Been thinking about what happened in France...

Post Reply New Topic

There is a huge difference.

The only goal of a troll is to disrupt the conversation. The goal is to provoke and upset people for no purpose other than to be disruptive.

The goal of the cartoonists at Charlie Hebdo was political. They wanted to fight corruption, hypocrisy, lies and bigotry by mocking those ideas and the people who promote them.

This cartoon by Charb is a political attack on the skin prejudice behind some of Sarkozy's policies:


It is meant to make racists uncomfortable. This is not a pointless goal.

I can explain more of the dynamics behind this kind of political cartooning, if you like. I am not sure if you really don't understand the difference or not. Maybe it's a social communication thing?

Like Adamentium states, there's a PURPOSE behind this sort of political cartooning. In this case, it parodies Sarkovy's racist policies. It's also rather satirical, because it makes people think about racism by making use of humor.

Sometimes, it looked like fighting racism with racism, though. This is what I question. And I don't blame the cartoonists for any of this, I blame the terrorists for the acts but I blame members of the public who give the really cheap insults money and attention for the insults themselves. It is MONEY that runs the publishing industry and when people pay their money for insults you only see more and more of them. So you have just enough to keep it going but not enough to make a fortune so this keeps the insult mill in operation but nothing ever evolves, see?

And they are like trollish insults. The troll has goals in mind which is why they do it. When they get ignored they stop and try other methods to meet their goals and it's the same here. It's the same idea.

If people do not buy the insults, they will simply write other things, and onto other ideas.

Most of what I saw was much worse than that. It was the norm rather than the exception. Do you think racism should be fought with racism, because a lot of it looks like that. They claim they are fighting racism yet the cartoons themselves are racist. How does that work, exactly? I saw plenty of cartoons like that but I cannot reference them in this forum due to guidelines so you will have to Google Charlie Hebdo and they will appear in Google images.

Last edited by ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo on 09 Jan 2015, 11:56 am, edited 1 time in total.

In what way are they "feeding insults"?



Did you know, saying "did you know" at the start of a sentence does not make the contents factual. Satire is specifically defined in law - if they were being anything other than satirical, they would be sued into oblivion.



What makes it satire is that it is satirical, it's quite simple really.



Which government? Satire is protected to a greater extent in America than it is in France.



Yelling fire in a theater is considered protected speech.



When what we say is protected speech - such as satire.



The only circumstances in which you would be prosecuted in the USA for yelling "fire" in a crowded room, is if that room contained a group of armed people who responded to your command and shot someone.



Satire is not defined as "whatever Ana decides is not insults for the sake of insults".



So you haven't read it?



What better way is there to demonstrate your support of freedom than to make a gesture in support of those who were murdered by terrorists for exercising their freedom of speech? Your feelings on the matter are irrelevant and your shared thoughts have been downright disrespectful.



Responsibility for what? Exercising their freedom? How dare they!



But you're not saying you don't like it, you're arguing that we should censor ourselves just in case people get angry and resort to violence.

I'm more than willing to lock my door to prevent trespass and I take steps to ensure my personal safety when travelling alone or in company. However, I refuse to allow even the slightest threat of violence impede on any of my rights, especially the right to free expression. When you choose to give up your rights for fear of retribution, the terrorists win.



Communication such as the satirical cartoons found in magazines and other publications?

I am not going to answer questions I have already answered. I have stated my opinion.

You cannot reference them because they do not exist.

Oh yes they do. That is blatant misinformation to say they do not exist. Anyone that has ever Googled the name of the magazine has seen them unless you have filters on your browser to keep out graphic images.

Sorry, but I literally laughed out loud when I read what you typed because you either never Googled Charlie Hebdo or you have your browser filtered, not sure which, or you are just trying to argue for the sake of arguing.

First off, it's way to easy to hit the REPORT button and my apologies as I think I just reported Fnord. Please ignore.

So, while I find the Hebdo cartoons offensive, I do not think killing people is a reasonable response. Suggesting that satirists should alter their work is letting the bullies win. And that doesn't lead down a good path.

You are really wrong about that: they were anti-racist.

The only "racist" cartoons were mocking racists like the Sarkozy skin color chart with all the dark skinned people marked "guilty" and the slightly lighter people marked "suspect" and the lighter ones marked "witness" with the very lightest marked "citizen" with the pure white one "French!" -- or the one of Christiane Taubira as a monkey--this was not their view of Taubira, but their ridiculing Le Pen and Minute's (right wing, racist politician and magazine).

If you find those images and see them as proof of their racism, you really don't understand any of what you are seeing. Do you read any French? It helps.

A good cartoon about offended sensibility

"Jes suis Charlie"

AS a person who often fights for his own right for freedom of expression, even here on this supposedly neurodiverse website, and am taunted with accusations of being insane and what not, just for not going with the 'herd' of thought, or Queen's English Etiquette of communication style, the best thing of all about the TRUE folks who WERE AND ARE NOT afraid to RISK their LIFE for the RIGHT of FULL freedom of expression in their art of satire, against the core of what people hold AS HATEFUL AND SELFISH illusions in life PER against others who do not BELIEVE AS THEY DO, the writer's lives were well spent, even in death, in paving the way for more heroes of change in the world, through the greatest art of humankind that truly is freedom of expression in all its potential parts.

And nah, this ain't gibberish.

It is just freedom of expression.

JE SUIS charlie!

F** the haters!

YES! FUN THE HATERS.. I FOR ONE STAND IN SOLIDARITY WITH JE SUIS CHARLIE in everything I've done here and everywhere else and WILL CONTINUE TO JUST DO IT per whatever creative way I COME UP WITH NEXT!

AND NAH..I won't have to put up any nudie cartoon of Muhammad.. i'll use my self instead AS a work of French Flesh and blood satirical ART! WHERE LEGAL in the U.S. of course.

But yeah, I do have French Roots, and all of that, per the ancient art of Satire, too, SO yes it is more than SKIN DEEP ALONE.

AND TO ANA, I think the issue here is you may not understand the depth of meaning that is in what may look like extreme offense in the art of satire the writers use.

It is a potential clinical trait of Autism, per not being able to understand figurative human language and other expressions of metaphorical abstract communication, and that is a 800LB Gorilla in the room we cannot reasonably ignore here, as I 'INTUITIVELY' know (yes for the naysayers that is a real type of human intelligence) you are a good person and you would never intentionally hurt anyone, as it seems some folks are 'taking' your communication to be here.

It may not be 'your fault' at all if you cannot understand the deeper meanings of the satire and some avenue of cognitive empathy should be give to that here, I think, for people who have that ability like me and KraftieKortie, who already mentioned this in brief, earlier in the thread.

And yes, he is a poet too, that in part, of course explains that, in his ability to potentially more fully understand satire.

Some Autistics are Artists and some are Scientists; some are Philosophers and some are Athletes.

I just happened to be currently gifted with all that, as I was certainly not always gifted with all that.

Autism is a group of common behaviorally observed and measurable reciprocal social communication AND repetitive restrictive behavioral deficits AND the folks here on this INTERNET SITE are at least as diverse in unique potential causal factors as anyone else in the general population.

And there are some Autistic folks who are practical 'empaths' and some who admit to having little cognitive or affective empathy.

Some withdraw from reciprocal social communication because it is too much for the mirror neurons and heart to take.

Others never enter, as there is simply NO INTRINSIC REWARD, from the small talk of LOVE.

And yes, there is concrete science behind that phenomenon of potential causal factors for sure.

And for any potential to increase cognitive empathy in the herd that is this Internet Site, someone has to be brave enough and free enough in freedom of expression, to undress the 800LB Gorilla that is most always in the 'room' 'here'.

And for now, that person is me.

Again..

JE suis CHARLIE!

No one sees with the same eyes as others.

And someone has to be brave enough to point that out, like the magazine most definitely satirically did, AND YES IN A JOB WELL DONE PER FULL ART AND SCIENCE OF THE HUMAN MIND.

And yes, I wrote a blog post in FULLEST SUPPORT of JE suis CHARLI! wRite here for Autistic Hearts of Poets that do exist, somewhere in the reading audience, as well, here, but perhaps not in the posting reality that is here, as well or not.

http://katiemiafrederick.com/2015/01/08/in-honor-of-french-freedom-fighters/

Last edited by aghogday on 09 Jan 2015, 12:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.

^exactly^

Now these cartoons are being published everywhere and are polarizing communities even more. It was better when they were ignored.

All publications and media outlets should publish these pictures. Terrorists should not dictate what they do and say.

For a lack of a better word, they need to stop being p*****s.

Let's just agree to disagree. Some of what I saw could be interpreted as racist.

What should determine what they publish is themselves, not merely publishing just to publish.

They should be to support the lives that were lost. Islam radicals do not rule the world and too often the media and government gives into their demands. f**k that nonsense, they need to get out of the dark ages and into modern times to realize there is more than one religion.