The Stupidity of Charlie Hebdo

I didn't anywhere suggest I "spoke for the magazine".

You don't have to take anything on board rrr. Try thinking for yourself.

Disagreeing is not slagging off.

....but since CH like to shock, think this may be all it is.

It was published alongside other cartoons as "covers we didn't use".

That makes me see it in a different light. Someone obviously decided it was either a) too offensive or b) not funny.

(Yes, of course I knew about that, jingl, it wasn't clear to me what obieone meant though)

At last! Someone else gives their interpretation instead of just slagging off mine.

I did read everyones posts, but am still no nearer reaching a conclusion as to why CH did this, I can't take anyones theories on board because it is simple guesswork.

Quoting that post, in case you can't be arsed. "I may be completely wrong. Anyone else got a slant on it?"

Naturally our papers will concentrate on a story of British holiday makers, and the Times writer knew the family personally.

My take on the cartoon was that it was pointing a finger straight at the Mafia, which has it's fingers deeply dug into the construction industry. Doubt anyone in the earthquake region would do so, so CH did instead.

That was to rosesarered of course.

Read my post of 13.00.32.

Plus I think that most people feel sorrow for all the victims, wherever they are from.

The article in the Times about the well off people, was elitist, concentrating as it did upon one well off group of Brits, with no mention of the native victims.

That is just your own opinion btw jingl as you don't speak for the mag.

I don't agree with your interpretation jingl at all.The well off family on holiday from Britain were talked about in the press because they were British, that's all.
I think it is just the rather sick sense of humour that CH go in for.

It was intended to offend those who need their attitude shaken up a bit. (The "shock horror! How could that happen to our Italy!" brigade) The ones who don't actually give a thought to the people the earthquake region really belongs to.

Ana the shootings in the Charlie Hebdo offices by the terrorists. Over the Mohammed cartoon.

Nope, I'm not convinced. Sheeplike as I am, I find the cartoon cruel.

It was published alongside other cartoons as "covers we didn't use". I believe the artist probably thinks it's funny.

We only have to look at cartoons of Jews in the Nazi era to be reminded that not all satire is on the side of the angels. And that cruelty doesn't have to make sense.

@thatbags

It most definitely was intended to offend. That's the whole point.

This is a blog written by a Frenchman about French humour, explaining that it's something people outside France find difficult to understand. I think that's an understatement! I speak pretty good French, but I've never 'got' French humour and I think the French find it difficult to empathise with other cultures (hence some of the problems with burkinis, etc).

I think the blog (and there are others saying the same kind of thing) goes some way to explaining CH:

www.private-frenchlessons-paris.com/blog/cliches-of-french/1683-is-french-humour-difficult-to-export/

As a dyed-in-the wool Anglo-Saxon, I still don't find it funny.

I still don't know what 'there' you are talking about, obieone. But never mind...

Although the people in both places will have suffered equally.

Obi put it another way.

An earthquake in Italy is likely to get more sympathy than one in, I dunno, somewhere in Outer Mongolia, where no one ever goes for their holiday, because of the things we associate with Italy..

Geddit?

Why would anyone want to mock people who have just suffered an earthquake? The premise that anyone would want to be cruel to people who'd suffered a disaster simply doesn't make sense

sociopaths, psycopaths, those types of people wouldnt think twice. We all know there are people like that.

I am not saying that those who work there are that.

I am really pleased you sussed it, jings.