|
hate pants posted:Oh sorry I forgot you were an expert on French satire and humor and not some pedantic moron 
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 20:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 06:19 |
|
|
Prurient Squid posted:Is that a Fujoshi? Normally they're not drawn as sympathetically. That's a redrawn version of this  which was also redrawn as this  Japanese nerd culture is pretty complicated
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 20:32
|
|
|
(Non-french) Eurogoon here. While I have only ever flipped through an issue of Charlie Hebdo and don't find what I've seen of it's satirical pictures especially funny, I still feel compelled to speak out in defence of the magazine. From what I know of american culture and views on Free speech I understand that the Hebdo pictures going around might seem offensive or even racist to american audiences, but I by and large this is simply not the case. Satire is intentionally and by definition offensive to some viewers and this is very much an issue of Free speech. Given the variety of views considered offensive by different groups I feel one must emphatically defend the right of all offensive material to be published and distributed as long as it does not directly promote criminal acts. As I understand it American satire tend to be more sensitive and include less sodomisation of religious figures, but this is a cultural difference that must be taken into account before accusing people of racism. In France, where the paper is published, this context is known amongst it's readers and I dare say is only viewed as controversial by extremist and fringe groups. There is little sense in being offensive for it's own sake, but Free speech is worthless if it does not include the freedom to be horribly offensive. One cannot truthfully claim to support Free speech and the right of free discourse while simultaneously claiming that the offensiveness of Charlie Hebdo on any level justifies the murder of it's staff as well as the police officer protecting them.
Balder fucked around with this message at 20:40 on Jan 8, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 20:33
|
|
|
Balder posted:(Non-french) Eurogoon here. While I have only ever flipped through an issue of Charlie Hebdo and don't find what I've seen of it's satirical pictures especially funny, I still feel compelled to speak out in defence of the magazine. From what I know of american culture and views on Free speech I understand that the Hebdo pictures going around might seem offensive or even racist to american audiences, but I by and large this is simply not the case. Satire is intentionally and by definition offensive to some viewers and this is very much an issue of Free speech. Given the variety of views considered offensive by different groups I feel one must emphatically defend the right of all offensive material to be published and distributed as long as it does not directly promote criminal acts. As I understand it American satire tend to be more sensitive and include less sodomisation of religious figures, but this is a cultural difference that must be taken into account before accusing people of racism. In France, where the paper is published, this context is known amongst it's readers and I dare say is only viewed as controversial by extremist and fringe groups. There is little sense in being offensive for it's own sake, but Free speech is worthless if it does not include the freedom to be horribly offensive. One cannot truthfully claim to support Free speech and the right of free discourse while simultaneously claiming that the offensiveness of Charlie Hebdo on any level justifies the murder of it's staff as well as the police officer protecting them. agreed  it's satirical because both of them rob you, but one robs you legally!
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 20:35
|
|
|
Badera posted:When is violence justified? Does a difference exist between the violence committed by oppressed people and their oppressors? In this case, ISIS wants to sow dissent and mistrust between Muslims and non-Muslims abroad, so it's probably their best choice. Thinking about it more, That quote from Brannock is right, discussion of wether CH is racist is a dumb idea right now, in context it's only going to come off as searching for justification for the attacks, which consequently is going to create arguments. I have some concerns about CH being held up as some paragon martyr of free speech but atm probably not worth worrying about e: Balder; I think people have problems with taking shots at Muslims because, in the current world situation where the USA has spent a decade bombing, killing and torturing Muslims, without any tangible international blowback, going after thel feels pretty explicitly like punching down. You're right that Satire is always going to attack someone, but the who the target is with respect to the satirist will have a lot to do with how different ideological spectrums will receive it. The far-left tends to dislike jokes at the expense of the marginalized, for example. Ron Paul Atreides fucked around with this message at 20:43 on Jan 8, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 20:37
|
|
|
Stop arguing and post pictures. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 20:39
|
|
|
Badera posted:When is violence justified? It is never justified, it's always a degree of failure at applying peaceful methods. It is, however, sometimes inevitable.  quote:Does a difference exist between the violence committed by oppressed people and their oppressors? You tell me. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 20:41
|
|
|
NEED MORE PICTURES
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 20:41
|
|
|
menino posted:Funny, I forgot you haven't been a clear affirmative claim regarding what nuances of French humor we're not getting. From what I can see, they seem to elevate South Park caliber 'neener neener' juvenilia into high satire. Since you like images and high-brow humor, I've decided to combine these two interests of yours: 
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 20:48
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VunCD-5G1VA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJv-zqVUGAw The only truly good political satire.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 20:49
|
|
|
Here is a completely serious cartoon by a notably racist publication. Ban this sick filth.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 20:50
|
|
|
Here is another completely serious cartoon by a notably racist publication http://o.onionstatic.com/images/18/18053/16x9/700.jpg?1577
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 20:59
|
|
|
MAD Magazine: worse than Hitler?
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 21:00
|
|
|
Political Whores posted:The only truly good political satire. It's not on youtube, but I saw one where the bald guy is listening to forbidden radio broadcasts. Thanks for these other ones.   
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 21:03
|
|
|
Balder posted:(Non-french) Eurogoon here. While I have only ever flipped through an issue of Charlie Hebdo and don't find what I've seen of it's satirical pictures especially funny, I still feel compelled to speak out in defence of the magazine. From what I know of american culture and views on Free speech I understand that the Hebdo pictures going around might seem offensive or even racist to american audiences, but I by and large this is simply not the case. Satire is intentionally and by definition offensive to some viewers and this is very much an issue of Free speech. Given the variety of views considered offensive by different groups I feel one must emphatically defend the right of all offensive material to be published and distributed as long as it does not directly promote criminal acts. As I understand it American satire tend to be more sensitive and include less sodomisation of religious figures, but this is a cultural difference that must be taken into account before accusing people of racism. In France, where the paper is published, this context is known amongst it's readers and I dare say is only viewed as controversial by extremist and fringe groups. There is little sense in being offensive for it's own sake, but Free speech is worthless if it does not include the freedom to be horribly offensive. One cannot truthfully claim to support Free speech and the right of free discourse while simultaneously claiming that the offensiveness of Charlie Hebdo on any level justifies the murder of it's staff as well as the police officer protecting them. This is how you talk to people experiencing some culture shock rather than accuse them of being okay with or excusing murder and hate free speech. I'm a little wary of "only viewd as controversial by extremist and fringe groups," though, because from an outsider perspective Europe in general seems like it's really in love with fascism lately, and France is that weird kind of xenophobic where they seem okay with you as long as you embrace frenchness as much as they do. Volcott posted:MAD Magazine: worse than Hitler? 
Pomp fucked around with this message at 21:09 on Jan 8, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 21:05
|
|
|
Pomp posted:This is how you talk to people experiencing some culture shock rather than accuse them of being okay with or excusing murder and hate free speech. I'm glad we've established you have no sense of humor.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 21:07
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 21:13
|
|
|
Volcott posted:I'm glad we've established you have no sense of humor. Oh, sorry man, I forgot that it's funny that queer people exist. edit:Oh hey, you never answered if you blame entire ethnic or religious groups other than muslims for the atrocities of psychopaths. 
Pomp fucked around with this message at 21:21 on Jan 8, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 21:18
|
|
|
I understand the point that some of you are trying to make by trying to relate CH to other examples of satire that could be taken as offensive if someone didn't get the joke, but I'm still seeing a huge difference between this: and this:  The Onion is clearly a joke, but what is the joke in the CH picture that's supposed to make it NOT vile, hateful, and racist? Is there one? If not, then quit trying to equate the two things just because they're both "satire". I'm asking this because I'm really trying to understand this myself, you're absolutely right when you say I don't understand the context of Charlie Hebdo. So give it to me. Explain to me how they're not terrible, because they look that way to me. And also once again: (and it's ridiculous that I have to include this disclaimer) I DO believe they had the right to publish what they did and I DON'T believe that they deserved to die. CaptBushido fucked around with this message at 21:37 on Jan 8, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 21:34
|
|
|
CaptBushido posted:I understand the point that some of you are trying to make by trying to relate CH to other examples of satire that could be taken as offensive if someone didn't get the joke, but I'm still seeing a huge difference between this: Just cause you don't understand jokes doesn't mean they don't exist There's value in provocation for provocation's sake. The greatest proof of this is that these men are now dead - what they were trying to do, offend and provoke for free speech, worked. And now a bunch of asthmatic, pseudorevolutionary IT workers sit back at their screens and go, "well to me its just juvenile nonsense, my KID could do that!" hate pants fucked around with this message at 21:47 on Jan 8, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 21:42
|
|
|
hate pants posted:Just cause you don't understand jokes doesn't mean they don't exist GREAT. So loving tell me what the joke is! I'm trying to meet you halfway here, I'm trying to learn something and you're being coy and lovely about it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 21:45
|
|
|
CaptBushido posted:I understand the point that some of you are trying to make by trying to relate CH to other examples of satire that could be taken as offensive if someone didn't get the joke, but I'm still seeing a huge difference between this: The Charlie cover is commenting on Morsi's removal from power 7 days prior, and is not even of mohammed. Its showing a generic muslim hardliner not being able to stop worldly things like bullets..
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 21:47
|
|
|
CaptBushido posted:GREAT. So loving tell me what the joke is! I'm trying to meet you halfway here, I'm trying to learn something and you're being coy and lovely about it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 21:58
|
|
|
Yeah, i understood the text perfectly well, but the context I was given to understand though was that it was in response to a massacre of Egyptian protestors. Which puts in a much worse light than the context WoodrowSkillson gave it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 22:08
|
|
|
mlmp08 posted:Agreed this thread owns. Also if you couldn't tell I was taking a laughably hard line to illustrate the gist of the argument, lol. How about this: if breitbart or the blaze or some other publication I disagree with got attacked I'd condemn the attack but wouldn't say "I am blank" Charlie Hebdo is a very left wing publication which still takes the anti-clerical tradition of leftism seriously. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 22:10
|
|
|
Look, some people got murdered over cartoons. Shot in the loving face. We can all agree that's bad. But some people want to see the cartoons first and decide whether or not those cartoons were funny. Then, once they have all the facts, they can decide how bad it really was that these cartoonists got shot in the loving face.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 22:12
|
|
|
It wouldn't matter if they just wrote cartoons saying "niggerfaggot" over and over again over a picture of a wollygog, it's still just as horrible that they were violently killed. Saying that some of their work is racist doesn't change the 'badness' of their deaths or imply their deaths are justified no matter how many times people make dumb declarative statements otherwise. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 22:27
|
|
|
I'll say what I said in the Polit-toons thread: I think it's hilarious that on a forum built by massive trolling, goatse, and swap.avi, people here are wondering whether we can really be sad when shock comedians are killed for being shocking. #Vous etes Charlie. Fais avec.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 22:31
|
|
|
menino posted:It wouldn't matter if they just wrote cartoons saying "niggerfaggot" over and over again over a picture of a wollygog, it's still just as horrible that they were violently killed. Saying that some of their work is racist doesn't change the 'badness' of their deaths or imply their deaths are justified no matter how many times people make dumb declarative statements otherwise. No, but it does mean you're dragging their loving names through the mud posthumously because you literally do not understand their work.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 22:32
|
|
|
Sheng-ji Yang posted:the anti-clerical tradition This is something that I think many Americans (and others) are completely unaware of. I took a course back in university dedicated solely to the subject. Needless to say, there is a lot of history there. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 22:33
|
|
|
Broken Cog posted:No, but it does mean you're dragging their loving names through the mud posthumously because you literally do not understand their work. Great tell me what I'm missing then
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 22:39
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 22:40
|
|
|
menino posted:Great tell me what I'm missing then It's satire, it's making fun of stereotypes and politics/Religion in a provocative manner. What more is there to get?
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 22:42
|
|
|
Ron Paul Atreides posted:these deranged fuckers are doing this kinda poo poo for their own egos, not out of faith. How do you know they were deranged? All the experts seem to be in agreement that this was a well thought out, well executed operation. Also, you don't think they're "faith" had anything to do with it? At all? Ron Paul Atreides posted:Colorado NAACP, bombed on the same day as the Charlie Hebdo massacre. Much less focus on it, which since there were no injuries fair enough It's probably not getting much focus because they don't even know if the NAACP building was the actual target (says so right in the article). 
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 22:44
|
|
|
karlor posted:This is something that I think many Americans (and others) are completely unaware of. I took a course back in university dedicated solely to the subject. Needless to say, there is a lot of history there. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 22:44
|
|
|
^ ^ The Preening Peacock
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 22:52
|
|
|
karlor posted:^ I have a print of The Marvelous Sauce hanging in my kitchen. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 22:56
|
|
|
Broken Cog posted:It's satire, it's making fun of stereotypes and politics/Religion in a provocative manner. What more is there to get?  Presumably this isn't making fun of kidnapped rape victims because they're not exactly a group that need taking down a peg or two. And I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that welfare recipients also aren't the intended target, as "the poor" aren't really in need of mockery. But given the drawing, the writing, and the admitted lack of understanding of the context, there's some pretty understandable confusion as to what the joke is, y'know? Like, "cultural context", "satire", "anti-clerical tradition", etc., dropped in without much more explanation, isn't going to enlighten anyone.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 22:58
|
|
|
i'm with the side thats least mad
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 22:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 06:19 |
|
|
Zeroisanumber posted:I have a print of The Marvelous Sauce hanging in my kitchen. I love the whole anti-clerical art series, and this one in particular. It's interesting how these paintings were meant to take the Church down a notch, but in my view they just add a dimension of warmth and humanity to otherwise uninviting authority figures. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2015 23:04
|
|