The Stupidity of Charlie Hebdo

Why is it supposed to offend?

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.

Whereas, wanting to take the piss out of the main stream media for focussing on a few rich dudes and ignoring the majority of poorer people who've lost everything and in some cases everyone does make sense.

Why choose the option that's least likely? Just seems daft to me.

I have probably said enough jingl.

Of course it's purpose is to offend. Your posts are being naive at best.
Saying things are art or whatever, does not get anyone off the hook.Or any other slant is put on it.

Ana - you wont have missed what happened there.

Don't bother to answer, obes, please.

So, two possible interpretations, jings's being the better, have been mooted. And the rest have jumped on the "oh how awful! how cruel!" waggon.

Satire is diffifcult but one doesn't have to be a sheep. As I said earlier, CH does things to make people think laterally. I don't believe its purpose is to offend, but to bring people up short and get them to open their minds to strange, sometimes frightening, and definitely uncomfortable feelings.

That's a good and daring thing to do.

obi, so murder is justified by annoyance, is it? Don't be silly. Anyone who commits murder because they are annoyed as a result of their own interpretation (which may be wrong) of a drawing needs to be locked up for the safety of everybody else.

Thanks Bags.

Yes. you are right Obi. People did get murdered there. Very sad, but I guess there are some people in this world it's better not to mess with.

I think yours is a brilliant interpretation, jings.

Where?

They annoyed people so much that some people got murdered there.

I may be completely wrong. Anyone else got a slant on it?

Let it go Obes.

So legs sticking out of a lasagne means what?

It was a very dangerous cartoon to publish. Perhaps too dangerous.

I think the Charlie Hebdo people are actually speaking up for the poorer people living in the region obi. The people that have lived there for generations.

They are mocking what they suggest may be the superficial sympathy of the wealthier holiday makers, and perhaps the rest of the world in general. We, as 'ordinary' people really feel for the local population, but many of the wealthier types, the cartoon suggests, are simply thinking of what it means to them themselves.

Whether this is fair or not, I don't know. Certainly seemed that way in the Times article I mentioned.

So that are you saying that person A, in this case the cartoonist and whoever at Charlie Hebdo should be allowed to draw their cartoons, and the people at the receiving end of them have to put up with it? Their feelings are irrelevant?

That's what happens when people aren't allowed to take responsibility for their own feelings/reactions. And of course the authorities were scared stiff of being labelled 'racist'.

So how does that fit in with say the Shrewsbury thread, where one person managed to stop the dancers in case some people were getting hurt.

obieone, people's feelings are their own responsibility.

The problem is your eyes are drawn to the 'lasagne' I couldn't see the connection with the first two drawings to begin with.

But that would mean not taking any responsibility when they do.

You are saying that the cartoonists dont mean to hurt anyone's emotions?

I couldn't believe they would just put out a nasty drawing with no meaning behind it. #lightbulbmoment

I kept thinking, There HAS to be a message here somewhere.

I was thinking along the same lines, jingl (after quite a bit of head scratching.) but you've explained it far better than I could have done.

I wish I'd thought of that before I started a thread slagging it off!