Have Charlie Hebdo cartoon gone too far?
Recently the cartoon put out some disturbing cartoons that suggest that the drowned boy(Kurdi) may have grew up to be a sexual abuser. I think what they did was distasteful, but this is what they are know for, so I'm not sure why there is such an outrage among a few people. Further reading with some of the images:
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/jan/14/charlie-hebdo-cartoon-depicting-drowned-child-alan-kurdi-sparks-racism-debate
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/jan/14/charlie-hebdo-cartoon-depicting-drowned-child-alan-kurdi-sparks-racism-debate
Scroll to see replies
*Sigh*
No-one gets French humor...
No-one gets French humor...
Original post by TheArtofProtest
*Sigh*
No-one gets French humor...
No-one gets French humor...
IKR.
That particular cartoon isn't to my taste, but it's ironic isn't it? If those blockhead murderers didn't do what they did last year, none of us would have even heard of Charlie.
Now, thanks to their actions, everyone does and their cartoons get world-wide media coverage.
Now, thanks to their actions, everyone does and their cartoons get world-wide media coverage.
**** Charlie ****o.
As is said in the article, they may well be satirising the sweeping statements being made about refugees.
The first thing I thought of is that they're challenging papers on their hypocrisy, for encouraging immigration when showing the picture of Alan, and then demonising immigrants after the attacks in Cologne.
Regardless, I support their right to publish cartoons without fear of being murdered.
The first thing I thought of is that they're challenging papers on their hypocrisy, for encouraging immigration when showing the picture of Alan, and then demonising immigrants after the attacks in Cologne.
Regardless, I support their right to publish cartoons without fear of being murdered.
Original post by simbasdragon
As is said in the article, they may well be satirising the sweeping statements being made about refugees.
The first thing I thought of is that they're challenging papers on their hypocrisy, for encouraging immigration when showing the picture of Alan, and then demonising immigrants after the attacks in Cologne.
Regardless, I support their right to publish cartoons without fear of being murdered.
The first thing I thought of is that they're challenging papers on their hypocrisy, for encouraging immigration when showing the picture of Alan, and then demonising immigrants after the attacks in Cologne.
Regardless, I support their right to publish cartoons without fear of being murdered.
This is the most bull**** I've ever heard. 'May well be satirising sweeping statements'. We both know that's absolutely not true, and it's a 'get out of jail free' card, every time this disgusting magazine publishes someone new.
They are making a mockery of the death of a child. A child that drowned, through no fault of his own. His face lying in the sand. Anyone justifying this is a c*** tbh.
Certainly they shouldn't be murdered, but I would like to question all those who marched in such solidarity with them just over a year ago. Does this sit well with them? Their idea of freedom of speech?
People have the right to say abhorrent things, and I won't go out and punch them for it, but I certainly won't support them or condone their actions, or try to justify them in anyway.
(edited 8 years ago)
They need to get their **** together
Original post by SmaugTheTerrible
This is the most bull**** I've ever heard. 'May well be satirising sweeping statements'. We both know that's absolutely not true, and it's a 'get out of jail free' card, every time this disgusting magazine publishes someone new.
They are making a mockery of the death of a child. A child that drowned, through no fault of his own. His face lying in the sand. Anyone justifying this is a c*** tbh.
Certainly they shouldn't be murdered, but I would like to question all those who marched in such solidarity with them just over a year ago. Does this sit well with them? Their idea of freedom of speech?
People have the right to say abhorrent things, and I won't go out and punch them for it, but I certainly won't support them or condone their actions, or try to justify them in anyway.
They are making a mockery of the death of a child. A child that drowned, through no fault of his own. His face lying in the sand. Anyone justifying this is a c*** tbh.
Certainly they shouldn't be murdered, but I would like to question all those who marched in such solidarity with them just over a year ago. Does this sit well with them? Their idea of freedom of speech?
People have the right to say abhorrent things, and I won't go out and punch them for it, but I certainly won't support them or condone their actions, or try to justify them in anyway.
Charlie Hebdo is a satirical magazine, all of their cartoons therefore challenge or mock stereotypes and current events. I don't find it remotely hard to believe that this cartoon is satire, published in a satirical magazine.
I don't justify much of what they draw, including numerous anti-semitic cartoons. However, so long as it doesn't incite hate crime, I still support their right to express what they think.
The problem: Every couple month one caricature is taken out of context. The actual magazine we are taking about has text, too, hence everything is put in context.
=> But the fault made is, that:
a) The only reason, why those caricatures are shown, because somehow people have to remember themselves, that the terrorists where right by singling out that magazine. Otherwise they would discuss every issue and all caricatures in context. (No, they don't. I doubt most people have even read one isssue.)
b) The magazine by it's definition is a satirical magazine, the caricatures are NOT MEANT to be 100% serious and are not what people (outside of France) take them for. Charlie Hebdo is NOT the independant, guardian, times, etc. ...
c) Satire taken out of the satirical context often sounds evil. That is one aim of satire.
d) The Yellow Press is much more debatable (and reaches far more people), but as their journalists are much more powerful, it is seldom discussed. Charlie Hebdo is easy to discuss, because there is no influencial person behind, which can get people into trouble or launch a large campaign.
I do not say, that you have to like that journal and everyone has the right to say "I don't like this" and yes, satire is sometimes really over the top. But I would like that the debate is a bit more realistic, concerning the actual impact of those pictures, the motivation behind, the will to analyze the whole article (the source, not another article about) and the will to see the paper and it is actual position in the media landscape.
A general problem is, that people are often not researching by themselves and then are easily overreacting, because it is a picture and not a text. There are really dangerous magazines out there (e.g. some NAZI-papers), but somehow I MET NOTBODY critizing those. Probably because they are never in the papers. Better spent your time debating and fighting papers, who have a real agenda behind them. (Nota bene: Those are often on the first glance totally okay, because they want the people lure into far-right-thinking.)
=> But the fault made is, that:
a) The only reason, why those caricatures are shown, because somehow people have to remember themselves, that the terrorists where right by singling out that magazine. Otherwise they would discuss every issue and all caricatures in context. (No, they don't. I doubt most people have even read one isssue.)
b) The magazine by it's definition is a satirical magazine, the caricatures are NOT MEANT to be 100% serious and are not what people (outside of France) take them for. Charlie Hebdo is NOT the independant, guardian, times, etc. ...
c) Satire taken out of the satirical context often sounds evil. That is one aim of satire.
d) The Yellow Press is much more debatable (and reaches far more people), but as their journalists are much more powerful, it is seldom discussed. Charlie Hebdo is easy to discuss, because there is no influencial person behind, which can get people into trouble or launch a large campaign.
I do not say, that you have to like that journal and everyone has the right to say "I don't like this" and yes, satire is sometimes really over the top. But I would like that the debate is a bit more realistic, concerning the actual impact of those pictures, the motivation behind, the will to analyze the whole article (the source, not another article about) and the will to see the paper and it is actual position in the media landscape.
A general problem is, that people are often not researching by themselves and then are easily overreacting, because it is a picture and not a text. There are really dangerous magazines out there (e.g. some NAZI-papers), but somehow I MET NOTBODY critizing those. Probably because they are never in the papers. Better spent your time debating and fighting papers, who have a real agenda behind them. (Nota bene: Those are often on the first glance totally okay, because they want the people lure into far-right-thinking.)
Original post by simbasdragon
Charlie Hebdo is a satirical magazine, all of their cartoons therefore challenge or mock stereotypes and current events. I don't find it remotely hard to believe that this cartoon is satire, published in a satirical magazine.
I don't justify much of what they draw, including numerous anti-semitic cartoons. However, so long as it doesn't incite hate crime, I still support their right to express what they think.
I don't justify much of what they draw, including numerous anti-semitic cartoons. However, so long as it doesn't incite hate crime, I still support their right to express what they think.
Satirical by name. They've evolved into something much more worrying and hateful.
At the end of the day, they can call themselves whatever they like, but they are still a bunch of disgusting adults, making a mockery of the death of a child.
Original post by SmaugTheTerrible
Satirical by name. They've evolved into something much more worrying and hateful.
At the end of the day, they can call themselves whatever they like, but they are still a bunch of disgusting adults, making a mockery of the death of a child.
At the end of the day, they can call themselves whatever they like, but they are still a bunch of disgusting adults, making a mockery of the death of a child.
Their cartoons have always been this provocative, look at their anti-semitic cartoons which they've been doing for years.
It is very likely that they're not mocking the boy's death, but instead using him to highlight the hypocrisy of the media and general public in their treatment of refugees.
Original post by SmaugTheTerrible
This is the most bull**** I've ever heard. 'May well be satirising sweeping statements'. We both know that's absolutely not true, and it's a 'get out of jail free' card, every time this disgusting magazine publishes someone new.
They are making a mockery of the death of a child. A child that drowned, through no fault of his own. His face lying in the sand. Anyone justifying this is a c*** tbh.
Certainly they shouldn't be murdered, but I would like to question all those who marched in such solidarity with them just over a year ago. Does this sit well with them? Their idea of freedom of speech?
People have the right to say abhorrent things, and I won't go out and punch them for it, but I certainly won't support them or condone their actions, or try to justify them in anyway.
They are making a mockery of the death of a child. A child that drowned, through no fault of his own. His face lying in the sand. Anyone justifying this is a c*** tbh.
Certainly they shouldn't be murdered, but I would like to question all those who marched in such solidarity with them just over a year ago. Does this sit well with them? Their idea of freedom of speech?
People have the right to say abhorrent things, and I won't go out and punch them for it, but I certainly won't support them or condone their actions, or try to justify them in anyway.
It's OK, Sweetie, your safe space is ready for you x
Original post by simbasdragon
Their cartoons have always been this provocative, look at their anti-semitic cartoons which they've been doing for years.
It is very likely that they're not mocking the boy's death, but instead using him to highlight the hypocrisy of the media and general public in their treatment of refugees.
It is very likely that they're not mocking the boy's death, but instead using him to highlight the hypocrisy of the media and general public in their treatment of refugees.
Where is the hypocrisy?
If only people actually tried to understand the picture rather than get offended right away. But I guess it might just be too much to ask people to use rational thought.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Kallisto's Old Cartoons Review
- What childish cartoons can you watch as an adult?
- What cartoons can't you get back into as an adult?
- I’m convinced my ex is guilty. What do you all think?
- What child like things do you do (if any) today?
- Which is your favourite animated series?
- What film deserves a prequel?
- 90s Cartoon
- Porn addiction
- Mnemonics for the Reactivity Series
- Doing visual effect and animation for a course
- List 1 MILLION SONGS - Part 1
- Animation at uni
- KCL or St Andrews
- Citing for the first time
- Lancaster vs York (Marketing)
- Worst Animated Show Characters
- MEI A Level Mathematics Probability
- Should I follow my heart's career, or my head's?
- Does anyone miss the late 90s/00s period?
Latest
Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
