The Stupidity of Charlie Hebdo

Sorry. x'd posts. I mean true about it being too difficult ro interpret.

I think that's probably true too, jings, judging from the general response. What saddens me most is the willingness of people to think badly of others, in this case CH cartoonists, assuming, for instance that they had no sympathy for the earthquakes victims and that that's what they wanted to show in their cartoon. It's such a way out attitude that I find it quite scary.

Dreadfully sick.

it's all here in English

I don't know.

Why haven't CH come out and explained the cartoon.

I'm beginning to doubt my own theory now. Don't understand it at all. I think it might have been a sick joke.

Yes, I think that's probably the case, J. There was no apology from CH, but I felt this came smartly on the heels of the previous one in order to spell out the point they were attempting to make with the first.

A lot of us dont have as many brain cells as you.

So now the Italians are thick as well. And have to bury their dead.

That is all from me on this.

I wonder if the Mafia cartoon was produced in answer to them being criticised by the Italians for producing the earthquake one.

I think the earthquake one was simply too hard for people to interpret.

the Mafia one can be seen here (scroll down a bit)

Terribly dense.

But enough brain cells to know that this cartoon and the Mafia one are two separate entities, which you seem to have missed.

No hundreds of people getting upset unjustifiably because they don't think further than "Oh! what a horrible image!" If they stopped to rub a couple of grey cells together they'd probably realise that they needn't get upset. See arguments above about the likelihood of CH cartoonists being paychopaths and also ffinn's translation of the actual caption that went with the drawing.

Or you (anyone, all of you) could carry on having what looks like a deliberately dense attitude.

3 interesting ideas and upsetting hundreds of people.

or no ideas and not upsetting anyone.

I know which I choose.

Another one, grumppa, was "Fog over Channel. European continent cut off."

Where's the outrage for that?

Why would anyone be outraged by that? The target is the Mafia They're big boys (and occasionally girls), they can stick up for themselves.

For better or worse, the media always look for a UK angle on overseas disasters to heighten the human interest. I remember a Private Eye spoof news item on a floppy 45 rpm disc on one of their front covers in the 1960s: "The city of New York was wiped out today in a series of nuclear explosions. No Britons are believed to have been among those killed." I don't suppose the piece in The Times was any better or worse than any other human interest story.

And I very much doubt whether the CH cartoonist had that sort of angle in mind.

rr Re. your comment "simple guesswork" . Well maybe, maybe not.

CH printed another cartoon, in similar vein, on Friday evening. Where's the outrage for that?

If you were to investigate, the 2nd cartoon had the caption " Italians! It's not Charlie Hebdo that built your houses! It's the Mafia! (If I remember the wording correctly - or translated it correctly)

You can go to the Charlie Hebdo Officiel fb page to check it out if you've a mind.

#organisedcrime

But it's not Charlie Hebdo's aim - to make people laugh. Cartoons, in this sense of the word, are not meant to be funny.

They are meant to illustrate a point in an irreverent way.

You see, oh bandwaggoners, when people really think about stuff and dare to put down their opinions against a tide of disgust and rage, all sorts of interesting ideas come forward.

Well, three anyway. So far.

Each of them has a much higher probability of being near the truth than the (figuratively speaking) Let's all go for CH are Cruel on Purpose lynch mob attitude.

I think you are right dd

Thank you for that slant on the issue too, ffinn. That also makes sense to me whereas cartoonists being psychopaths, which is what someone would have to be to be deliberately cruel about earthquake victims, doesn't.

Obviously it's possible a CH cartoonist could be a psychopath, but not very likely.

I think we're trying to interpret the cartoon with British eyes. The French have a very different view of humour. The 'lasagne' cartoon is a play on words. There is something about French humour which revels in offence for its own sake. If you read the link I posted, you'll read about the 'idiot's dinner', when guests made fun of 'idiots' just because they were stupid. I don't think the average Anglo-Saxon would find that at all amusing.

But please don't let me upset you. (the sigh )

Did it really warrant a dedicated article, at a time when so many not-so-wealthy people had died horribly, or lost the little they had? I think it was elitist.

I do get sick of anybody with any money being dismissed as unworthy/uncaring, that British couple and the son aged just 14 ( best friend of their own son) died tragically, and the Times writer was a good friend of theirs.

Sigh....

The Times writer should be ashamed of himself. IMO.