Forum menu
Je suis Charlie, to understand the cartoons you need to have a certain degree of intelligence and understanding. If it is perceived as an insult, then the whole point has been missed by a lack of understanding on your part. This is the problem with the entire population of the World, a lack of understanding. I don't understand how people can believe in God, however, I don't feel the need to kill everybody that does. How long would I be able to walk around free, if I killed everyone that I felt had insulted me?
Gonzy you almost word for word quote with approval the line of the Islamist "insult my faith and it is your fault if a kill you " personally I have no respect or sensitivity for the nutter who murders to protect his belief from satire.
Please can you point out where i have implied this?
stavromuller - MemberJe suis Charlie, to understand the cartoons you need to have a certain degree of intelligence and understanding. If it is perceived as an insult, then the whole point has been missed by a lack of understanding on your part.
Oh go on then, enlighten us on the second cartoon.
I took it to be questioning why Europeans think we have a right to be better than everyone else. Like Canute, we don't float.
Edit: Turns out I prefer the interpretation below.
It's mocking the belief that any religion has a superiority over another.
Ah, the 'you're ignorant/uneducated' argument. I'm not insulted, nor offended, I understand it, I just think it's a bit shit and they could have done better.
Oh go on then, enlighten us on the second cartoon.
I think what he means is that muslims are too stupid to understand the humour.
to understand the cartoons you need to have a certain degree of intelligence and understanding. If it is perceived as an insult, then the whole point has been missed by a lack of understanding on your part.
I suspect that it might be you who has missed 'the whole point'.
Unless of course the intention wasn't to deliberately cause a reaction, what do you think the chances of that are?
Do you think those responsible are shocked and completely surprised that it's caused a hostile reaction?
Tell me, as someone with "a certain degree of intelligence".
Fake? I do wish I hadn't posted a sentential and pretentious interpretation of it. 🙁
Do you think our "Dear Leader" would have done an about face on the refugee situation without the image of "the boy on the beach". All I'm saying, is that the interpretation of anything is dependent on your understanding. I'm not responsible for how you understanding of anything.
[quote=gonzy ]I said that if you insult someone and they react with violence then you only have yourself to blame for it and should accept responsibility that your insult led to this
Ah, in the same way that if you ride on the road not the cyclepath and get run over by a car you have only yourself to blame? Or in the same way that if a woman goes out in a short skirt and gets raped she has only herself to blame.
As for the cartoons, I can see the point they're making with both of them - which isn't to insult muslims, not at all. But TBH they're a bit shit and rather tasteless - I support the right of Charlie to publish cartoons like that, but I wouldn't be buying a publication with those in.
edit: oh, but Charlie didn't publish those? So somebody is busy stirring up trouble for them!
Among others the Independent, Huffington Post, and the Times of Israel, are reporting it, between them you would imagine that someone might have got hold of a copy. You would also expect Charlie Hebdo to issue a statement if it was fake. I can't see any reports of that.
I'm not wishing anyone to be gunned down...but going off the last time they insulted the muslim world...some nutcases decided to do just that. All I'm saying is that you would have thought they would have learnt from the last time that there is a line that shouldn't be crossed even if it is supposed to be satirical..
[img] 
[/img]
Ah, in the same way that if you ride on the road not the cyclepath and get run over by a car you have only yourself to blame? Or in the same way that if a woman goes out in a short skirt and gets raped she has only herself to blame.
No in the way that is you walk up to every fat person you see and shout hoy you fat **** lose weight you pie eating blob etc you might get hit
in the way if you go up to ever couple and say **** me your wife is butt ugly you will get hit by some of them.
that sort of thing. Predictable consequences dependent on your behaviour but not at all desirable or good or something one could condone, a bit like the behaviour that caused it.
I'm not responsible for how you understanding of anything.
I don't think you intelligent as think you are.
The thing is JY, that isn't at all similar to what they are saying.*
* if that is actually what they are saying
Fake or not, this is right in CH's style, which I agree is often pretty tacky and weak. Doesn't make me believe that their intention is anything other than to make deeply sarcastic/satirical commentary on sensitive subjects, to shock and to sell more magsor perhaps they just make their point in a really poor way that is cheap tacky and crass
If you had published a cartoon that week of them burying their dead colleagues while imagining the increased sales of the next issue, I think they'd have applauded you
[quote=scaredypants ]If you had published a cartoon that week of them burying their dead colleagues while imagining the increased sales of the next issue, I think they'd have applauded you
If only there was another CH - that's exactly what they would have published.
Not going to comment on the first cartoon as such a shit transliteration is never going to make sense.
The second though, I get. As christians* we get to travel hin and yonder, doors open or if they don't we can at least get to them without having to risk life and limb before being safely taken to the side. Muslims? Well you only need to look at the news to see how they get on.
*or at least being of a part of the world & social strata that predominantly identifies itself as such.
You would have thought these jackasses would have learnt something from the past experience....but no...
They're plunging to an all time low with this one....if they sugfer a repeat of 8 months ago...I'm sorry but they only have themselves to blame for this...
Yes.. it should be known that mocking a silly religion should result in murder.
I'm guessing you're a believer in silly made up stories and you can understand how people decided to murder those people.. am I right?
Schweiz - Member
...and that's the whole point of the Charlie Hebdo brand of satire. They want to challenge you to see beyond the obvious. You can certainly argue that this is insensitive but in this case, it's our reaction that is being mocked, not the migrants/refugees/Aylan.POSTED 3 HOURS AGO #
If Carlsberg did pretentious claptrap
@gonzy, I just asked my French wife about the cartoon (she is no fan of the magazine btw). It is not mocking the child, it is saying he was so close to his objective of a life in the west (symbolised by McDonalds kids meals) but yet so far.
On a serious note I wonder how many people are going to get wound up by this who don't actually have the first clue as to what the cartoon is about. The Moroccans generally speak good enough French to understand the cartons onto publish that piece is deliberately provocative. The second carton as I understand jt is mocking the Christian story that Jesus could walk on water. Charlie Ebdo has a long history of mocking all religions.
OP I do feel compelled to respond to a couple of points in your first post, Charlie Ebdo has said they won't draw Mohammed again (after the cover following the attack) as it won't achieve anything. Those that where murdered can't learn any lessons as they are dead. One thing the attack did is cement the furniture of the magazine which like most print publications was suffering, the hugely successful memorial edition raised around €5m which was distributed to the families of the dead staff, the magazine now has its highest levels of subscriptions in decades and €10m in the bank. There are no laws against drawing Mohammed in most countries in the world so to do so is perfectly legitimate. Far from "learning a lesson" the Charlie Ebdo incident brought people together to defend the right to do whatever is legal in terms of freedom of expression.
No in the way that is you walk up to every fat person you see...
Is there not a difference between satirising an idea and attacking a person? I'm sure Gonzy would agree with you there.
On a serious note I wonder how many people are going to get wound up by this who don't actually have the first clue as to what the cartoon is about.
+1
I get the cartoons (although they're hardly great, more of a shock factor than a clever message), but as soon as I saw them I knew that many won't see past the images themselves. This sort of thing only works when you are able to look at it objectively IMO...those who feel closer to the persecuted side of the cartoon may (not unreasonably) struggle to remain objective enough to see the underlying message.
a bit like those 3d steroegrams .. some see them some never see them no matter how hard they try
a bit like those 3d steroegrams .. some see them some never see them no matter how hard they try
And a bit like those 3D stereograms often when you do get it you think 'well that was a bit shit, I must have missed something', but no that was all there was. Especially the first one (especially when you remember that the little lad wasn't washed up at his destination in the EU and western Europe).
The 2nd one requires the reader understanding that Charlie Hebdo, although a French rag, is not written from a pro Christian context. I can easily see how if you came from other cultures it could easily be assumed that a french magazine would support the default national religion as that is what some many would be used to.
The question is, do we want all comment and satire to be at a level where everyone, however thick, bigoted or determined to take offence, cannot take exception?
I'd say a rather big "no". But obviously the OP doesn't see that it is western values in the first cartoon, and assumptions of inferiority of Islam in the second that are being criticised. There is an argument that the child's image is being used "too soon", but on the other hand it took the using of that image to bring about a worldwide reaction to actually do the right thing, which we all should have done months ago.
Look at how bad our satirical news coverage is in the UK. In the US they have the Daily Show, John Oliver, and until recently, Colbert. We have, mock the week... We need a Charlie Hebdo, rather than a smug establishment organ like Private Eye.
The question is, do we want all comment and satire to be at a level where everyone, however thick, bigoted or determined to take offence, cannot take exception?
Yes the question really is a very leading one where we insult those who disagree with us in the question 😕
Thanks for clarifying that up
I really dont think it is helpful to , as so many of the supporters of these are doing, to suggest that anyone who finds charlie hebdo to be crass, offensive, blunt, abrasive and a bit shit is thick.
Dont shoot the messenger win them over with your supreme intelligence
if you clever folk simplify it enough we might just get it..perhaps you could draw us a cartoon picture to help 😉 🙄
I don't think anyone has ever drawn a political cartoon that is funny so I don't think we can complain about how witty it is. In terms of offensive,crass, etc I'd hate to think that my moral compass is the global standard. Boundaries should be pushed and there will be things that some people find offensive. In this case I think these cartoons make a pretty valid point an I suspect one of the motivations was to get people talking about an important subject that has dropped out of the headlines so I applaud them for that. If it offends you then so be it. You don't have a right to not be offended and I'm sure there are plenty of things that you think are fine that offend others.
[img] 
[/img]
Junkyard whined » we insult those who disagree with us
It's weird you take umbrage at that...
😛
[b]JY [/b]- read my post again - at which, ironically, you seem determined to take offense. It doesn't say [b]everyone [/b]who doesn't get the Cartoons is any of those things. Just that the OP is talking about a situation where he thinks a certain sector of the population will take offense...
[b]nickjb[/b] has it on the nail. There is no right not to be offended.
Yes.. it should be known that mocking a silly religion should result in murder.I'm guessing you're a believer in silly made up stories and you can understand how people decided to murder those people.. am I right?
and what if i am...what is your point here? what if i wasnt and i was christian, jewish or hindu and i had made the same comment?
i take it you're one of those islamopohobes who thinks we have muslamic ray guns?
@gonzy, I just asked my French wife about the cartoon (she is no fan of the magazine btw). It is not mocking the child, it is saying he was so close to his objective of a life in the west (symbolised by McDonalds kids meals) but yet so far.
hardly so near and yet so far Jambalaya...they never made it to europe did they?
while i understand the point you're trying to make, not everyone is going to see it from that perspective...the visual impact is what most people will see first and that is something that has been done in poor taste. even in the second cartoon...without analysis the initial message is simple and would be insulting to some.
On a serious note I wonder how many people are going to get wound up by this who don't actually have the first clue as to what the cartoon is about. The Moroccans generally speak good enough French to understand the cartons onto publish that piece is deliberately provocative. The second carton as I understand jt is mocking the Christian story that Jesus could walk on water. Charlie Ebdo has a long history of mocking all religions.I get the cartoons (although they're hardly great, more of a shock factor than a clever message), but as soon as I saw them I knew that many won't see past the images themselves. This sort of thing only works when you are able to look at it objectively IMO...those who feel closer to the persecuted side of the cartoon may (not unreasonably) struggle to remain objective enough to see the underlying message.not everyone is going to get that though, even if they do speak french. most people wont get past the visual impact of the image and the text used.
i think the following sums up what i am trying to get at...
OP I do feel compelled to respond to a couple of points in your first post, Charlie Ebdo has said they won't draw Mohammed again (after the cover following the attack) as it won't achieve anything. Those that where murdered can't learn any lessons as they are dead. One thing the attack did is cement the furniture of the magazine which like most print publications was suffering, the hugely successful memorial edition raised around €5m which was distributed to the families of the dead staff, the magazine now has its highest levels of subscriptions in decades and €10m in the bank. There are no laws against drawing Mohammed in most countries in the world so to do so is perfectly legitimate. Far from "learning a lesson" the Charlie Ebdo incident brought people together to defend the right to do whatever is legal in terms of freedom of expression.
even before they drew the cartoons, they knew it was forbidden to draw them yet they did in what was seen as a derogatory manner. i'm not justifying what followed after.
but its funny how some cartoonist who knows its wrong and is going to be taken the wrong way draws some insulting pictures, pays the unltimate price for doing so and the worlds leaders are suddenly seen the next day walking down the streets of paris in a show of unity and condemnation at the events that followed the publication of the cartoons. its a pity the same could not be done when 4 innocent boys playing football on a beach got blasted to smithereens by a military force which boasts some of the most advanced weaponary...the cartoonists knew what they were doing was wrong in some way...what had those 4 boys done wrong?
Is there not a difference between satirising an idea and attacking a person? I'm sure Gonzy would agree with you there.
i'm not saying that attacking a person for any reason is correct in any way...but i agree with Junkyard that if you insult someone, you're likely to get punched in the face...if you then insult them again you're likely to get punched in the face again. punching them in retaiation isnt the right thing to do but after the first punch you should have known what the likely response you your insult would be...so therefore getting punched a second time is your fault.
No - it wasn't insulting someone - it wasn't objectively wrong - one group of people thought it was wrong but that doesn't make it so. And the analogy of going upto someone in the street and telling them they were fat was a poor one.
We need to work on stopping people from punching people in the face when words or pictures or thoughts upset them, and get them to respone with words, with cartoons, with arguments. We shouldn't cave to their sensitivities, or yours.
Just that the OP is talking about a situation where he thinks a certain sector of the population will take offense...
exactly my point....there will be a certain sector of the population that will take offence...even if they get the point the cartoon is trying to make. they knew this after the last time...11 people lost their lives and a further 11 were injured...producing more cartoons that is going to incite the same amount of anger is only going to lead to the potential repeat of that incident
exactly my point....there will be a certain sector of the population that will take offence...even if they get the point the cartoon is trying to make. they knew this after the last time...11 people lost their lives and a further 11 were injured...producing more cartoons that is going to incite the same amount of anger is only going to lead to the potential repeat of that incident
You reaslise that CH have been producing magazines and pictures the entire time since the 'first time' (that you presumably heard about them) and had been doing that for quite a while before someone decided to take offence?
if you insult someone, you're likely to get punched in the face
I know it's the usual reaction but it's a bit, y'know, childish and all. Sticks and stones etc.
If someone called me a **** I'd have to agree with them TBH...
Yes.. it should be known that mocking a silly religion should result in murder.
I'm guessing you're a believer in silly made up stories and you can understand how people decided to murder those people.. am I right?and what if i am...what is your point here? what if i wasnt and i was christian, jewish or hindu and i had made the same comment?
I don't GAS what made-up book you read.. I find your original post very very offensive. Sympathising with extremists of what ever BS religion is not a sensible position to take.
The 11 were murdered by nutjobs and I find it very offensive to imply otherwise.
How about 'you' help stop the nutjobs not the drawing of cartoons. You actually believe those people sort of deserved it don't you??
I think they sort of had it coming yes..
Shame on you then chap!
even before they drew the cartoons, they knew it was forbidden to draw them
Really? Forbidden by whom? Is the logic: you draw that and I will punish you because I/we have forbidden it but I cannot be held to account for my violence because it was in retaliation? What utter tosh.
CH is not particularly well drawn (it reminds me of Punch magazine) and it doesn't make me laugh like Private Eye but it has become a symbol of resistance to the censorious religious nutters and liberal apologists and to that extent it should be defended.
[quote=teasel opined]Junkyard whined » we insult those who disagree with us
It's weird you take umbrage at that...
but not that you took umbrage at what i said
at which, ironically, you seem determined to take offense. It doesn't say everyone who doesn't get the Cartoons is any of those things
Yes that is a fair point, my error.
And the analogy of going upto someone in the street and telling them they were fat was a poor one.
OH my favourite then
What if i turn up at a wedding and shout the bride is a fat slag
I am able to do this legally but it is unlikely that the people will react well to this
Whether i care about a picture of the prophet [ I dont] it is clearly haram in Islam and one of the most offensive things you can do to a Muslim. to do this and show him as suicide bomber is almost definitely going to lead to the reaction it got in the same way as insulting anyone , enough, can lead to violence. In this case those insulted are nutters and I dont wish to defend them but its naive to not forse the reaction be it CB or the wedding guests.
We need to work on stopping people from punching people in the face when words or pictures or thoughts upset them, and get them to respone with words, with cartoons, with arguments. We shouldn't cave to their sensitivities, or yours.
Will you let the guests and the bride know this and let us how well it goes
One of those your behaviour can elicit violence in much the same way as my every posts elicits teasels respect and admiration 😉
It really depends you cannot have you can do anything and its all free speech. Even if we do certain reactions will likely befall those who choose to test their right to say whatever and argue that its the offended persons fault.
We need to decide on a case by case basis IMHO- alomst everyone agrees with "censorship" we just debate where the line is
Charlie are usually over the line IMHO
I find your original post very very offensive. Sympathising with extremists of what ever BS religion is not a sensible position to take.
The 11 were murdered by nutjobs and I find it very offensive to imply otherwise.How about 'you' help stop the nutjobs not the drawing of cartoons. You actually believe those people sort of deserved it don't you??
why dont you show me where in my posts i sympathised with the actions of the extremists who killed those people and that i said that they deserved it?
you should try reading what is written properly...or do you want me to draw you a cartoon of it?
why dont you show me where in my posts i sympathised with the actions of the extremists who killed those people and that i said that they deserved it?
like it or not, it's the way "I'm sorry but they only have themselves to blame for this..." comes across. Maybe you communicated your point badly but I have to admit my first thought was that it was an idiotic thing to say.