PM

40. In Hustler in the 80's. He sued but the Supreme Court ruled against him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KingCharlemagne (Reply #34)

Wed Jan 7, 2015, 11:01 PM

41. Hustler magazine, sometime in the early 80s IIRC

Falwell sued for defamation and lost.

I noticed you said this didn't offend you so much based on the target of the satire. Are you willing to concede that you'll accept some satire and condemn others based on whose ox is being gored? Situational principles?

(edited to fix date)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Seeking Serenity (Reply #41)

Wed Jan 7, 2015, 11:10 PM

57. Well, I hate Falwell more than I hate most Muslims, that I'll grant you. And, yeah, I'd

probably be willing to accept some satire but condemn others depending on whose ox is being gored. That said, I just didn't see who or what was being satirized here, other than maybe the faithful of Islam.

Here's a thought experiment (and what reminded me of Nazi 'humor' of the 20s and 30s). Imagine this cover depicted a Jewish rabbi holding the Torah and similar verbiage. Would you be offended by it? I'm pretty sure I would be just as offended by that -- maybe even more so, given the ugly history of anti-semitism in the U.S. -- as I am by the cover as it is. Should I be or should I just say, "Oh well, I'm offended but that's the price we pay for free speech."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KingCharlemagne (Reply #57)

Wed Jan 7, 2015, 11:20 PM

70. "Oh well, I'm offended but that's the price we pay for free speech."

That is EXACTLY what you should say, to satirical drawings of Muhammed or to crucifixes dunked in jars of urine or images of the Virgin Mary smeared with feces, or any of it.

You can condemn it. Shout it from the rooftops how offended you are. But allowing, permitting, understanding, excusing a heckler's (or in this case, crazed, fanatical murderers') veto is NOT acceptable.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KingCharlemagne (Reply #57)

Thu Jan 8, 2015, 01:25 PM

202. Wouldn't it be just as offensive if it were a hillbilly Christian holding a Bible?

 

"The Bible ain't shit if it can't stop bullets"

How about a chain-smoking Objectivist?

"Atlas Shrugged ain't shit if it can't stop bullets"

Hilarious in some quarters.

The best humor offends someone, generally the subjects of the humor. Once we start saying that cartoonists/comedians were culpable in their own attacks, up to and including murder, then the fanatics are running the show.

Personally, I am offended by all religion as I see it as the triumph of ignorance over reason, but I don't intend to shoot or bomb anyone over it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KingCharlemagne (Reply #34)

Wed Jan 7, 2015, 11:02 PM

43. Hustler Magazine, November 1983

Falwell sued Flint over it, and it has become over the years an important case upholding parody and satire as protected speech.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hustler_Magazine_v._Falwell

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to unrepentant progress (Reply #43)

Wed Jan 7, 2015, 11:04 PM

46. Wow, I had no idea. Thank you for broadening my horizions a bit. I can see I

have some more reading to do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KingCharlemagne (Reply #46)

Wed Jan 7, 2015, 11:27 PM

75. Meh. I just lived through the time.

You could watch the movie with Woody Harrelson and Ed Norton too. It's pretty good.

Not too long after the movie came out, Falwell actually debated Flynt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to unrepentant progress (Reply #75)

Sun Jan 11, 2015, 03:39 PM

217. Yep, they not only debated, they became friends

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MohRokTah (Reply #21)

Wed Jan 7, 2015, 11:35 PM

87. I remember that!

Thanks for posting it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KingCharlemagne (Original post)

Wed Jan 7, 2015, 10:50 PM

27. Some religious nutter is butthurt

So what? I happen to think every religious book is shit. Deal with it. People hate me and I don't care.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AngryAmish (Reply #27)


Response to KingCharlemagne (Original post)

Wed Jan 7, 2015, 10:53 PM

30. the best response is to laugh at it and ridicule the magazine but insecure people won't do that nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KingCharlemagne (Original post)

Wed Jan 7, 2015, 11:04 PM

44. I don't care for it and would not have bought it, but there is freedom of speech.

May the victims rest in peace.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KingCharlemagne (Original post)

Wed Jan 7, 2015, 11:08 PM

54. And they get worse than that

The "Innocence of Muslims" cartoons are truly revolting.

I absolutely agree with what you wrote. Demeaning and dehumanizing, and the are definitely reminiscent of other hateful propaganda throughout history.

We can acknowledge this and also condemn the terrible crime. Thanks for the post.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CrawlingChaos (Reply #54)

Wed Jan 7, 2015, 11:13 PM

63. +++++++

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KingCharlemagne (Original post)

Wed Jan 7, 2015, 11:13 PM

62. O.K., not "satire" (kudos to your DU French handle, btw). Just "deeply felt"? n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KingCharlemagne (Original post)

Wed Jan 7, 2015, 11:14 PM

64. Many DU'ers support hate speech against "The right people"

 

Every poster in this thread would be in line to proclaim outrage if that book said "torah" instead. Some would fight to be at the front of the line. But it says "coran" instead, so they'll defend it and deflect from the fact that it is hate speech at all costs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scootaloo (Reply #64)

Wed Jan 7, 2015, 11:17 PM

68. I call bullshit on your post. I would feel the same way regardless of what book was being held

maybe many, but not "every"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KingCharlemagne (Original post)

Wed Jan 7, 2015, 11:14 PM

65. They think Jerry Lewis is funny. I can't imagine that you are trying to rationalize what happened

I do kinda see your point but that doesn't come anywhere close to justifying what happened today.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KingCharlemagne (Original post)

Wed Jan 7, 2015, 11:15 PM

66. Satire encompasses irony, ridicule and exaggeration besides humor

It does not have to be funny. The purpose of satire is to expose people's stupidity.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KingCharlemagne (Original post)

Wed Jan 7, 2015, 11:17 PM

67. None of that matters.

 

Either you have the right to free speech, or you don't.

The right to free speech means that you also have the right to say ignorant, racist, sexist, or whatever stuff. What you think of the cartoons doesn't matter.

You don't murder someone for saying something offensive. And if you value free speech, you have to stand for that even if the person talking says things that make you want to kick him in the head.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Daemonaquila (Reply #67)


Response to KingCharlemagne (Original post)

Wed Jan 7, 2015, 11:18 PM

69. It looks exactly like a cartoon from Der Stürmer in the Thirties

(the "Muslim skullcap" even looks exactly like a yarmulke) with the text slightly altered to just barely switch it from an insulting caricature of a Jew to an insulting caricature of a Muslim. Same exaggerated long nose, too.

Nobody at Charlie Hebdo deserved to die, but the anger Muslims could have felt about this "satirical" publication is understandable, even as the means the anger was expressed must be condemned.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KingCharlemagne (Original post)

Wed Jan 7, 2015, 11:22 PM

72. That's grotesque.

I have heard the publication called left wing, but the cover examples I've seen today look like extreme right wing hate tracts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Union Scribe (Reply #72)

Thu Jan 8, 2015, 07:24 AM

180. The European and especially French left has a long tradition of anti-clericalism.

To the point of being anti-religious. Which is not surprising considering the history of the Catholic Church and its support for the ancien regime before the French Revolution. They've been pretty equal-opportunity at skewering religion; here's their cover when Benedict XVI announced his resignation, for instance:

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KingCharlemagne (Original post)

Wed Jan 7, 2015, 11:24 PM

73. It's superb - cruelly accurate but fair satire.

Look at who is holding the Koran. It's a "believer" who is saying that the Koran is full of shit, because it does not stop bullets.

This is satirizing not the Koran, and not Muslims who take the Koran seriously as divine revelation and guidance, but extremists whose only real use for the Koran is to justify their bad actions and to teach recruits that if they follow this distortion that they will be granted victory by God (Allah).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Yo_Mama (Reply #73)


Response to KingCharlemagne (Original post)

Wed Jan 7, 2015, 11:28 PM

76. I find the lies on fix news

Oh, sorry. Fox News ... totally offensive. But that still isn't a valid reason to shoot 'em.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KingCharlemagne (Original post)

Wed Jan 7, 2015, 11:30 PM

78. You fail to mention that they ran that cover AFTER "jihadists" firebombed their offices.

They were making a point about pathetic religious losers using their faith as a weapon. They were basically saying, "If you want a war, you've picked a pretty shitty weapon to fight with."

It IS satire.

And, for what it's worth, Charlie Hebdo is anti-religious across the board, and attacks all brands of conservative faith, along with conservative social and political mores. Their brand of satire is actually similar to that of the Colbert Report...promote the left by satirizing right wing positions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Xithras (Reply #78)

Wed Jan 7, 2015, 11:51 PM

105. Colbert Report eh? Lets not.

 

I have friends who are Moderate Muslims that find the crap this magazine puts out as very hateful. It's gone beyond just drawing the Prophet to something malicious and eerily similar to days gone past when another demonized group was targeted like this in Europe.

Could you post covers of previous "satires" of other major religions they have targeted? I keep hearing they are JUST as hateful towards others in the past. I have not seen much evidence of it though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KingCharlemagne (Original post)

Wed Jan 7, 2015, 11:31 PM

79. Do you know what else he made fun of?

Was it only Muslims? I somehow doubt that given the international outrage.

It's satire which is usually mixed with truth. He's making fun of religion and the violence that results.

Pretty spot on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KingCharlemagne (Original post)

Wed Jan 7, 2015, 11:31 PM

81. ...



Sid

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SidDithers (Reply #81)

Wed Jan 7, 2015, 11:42 PM

96. So is that 33% hate speech?

Or 67%? Or 100%?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SidDithers (Reply #81)

Thu Jan 8, 2015, 01:01 PM

200. Thread winner. Game over. Thanks to everyone for playing. Next topic? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SidDithers (Reply #81)

Thu Jan 8, 2015, 01:37 PM

204. Much cleverer than seems at first glance.

He's deriding all the Abrahamic religions, not just one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KingCharlemagne (Original post)

Wed Jan 7, 2015, 11:33 PM

86. The French sense of humor doesn't always make sense to Americans

I mean, just watch a French comedy sometime. I'm never sure which part is the set-up and which part is the joke.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KingCharlemagne (Original post)

Wed Jan 7, 2015, 11:41 PM

93. But the penalty for hate speech still isn't being gunned down in your office

so I feel this is somewhat missing the point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KingCharlemagne (Original post)

Wed Jan 7, 2015, 11:48 PM

103. I don't find it especially amusing, myself.

But I also have zero sympathy for the kind of people who would commit mass murder over such a thing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KingCharlemagne (Original post)

Wed Jan 7, 2015, 11:50 PM

104. It strikes me as bullying behavior -- like throwing Korans in the toilet

We in the West have turned Islam into some big scary bugaboo. But from their side of things, they're poor, exploited, and vilified. Playground bullies kick sand in their faces and uproot their olive trees and nobody comes to their defense.

Their religion prohibits depicting Mohammed at all. But Western humorists not only do it but do it in the most graphically offensive manner possible. Their religion puts a premium on modesty in dress and behavior. Western satire strips it away.

Even at the best, this is the sort of treatment jailers inflict on inmates. At worst, it's metaphorical rape. And the "why can't they take a joke" reaction to it is no different from the misogynistic men who wonder who women get offended by sexist so-called humor.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to starroute (Reply #104)

Thu Jan 8, 2015, 12:12 AM

112. "We in the West have turned Islam into some big scary bugaboo."

Yeah, after an endless parade of Islamic mass terror attacks committed against Western civilians, including 9/11, what on Earth is the West possibly afraid of regarding Islam?

Congrats on the Dumbest Post of the Day.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brentspeak (Reply #112)

Thu Jan 8, 2015, 12:39 AM

121. I think I hear Hitler firing up the Zamboni. You and I agree on something. Get your skates!!! nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brentspeak (Reply #112)


Response to starroute (Reply #104)

Thu Jan 8, 2015, 12:21 AM

114. You have articulated exactly feelings I had but was unable to articulate clearly to myself. If it

were simply in bad taste or purely to shock the bourgeoisie, I don't think I would be so bothered. It's that 'metaphorical rape' thing that gets at what is going on, I think.

But, as someone upthread pointed out, I'm selective in my outrage about whose ox is being gored, especially if that ox happens to be Jerry Falwell. Not sure where that leaves me, save to note sadly La Rochefoucauld's maxim that "hypocrisy is the tribute that vice pays to virtue."

Thanks for this thoughtful post.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to starroute (Reply #104)

Thu Jan 8, 2015, 01:14 AM

136. wow. Excellent points!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KingCharlemagne (Original post)

Wed Jan 7, 2015, 11:51 PM

106. The title is "Killing in Egypt" and is in fact attacking both the military government and MB.

Well, there are a lot of things I still do not understand about America even after 14 years here. So, may be you may want to look at more than ONE cover to judge a paper.

Sometimes, Charlie Hebdo is too edgy, but if this is not hate speech, except if the hate speech is against ALL RELIGIONS. You will find covers like that attacking Christian extremists or Jewish extremisms.

It is clear French people have a long tradition of disrespect concerning religion institutions and their hypocrisies and that this may rub the ultra religious US the wrong way, but this is in the perfect tradition of Voltaire attacking the Catholic Church (in Candide, for example). Just a little more graphic, but not hate speech.

BTW, the satire is against extremists, not Muslim people. The title is "Killing in Egypt" and is in fact attacking both the military government and the Muslim Brotherhood.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Mass (Reply #106)


Response to Mass (Reply #106)

Thu Jan 8, 2015, 09:51 PM

212. The OP has been informed of the facts a few but has refused to reply.

Too bad. What the cover was satirizing wasn't that difficult to find.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Luminous Animal (Reply #212)

Thu Jan 8, 2015, 09:57 PM

213. Why haven't you responded to posts 197, 106, 74, or 161? Four DUers accurately

and intelligently informed you what the cover was satirizing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KingCharlemagne (Original post)

Thu Jan 8, 2015, 12:01 AM

107. The French haven't forgotten one of the reasons to overthrow the monarchy was the Church.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KingCharlemagne (Original post)

Thu Jan 8, 2015, 12:22 AM

115. Yeah, it does not look funny

And I realize you were not saying it meant they could shoot the people who did this unfunny thing as you've gotten about 110 posts implying you did, but I do not see that you said that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to treestar (Reply #115)

Thu Jan 8, 2015, 12:34 AM

118. I take John Stuart Mill's line (in "On Liberty") that the best cure for

bad speech is not to suppress it -- whether by the ballot or the bullet -- but instead to counter it with more speech. By the same token, though, 'satire' presumes some norm or institution is being held up to ridicule. I suppose one can argue that since the praying Egyptian students were killed by Egyptian police, that thereby their faith did not protect them and is therefore 'shit.' It was the combination of the graphic image and the sentence "The Koran is shit" that seemed to me over the top and not satire but instead pure anti-Islamic hate speech.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KingCharlemagne (Reply #118)

Thu Jan 8, 2015, 12:41 AM

123. Yeah, it may not be hate speech as such

but as far as being unfunny (Jerry Lewis excuses aside) it does look sort of puerile and and likely to offend and in bad taste. We are told on DU that if people find something offensive, we have no right to question their right to be offended, so that should extend to Muslims too. (Obligatory statements that "being offended" does not mean that we are supporting the murders. It means without the murders, as a separate question, it looks like some offensive stuff).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KingCharlemagne (Original post)

Thu Jan 8, 2015, 12:24 AM

116. What about all the "art" defacing crucifixes and the like?

Thats just as wrong, yet no christians blew up the museums that exhibited the junk.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 7962 (Reply #116)

Thu Jan 8, 2015, 01:10 AM

135. Memories grow dim with the passage of time. But, IIRC, Andres Serrano's

"Piss Christ" (basically a photo of a crucifix submerged in a glass filled with Serrano's urine) was the subject of bomb threats and of at least one physical attack. Republicans especially were outraged that NEA funds had been used to subsidize partially its exhibition.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piss_Christ

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 7962 (Reply #116)


Response to KingCharlemagne (Original post)

Thu Jan 8, 2015, 12:33 AM

117. Assuming it is hate speech, so what? It is still protected speech (at least in the US) nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kelly1mm (Reply #117)

Thu Jan 8, 2015, 12:46 AM

124. The "So What?' has to do, I think, with who exactly is being mourned and why. If those who died

were and are fearless satirists and proponents of free speech, the outpouring of grief and mourning is appropriate. If, on the other hand, those who died were and are garden-variety hate speakers, is the outpouring of grief and mourning still appropriate? If the latter, what exactly is being mourned?

Definitely agree with you 100% that hate speech is protected speech in the U.S. I don't know what rules apply in France, although I assume they're roughly similar or equivalent.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KingCharlemagne (Reply #124)

Thu Jan 8, 2015, 12:56 AM

130. Can they not be both? Many here HATE that the ACLU defended the KKK's right to march

in Skokie IL or, much more recently, their support for Citizen's United. If some crazies went into their office and killed 12, would we say 'oh well, they should not be mourned as they supported the KKK or Citizen's United'?

I think what is being mourned is the belief in the west that you can say controversial things and/or things that even are offensive, even hateful, and not be physically attacked for those expressions.

When Larry Flynt was shot some said it was justified because of the 'filth' he sold. I was not one of them.

I do have to admit that I am somewhat of a 1st amendment absolutist and my views are not always in line with other's here on DU concerning (among others) free speech/free expression.

I often thought if the KKK wanted to march in my town and was denied a permit, I would be the first to come to their aid to help get them a permit. However, once that permit was secured, you would see my right in the front row of the counter protest. To me this is not a contradiction. I can see how others would disagree.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kelly1mm (Reply #130)

Thu Jan 8, 2015, 01:29 AM

140. I'm a long-time "card-carrying member of the ACLU" (to use a standard RW canard), so I

appreciate your thoughtful response and your Lincoln-esque eloquence:

I think what is being mourned is the belief in the west that you can say controversial things and/or things that even are offensive, even hateful, and not be physically attacked for those expressions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KingCharlemagne (Original post)

Thu Jan 8, 2015, 12:35 AM

119. Is Piss Christ hate speech?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joeglow3 (Reply #119)

Thu Jan 8, 2015, 01:29 AM

139. No, it wasn't.

Far from it. Bodily fluids are an important part of Christian symbolism in the first place.

Is ritual cannibalism - eating the flesh and blood of Christ - not still part of Christianity?

The Bible says that during the crucifixion, he was pierced by a spear and fluid came pouring out. What do you suppose it was?

The work, by the way, is not "Jesus in urine", it is this photograph:



If you didn't know how the photograph was made, you would think it was a common sort of divinely glowing depiction of Christ.

However, that glow comes from sunlight filtered through something which is essential human and corporeal - i.e. urine - which is also symbolic of the Christ as "fully divine and fully human".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #139)

Thu Jan 8, 2015, 01:41 AM

143. Do the same thing with Muhammad

 

Good luck with that...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joeglow3 (Reply #143)

Thu Jan 8, 2015, 01:44 AM

144. Not really getting the point are you?

"Piss Christ" is a photograph which depicts the crucifixion in a way that is typical of much Christian art.

I gather you have no actual response to what I wrote above.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #144)

Thu Jan 8, 2015, 02:42 AM

149. Catholic Church disagrees with your analysis.

 

Are you saying if I can justify a certain picture/cartoon/art then it is not offensive, even if the other party is offended? Thus, you agree that the cartoons discussed here are cool, because they people drawing the had justification.

Do you use the same argument to justify why dung on the Virgin Mary is cool, as well?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joeglow3 (Reply #149)

Thu Jan 8, 2015, 02:49 AM

150. I think you should look at my other comments upthread


I don't think pissing people off for the sake of pissing people off is a noble cause.

As noted above, cartoons "criticizing Judaism" were once popular in Europe too.

Piss Christ is, in my opinion, a spectacularly misunderstood photograph. I think intent matters. Are you saying it was done for the purpose of ridicule and contempt?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #150)

Thu Jan 8, 2015, 03:03 AM

152. In my experience, lazy artists resort to piss and shit to shock people to garner attention

 

For their product, which is usually undervalued In the mind of the artist.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joeglow3 (Reply #152)

Thu Jan 8, 2015, 03:22 AM

155. I thought you had asked a question

You asked "Is piss Christ hate speech?"

I foolishly thought you wanted to discuss that question.

In my opinion, it is a striking visual image of a glowing crucifix in a medium which reinforces the Christian myth of the "divine reaching down to become human" and the monumental indignity and lowering of the divine incarnation. Think of that word "incarnation"... Literally "God became a piece of meat" - that's where the word incarnation comes from.

So when you hear a Christian refer to Christ as "God incarnate", do you think of what is actually being said?

So you have this crucifix in this glowing light, suggesting the divine, which is filtered through something entirely and undeniably corporeal and incident to existence as a human.

That's what it suggests to me, and it is my opinion that it is fully consistent with Christian themes. Perhaps it suggests something else to you. But the tension between emphasizing Christ's divinity on the one hand, and humanity on the other hand, is the kind of thing Europeans excelled at killing each other over in the course of their development.

Again, I haven't kept up with this sort of thing, but I seem to recall people in Ireland being able to work themselves into quite a lather over that sort of thing in my own lifetime and not long ago.

I sure know that my opinion on that photograph is not widely held, but so what? Was your question a true/false one, or an essay question. And if you already knew the correct answer, then why were you asking?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #155)

Thu Jan 8, 2015, 10:02 AM

183. You asked me a question and I responded to it.

 

What was the artistic value of the Virgin Mary being covered in dung?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joeglow3 (Reply #183)

Thu Jan 8, 2015, 10:29 AM

186. Don't know much about that one do you...

What does Genesis say people are made of?

That was a collage composed of natural materials, not "Mary covered in dung" as it was sensationalized.

It's used as a building material in a lot of places.

I'll bet you never even saw it.



In both of these instances you raised, it was a Western artist working on a theme of Western art.

I'm not an art critic. You might try this one:

http://observer.com/1999/10/even-in-elephant-dung-there-is-beauty/

But it doesn't look to me as if it is far outside the range of lots of iconic depictions.





Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #186)

Thu Jan 8, 2015, 11:45 AM

196. I think you have very accurate views of both this work and Piss Christ

 

The Olifi is in my opinion flat out sacred art. I could write a long piece about it. It is a very positive depiction of the subject. Very.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to joeglow3 (Reply #183)

Thu Jan 8, 2015, 01:26 PM

203. Your initial question was "Is Piss Christ hate speech"


Now, I don't think either of these things are great works of "art", but I also don't think the intent of the artist in either situation was to set out to deliberately offend, degrade or shock. I think they are unusual interpretations of common themes, but I can't see how that image of the "Mary covered in dung" is even accurately described that way. It seems to be a primitive style "African Mary".

There are plenty of former Catholic churches in Europe which were taken over by Protestants who, at that time, found ALL visual representations - paintings, statutes, etc. to be offensive and who removed them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Reformation_and_art


The Protestant Reformation induced a wave of iconoclasm, or the destruction of religious imagery. All forms of Protestantism showed a degree of hostility to religious images, as idolatry, especially sculpture and large paintings. Book illustrations and prints were more acceptable, because they were smaller and more private. Protestant leaders, especially Huldrych Zwingli and John Calvin, actively eliminated imagery from churches within the control of their followers, and regarded the great majority of religious images as idolatrous, even plain crosses.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #203)

Thu Jan 8, 2015, 02:52 PM

210. And to that end, I agree with you.

 

I don't see it as hate speech, just as I don't see the majority of stuff about Islam in satirical contexts as hate speech. I am surprised how so many here see just the items related to islam as hate speech.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KingCharlemagne (Original post)

Thu Jan 8, 2015, 12:40 AM

122.  Using humor, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people's stupidity or vices,

 particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues.

You can't see how the cartoon is doing that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to prayin4rain (Reply #122)

Thu Jan 8, 2015, 12:55 AM

129. Yes. Thank you. I can. Spread the word. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to prayin4rain (Reply #122)

Thu Jan 8, 2015, 10:30 AM

187. Yes, exactly. nt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KingCharlemagne (Original post)

Thu Jan 8, 2015, 12:57 AM

132. The French thought Jerry Lewis was hilarious.

So maybe that explains it a bit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KingCharlemagne (Original post)

Thu Jan 8, 2015, 01:32 AM

141. When that cover justifies murder please let me know.

Till then stop looking for excuses on why what these fucking pigs did is ok in your world.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KingCharlemagne (Original post)

Thu Jan 8, 2015, 01:40 AM

142. You obviously chose not to mention the anti Jewish & Christian Charlie Hebdo covers!!??!!

Save me the anti-Islam crap this is about FREE SPEECH! This is not a hate group of any kind these are journalist/cartoonist expressing opinions!

Such stupidity!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SkyDaddy7 (Reply #142)

Thu Jan 8, 2015, 02:05 AM

148. Come now, SkyDaddy.

We all know certain deities are more "sensitive" to perceived insults by mere mortals drawing images with pens and pencils.

I mean, what kind of self-respecting deity would allow some "petty, low-life" cartoonist to paint him in a bad light?

No self-respecting deity I know.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KingCharlemagne (Original post)

Thu Jan 8, 2015, 02:56 AM

151. It doesn't look like humor, that's for sure.

 

Charlie Hebdo was not in reality a model of freedom of speech. It has ended up, like so much of the “human rights left”, defending U.S.-led wars against “dictators”.

In 2002, Philippe Val, who was editor in chief at the time, denounced Noam Chomsky for anti-Americanism and excessive criticism of Israel and of mainstream media. In 2008, another of Charlie Hebdo’s famous cartoonists, Siné, wrote a short note citing a news item that President Sarkozy’s son Jean was going to convert to Judaism to marry the heiress of a prosperous appliance chain. Siné added the comment, “He’ll go far, this lad.” For that, Siné was fired by Philippe Val on grounds of “anti-Semitism”. Siné promptly founded a rival paper which stole a number of Charlie Hebdo readers, revolted by CH’s double standards.

In short, Charlie Hebdo was an extreme example of what is wrong with the “politically correct” line of the current French left. The irony is that the murderous attack by the apparently Islamist killers has suddenly sanctified this fading expression of extended adolescent revolt, which was losing its popular appeal, into the eternal banner of a Free Press and Liberty of Expression. Whatever the murderers intended, this is what they have achieved. Along with taking innocent lives, they have surely deepened the sense of brutal chaos in this world, aggravated distrust between ethnic groups in France and in Europe, and no doubt accomplished other evil results as well. In this age of suspicion, conspiracy theories are certain to proliferate.

http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/01/07/what-to-say-when-you-have-nothing-to-say/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KingCharlemagne (Original post)

Thu Jan 8, 2015, 03:09 AM

153. Satire is not always supposed to be funny ...hahahaha

sat·ire
ˈsaˌtīər/
noun
the use of humor, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people's stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues.
synonyms: mockery, ridicule, derision, scorn, caricature; More
a play, novel, film, or other work that uses satire.
plural noun: satires
"a stinging satire on American politics"
synonyms: parody, burlesque, caricature, lampoon, skit; More
a genre of literature characterized by the use of satire.


FURTHERMORE as journalists we are not supposed to be sensitive to others sensibilities when this BIZZARRO WORLD is burning in its stupid idiosyncrasies ... We are supposed to be screaming the idiotic nature of humankind until it finally echoes in the chambers of the consciousness of man ...

YOU are totally wrong, Nicholas "Bill" Kristof for stating otherwise today ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KingCharlemagne (Original post)

Thu Jan 8, 2015, 03:19 AM

154. should people be murdered for this?

NO. Should i line the cat box with it, yes.
The cartooning however, reminds me of nazi propaganda crap.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MFM008 (Reply #154)

Thu Jan 8, 2015, 03:30 AM

157. That "nazi propaganda crap" as you call it...

...were just cartoons.

But you are making a false equivalence there. German Jews didn't cause a big ruckus or become violent over those cartoons. Big difference there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jberryhill (Reply #157)


Response to KingCharlemagne (Original post)

Thu Jan 8, 2015, 03:57 AM

161. The article was about the Egyptian Govt smashing down the muslim brotherhood.

The joke is that the holy book (Faith in general) didn't do the radicals any good as a shield against the govt. This is not hate speech, it's biting mockery of religion in general. Since the topic was an Islamic group, the target this time was that faith. This magazine has also poked fun at every other major faith and many other topics.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KingCharlemagne (Original post)

Thu Jan 8, 2015, 04:03 AM

163. It satirizes: Islam is a religion of peace

Bullets flying as he clutches his Koran. Sounds like the middle east in the news lately.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KingCharlemagne (Original post)

Thu Jan 8, 2015, 05:41 AM

168. it's saying mohammed's followers are killing the profit they claim to follow.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KingCharlemagne (Original post)

Thu Jan 8, 2015, 06:17 AM

176. the Cartoon is about Egypt's Al Sisi Attacks on Muslim Brotherhood

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KingCharlemagne (Original post)

Thu Jan 8, 2015, 06:49 AM

177. It's not. It's bullying.

 

That's my take on it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KingCharlemagne (Original post)

Thu Jan 8, 2015, 06:56 AM

178. I figured victim blaming

Would become the meme; though carefully stated, of course. Is it any wonder the Republicans are winning the conversation, no matter their true intentions? The circular firing squad is alive and well among many liberals.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KingCharlemagne (Original post)

Thu Jan 8, 2015, 07:08 AM

179. I heard a commentator say yesterday

that sales for the magazine had been down recently until it started publishing more controversial subject matter like this.

It doesn't justify the violence, though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KingCharlemagne (Original post)

Thu Jan 8, 2015, 07:40 AM

181. Ridicule is a form of satire. Humor is not a necessary ingredient.

 

Not everyone has the satire gene.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KingCharlemagne (Original post)

Thu Jan 8, 2015, 07:50 AM

182. the fact that they go after all religions makes a difference

they seem to be iconoclastic rather than racist.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KingCharlemagne (Original post)

Thu Jan 8, 2015, 10:28 AM

185. I don't think it's 'funny' and do believe many people would be hurt by it,

but I think the cartoonists were trying to show how they feel about all religion and it's impact, Islam included .... and they had a right to do that. Definitely not a reason to murder anyone - there are many other ways to protest anything someone finds hurtful.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KingCharlemagne (Original post)

Thu Jan 8, 2015, 10:57 AM

189. blame-the-victim mentality is alive and well at DU, apparently

...and apparently there are a lot of people here who do not really support free speech or understand satire, at all. It is interesting to me that there is a lot of overlap in the Venn diagram of DU victim-blamers and the satire-deficient.

For the OP and the rest of the clueless: satire is not always "funny" in the way that traditional television shows are humorous; laugh-out-loud comedy is not a requirement for the genre. Satire uses exaggeration and hyperbole to engage in cultural critique .
"Dr. Strangelove" is brilliant satire but is only occassionally laugh-out-loud funny; Orwell's "Nineteen Eighty-Four" is satire (and the author himself called it that) and there is not a single moment of humor in that novel, anywhere.

Here's the dictionary definition, just to help put his incredible level of miscomprehension to rest:

sat·ire
ˈsaˌtīər/
noun
the use of humor, irony, exaggeration, OR ridicule to expose and criticize people's stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues.
synonyms: mockery, ridicule, derision, scorn, caricature

So you can call it "hate speech" all you like but it is clear to me that this is a not-as-subtle-as-the-OP-thinks form of victim blaming.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheSarcastinator (Reply #189)

Thu Jan 8, 2015, 11:06 AM

190. That is still a Western interpretation of satire that we insist on imposing on the rest of the world

 

Isn't it? Free speech does not exist everywhere.
If you don't give yourself the same benefit of a doubt you'd give anyone else, you're cheating someone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #190)

Thu Jan 8, 2015, 11:07 AM

191. nonsense

"Imposition" implies people are forced to read it. Your reply is ridiculous. And France is indeed "the West", so try again.


Victim blaming is alive and well at DU.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheSarcastinator (Reply #191)

Thu Jan 8, 2015, 11:14 AM

192. I agree that France is the West. And the 3 gunmen chose to live in a multicultural nation.

 

So it's not like 'revenge for the Prophet' was really an issue.

I'm just struck by how easy it sometimes is for us to say 'free speech trumps everything' when a good portion of the world -in fact, the majority of it- does not believe that.

It's a conundrum, that's all.
If you don't give yourself the same benefit of a doubt you'd give anyone else, you're cheating someone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #192)

Thu Jan 8, 2015, 11:29 AM

194. it's a conflict not a conundrum

Yes, the majority of the planet still lives under strict systems of control, patriarchy and domination:you are spot on.

Free speech and scientific and cultural inquiry are what make societies strong and long-lasting: the East was the center of learning, education and free thought before a radical, messianic and patriarchal system of control gained dominance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheSarcastinator (Reply #194)

Thu Jan 8, 2015, 12:57 PM

199. Yes, it was. nt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KingCharlemagne (Original post)

Thu Jan 8, 2015, 11:44 AM

195. The definition of satire is broader than you suspect

Satire doesn't have to be funny (and this obviously isn't).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KingCharlemagne (Original post)

Thu Jan 8, 2015, 12:25 PM

197. You fail to translate the title of the cover 'Slaughter In Egypt'.

 

That is a political statement, about an even that was current. It is worth noting that you translated everything but the phrase that gives context and meaning to the piece. Perhaps that was because you did not understand the importance of the phrase 'Slaughter In Egypt' or perhaps because you did understand it but did not wish to acknowledge it. At any rate it seems only fair to translate the entire cover if you are going to ask for a critique of the piece. So I looked it up myself. It made the meaning of the piece very clear and not at all like your incomplete translation and subsequent opinion.
Discussing this piece without the full translation is a dubious activity. It is less than honest to edit out the parts that contextualize the drawing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KingCharlemagne (Original post)

Thu Jan 8, 2015, 12:31 PM

198. look up "satire"

sat·ire

noun
the use of humor, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people's stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues.

synonyms: mockery, ridicule, derision, scorn, caricature;

a play, novel, film, or other work that uses satire.
plural noun: satires
"a stinging satire on American politics"
synonyms: parody, burlesque, caricature, lampoon, skit;

a genre of literature characterized by the use of satire.

I'd say it meets that definition just fine. You are simply offended.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KingCharlemagne (Original post)

Thu Jan 8, 2015, 01:02 PM

201. See post #81. Thread over. Next? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KingCharlemagne (Original post)

Thu Jan 8, 2015, 09:18 PM

211. They went after everyone, including Christians. Now what? Did you want them to make an exception

perhaps? I'm sick of the political correctness toward only one religion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KingCharlemagne (Original post)

Thu Jan 8, 2015, 09:59 PM

214. The original thread post states religion can't be ridiculed.

 

The Quran advocates death for gays, adulterers, blasphemers, etc.

In polite terms, it is allowed to doubt it's a text inspired by a benevolent sky dweller.

In satirical magazine terms, it translates as 'The Quran is shit'. It's not rocket science.

What the OP of this thread says is: respect religions.

Why?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KingCharlemagne (Original post)

Thu Jan 8, 2015, 11:31 PM

215. Why haven't you responded to posts 197, 106, 74, or 161? Four DUers accurately

and intelligently informed you what the cover was satirizing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KingCharlemagne (Original post)

Fri Jan 9, 2015, 02:54 AM

216. I find it highly offensive and insulting. Satire

is humour used to criticize something/someone or group and it has to have the element of truth to it.

For many non Muslims the Koran is shit. They know nothing of its teachings and so when they hear that it says non believers should be killed, women must be covered from head to toe and subjugated to the whims of men and the never ending jihad, well I can understand their feelings.

More Muslims are dying from the bullets and and beheadings done by fundamentalist Muslims. So far their Koran hasn't stopped this or protected them.

So this magazine is poking fun at the above and they have elements of truth on their side. However, I'm not certain the humour is there but for some it may be.

No matter how much something or someone offends another that does not give them the right to violently lash out. Protest the magazine, boycott them but to go in and committ mass murder may have just proved the point, to some, the cartoons were making

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KingCharlemagne (Original post)

Sun Jan 11, 2015, 04:59 PM

220. Well, it's certainly not to MY tastes, but....


... I think it's specifically satirizing the iconization of the Koran among some Muslims.

In other words, I thinks it's pointing out that the Koran is just a book... not a magic talisman. And as a book, it's subject to cticism, or, as indicated by this particular cartoon, it's not going to stop bullets, no matter how revered it is

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread