General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsIf "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.)
El Supremo
(20,365 posts)But they have a right to express their intolerance and not be murdered.
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)French contextual clues I was missing.
NewDeal_Dem
(1,049 posts)Warpy
(110,913 posts)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.
Response to Warpy (Reply #137)
Name removed Message auto-removed
The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,280 posts)It's still not OK to kill people over it.
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)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.
The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,280 posts)But the French think Jerry Lewis is funny. So go figure.
Jamastiene
(38,187 posts)It must be their sense of humor. If they think Jerry Lewis is funny, that says a lot.
3catwoman3
(23,820 posts)...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.
Jamastiene
(38,187 posts)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.
BeanMusical
(4,389 posts)It involved using false teeth with incredibly long front ones and "imitating" and Asian person. Even as a kid I found that disturbing.
ananda
(28,783 posts)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.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)So, the humor is, "hey, why didn't the Qur'an stop the bullets? Ha ha religion is stupid!"
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)for taking the time to explain it.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)I think ultimately the reaction they're going for is "holy shit those guys have balls to print that right now!"
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)jberryhill
(62,444 posts)...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.
NewDeal_Dem
(1,049 posts)Recursion
(56,582 posts)protesters. The anti-Islamic bent was only collateral damage.
NewDeal_Dem
(1,049 posts)Lex
(34,108 posts)Didn't really get all of that humor either.
alphafemale
(18,497 posts)Reminds me a bit of early Mad magazine stuff.
NewDeal_Dem
(1,049 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)-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:
TexasMommaWithAHat
(3,212 posts)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
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)whatsoever to do with 'left-wing radicalism'.
LAGC
(5,330 posts)Harboring anti-religious sentiment has a long tradition amongst radical left-wing ideology, dating clear back to the French Revolution, at least...
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)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.
LAGC
(5,330 posts)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.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)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?
Recursion
(56,582 posts)NewDeal_Dem
(1,049 posts)LAGC
(5,330 posts)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.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)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:
LAGC
(5,330 posts)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.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)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.
LAGC
(5,330 posts)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.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)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?
Moonwalk
(2,322 posts)...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.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)I'm sure this would come as a surprise to the remaining descendants of the original Christians in the Middle East.
Moonwalk
(2,322 posts)Good-bye.
MADem
(135,425 posts)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.
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)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.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)MADem
(135,425 posts)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!
Sen. Walter Sobchak
(8,692 posts)jberryhill
(62,444 posts)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.
kelly1mm
(4,719 posts)KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)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.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)Anti-Islam? Maybe, but even then it seems to me it's mainly satirizing the iconization of the Koran itself.
Response to Adrahil (Reply #218)
Adrahil This message was self-deleted by its author.
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)I saw the condom comic and it's a softball compared to this shit.
m-lekktor
(3,675 posts)Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)Does that mean the murders are justified? Is that a mitigating issue?
still_one
(91,965 posts)Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)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.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)They have long breathy rationalizations full of bullshit babble about why it is totally the worst thing ever.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)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?
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)Is there anything on the website that debased for other religions?
LiberalElite
(14,691 posts)KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)such.
TexasMommaWithAHat
(3,212 posts)The Catholic Church. The Pope. Politicians. And on and on.
grossproffit
(5,591 posts)whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)Recursion
(56,582 posts)whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)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.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)still_one
(91,965 posts)Avalux
(35,015 posts)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".
uhnope
(6,419 posts)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
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)uhnope
(6,419 posts)whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)otherwise it's a creative interpretation.
uhnope
(6,419 posts)whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)That's what I mean.
uhnope
(6,419 posts)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).
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)Wonder if ISIS even existed when it was done.
uhnope
(6,419 posts)KansDem
(28,498 posts)Kind of like the Mormons' "magic underwear."
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
SunSeeker
(51,377 posts)KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)in Tarantino's Pulp Fiction are funny.
Thanks (even though I'm not sure I get the joke).
Depaysement
(1,835 posts)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.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)So this was also kind of a slap in the face to that.
NewDeal_Dem
(1,049 posts)Xithras
(16,191 posts)And it rips into EVERYONE. No conservative target is safe from their mocking.
NewDeal_Dem
(1,049 posts)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.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)Nothing more needs to be said about French humor than that.
Americans will NEVER "get it".
Response to KingCharlemagne (Original post)
1000words This message was self-deleted by its author.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Jesus fucking Christ on a segway, blame the victim much?
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)was 'satire' and saw this cover, I couldn't help wondering just what was or is being satirized here.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)zappaman
(20,605 posts)SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)Lawd.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)I know if I ever try to come back from the great beyond, Sid will DeMontabust me in a New York minute.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)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.
Depaysement
(1,835 posts)Well said.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)840high
(17,196 posts)RedCappedBandit
(5,514 posts)LordGlenconner
(1,348 posts)BTW, your post was great.
Depaysement
(1,835 posts)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?
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)Yeah, offensive speech is still free speech.
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)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.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Seeking Serenity
(2,838 posts)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)
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)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."
Seeking Serenity
(2,838 posts)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.
Kelvin Mace
(17,469 posts)"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.
unrepentant progress
(611 posts)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
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)have some more reading to do.
unrepentant progress
(611 posts)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.
SickOfTheOnePct
(7,290 posts)cwydro
(51,308 posts)Thanks for posting it.
AngryAmish
(25,704 posts)So what? I happen to think every religious book is shit. Deal with it. People hate me and I don't care.
Response to AngryAmish (Reply #27)
Name removed Message auto-removed
msongs
(67,199 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)May the victims rest in peace.
CrawlingChaos
(1,893 posts)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.
uppityperson
(115,674 posts)UTUSN
(70,497 posts)Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)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.
corkhead
(6,119 posts)maybe many, but not "every"
corkhead
(6,119 posts)I do kinda see your point but that doesn't come anywhere close to justifying what happened today.
hack89
(39,171 posts)It does not have to be funny. The purpose of satire is to expose people's stupidity.
Daemonaquila
(1,712 posts)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.
Response to Daemonaquila (Reply #67)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)(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.
Union Scribe
(7,099 posts)I have heard the publication called left wing, but the cover examples I've seen today look like extreme right wing hate tracts.
Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)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:
Yo_Mama
(8,303 posts)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).
Response to Yo_Mama (Reply #73)
1000words This message was self-deleted by its author.
tavernier
(12,322 posts)Oh, sorry. Fox News ... totally offensive. But that still isn't a valid reason to shoot 'em.
Xithras
(16,191 posts)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.
Solindsey
(115 posts)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.
babylonsister
(170,963 posts)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.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
Dr. Strange
(25,898 posts)Or 67%? Or 100%?
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Cleita
(75,480 posts)He's deriding all the Abrahamic religions, not just one.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)I mean, just watch a French comedy sometime. I'm never sure which part is the set-up and which part is the joke.
wickerwoman
(5,662 posts)so I feel this is somewhat missing the point.
nomorenomore08
(13,324 posts)But I also have zero sympathy for the kind of people who would commit mass murder over such a thing.
starroute
(12,977 posts)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.
brentspeak
(18,290 posts)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.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Response to brentspeak (Reply #112)
Name removed Message auto-removed
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)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.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)Mass
(27,315 posts)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.
Response to Mass (Reply #106)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)Too bad. What the cover was satirizing wasn't that difficult to find.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)and intelligently informed you what the cover was satirizing.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)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.
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)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.
treestar
(82,383 posts)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).
7962
(11,841 posts)Thats just as wrong, yet no christians blew up the museums that exhibited the junk.
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)"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
Response to 7962 (Reply #116)
Name removed Message auto-removed
kelly1mm
(4,719 posts)KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)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.
kelly1mm
(4,719 posts)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.
KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)appreciate your thoughtful response and your Lincoln-esque eloquence:
joeglow3
(6,228 posts)jberryhill
(62,444 posts)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".
joeglow3
(6,228 posts)Good luck with that...
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)"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.
joeglow3
(6,228 posts)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?
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)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?
joeglow3
(6,228 posts)For their product, which is usually undervalued In the mind of the artist.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)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?
joeglow3
(6,228 posts)What was the artistic value of the Virgin Mary being covered in dung?
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)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.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)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.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)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.
joeglow3
(6,228 posts)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.
prayin4rain
(2,065 posts) particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues.
You can't see how the cartoon is doing that?
babylonsister
(170,963 posts)polly7
(20,582 posts)Cleita
(75,480 posts)So maybe that explains it a bit.
dilby
(2,273 posts)Till then stop looking for excuses on why what these fucking pigs did is ok in your world.
SkyDaddy7
(6,045 posts)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!
LAGC
(5,330 posts)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.
NewDeal_Dem
(1,049 posts)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 Hebdos famous cartoonists, Siné, wrote a short note citing a news item that President Sarkozys son Jean was going to convert to Judaism to marry the heiress of a prosperous appliance chain. Siné added the comment, Hell 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 CHs 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/
MindMover
(5,016 posts)sat·ire
ˈsaˌtī ə r/
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 ...
MFM008
(19,779 posts)NO. Should i line the cat box with it, yes.
The cartooning however, reminds me of nazi propaganda crap.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)...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.
Response to jberryhill (Reply #157)
Name removed Message auto-removed
NutmegYankee
(16,178 posts)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.
Quantess
(27,630 posts)Bullets flying as he clutches his Koran. Sounds like the middle east in the news lately.
pansypoo53219
(20,906 posts)JI7
(89,182 posts)Jappleseed
(93 posts)That's my take on it.
get the red out
(13,459 posts)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.
deutsey
(20,166 posts)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.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)Not everyone has the satire gene.
Enrique
(27,461 posts)they seem to be iconoclastic rather than racist.
polly7
(20,582 posts)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.
TheSarcastinator
(854 posts)...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
ˈsaˌtī ə r/
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.
randome
(34,845 posts)Isn't it? Free speech does not exist everywhere.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]If you don't give yourself the same benefit of a doubt you'd give anyone else, you're cheating someone.[/center][/font][hr]
TheSarcastinator
(854 posts)"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.
randome
(34,845 posts)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.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]If you don't give yourself the same benefit of a doubt you'd give anyone else, you're cheating someone.[/center][/font][hr]
TheSarcastinator
(854 posts)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.
polly7
(20,582 posts)FBaggins
(26,697 posts)Satire doesn't have to be funny (and this obviously isn't).
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)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.
RussBLib
(8,985 posts)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.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Sarah Ibarruri
(21,043 posts)perhaps? I'm sick of the political correctness toward only one religion.
Albertoo
(2,016 posts)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?
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)and intelligently informed you what the cover was satirizing.
arthritisR_US
(7,269 posts)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
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)... 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