The Stupidity of Charlie Hebdo

Read my post of 13.00.32.

That was to rosesarered of course.

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.

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

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

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.

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

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)

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

Disagreeing is not slagging off.

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

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

The Times writer should be ashamed of himself. IMO.

Sigh....

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.

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.

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

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.

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 you are right dd

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.

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.

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

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.

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.