Topic: Shooting at Charlie Hebdo offices in Paris

[Roger Federer]

Publishing any image of Mohammed does not just upset fanatics, it upsets many average Muslims. It did upset average Muslims in France.

As Obama has just said, we need to do all we can to avoid giving terrorists religious legitimacy. If you want to satirise terrorists, use symbols and imagery of terrorism and not symbols and imagery they merely reinforces a perception that Islam itself is the root of the problem.

True, but I doubt all 'average' muslims take offense with cartoons that make fun of IS and other terrorists, even if they depict Muhammed. I imagine that many muslims would like to debate Islam as freely as we now do with practically any other idea, religious or not. I imagine that many muslims themselves would like more freedom to satirise religious symbols and ideas without fear of violence, and thinks the likes of Charlie Hebdo are on their side, so to speak. That might be wrong, and maybe every single muslim in the world does take offence of Muhammed being drawn, but I suspect not. I read accounts from muslims wanting the cartoons to be published the world over, so that the terrorists need to target every newspaper, everywhere, rather than the brave few who now do it. (As an aside, I really think they are brave, I'd hesitate to put up the covers of Charlie Hebdo on my facebook or on this site even). I think those persons within Islam (and outside of it too), minority or not, are more worth supporting, than the many who take offence at an image of a historical person, regardless of it's context.

As for the second part, they did just that from what I understand. The targeted the fundamentalists, and those who support them, not the everyday muslim going about their life. Sure, some of them might take offense becuase they used Muhammed to make their point, but I don't agree that that alone shifts the target from the fanatics to the ordinary muslim. That is not the meaning of their satire, and in my opinion a misreading of what they do. Although, I haven't gone through their entire record, so there might be drawings which does what you say. It's difficult to know without being given examples of that though. Seeing as you have this idea, couldn't you point out what pictures you think are wrong?

[RedRabbit]

What's an average Muslim?

[jooneyisdagod]

Publishing any image of Mohammed does not just upset fanatics, it upsets many average Muslims. It did upset average Muslims in France.

As Obama has just said, we need to do all we can to avoid giving terrorists religious legitimacy. If you want to satirise terrorists, use symbols and imagery of terrorism and not symbols and imagery they merely reinforces a perception that Islam itself is the root of the problem.

Very true, many many 'average' muslims were deeply offended by the covers of Charlie Hebdo. Much of the indignation after Charlie Hebdo published the cartoon with Mo on it a week after the massacre was about how the magazine continued to insult them even though they had strongly condemned the terrorists.

That said, what this simply means is that they simply need to get on with it and stop expecting everyone else to live by their blasphemy laws. 

[At the Xmas works do asking someone to give them one]

What's an average Muslim?

Shia's

[cdav]

True, but I doubt all 'average' muslims take offense with cartoons that make fun of IS and other terrorists, even if they depict Muhammed. I imagine that many muslims would like to debate Islam as freely as we now do with practically any other idea, religious or not. I imagine that many muslims themselves would like more freedom to satirise religious symbols and ideas without fear of violence, and thinks the likes of Charlie Hebdo are on their side, so to speak. That might be wrong, and maybe every single muslim in the world does take offence of Muhammed being drawn, but I suspect not. I read accounts from muslims wanting the cartoons to be published the world over, so that the terrorists need to target every newspaper, everywhere, rather than the brave few who now do it. (As an aside, I really think they are brave, I'd hesitate to put up the covers of Charlie Hebdo on my facebook or on this site even). I think those persons within Islam (and outside of it too), minority or not, are more worth supporting, than the many who take offence at an image of a historical person, regardless of it's context.

As for the second part, they did just that from what I understand. The targeted the fundamentalists, and those who support them, not the everyday muslim going about their life. Sure, some of them might take offense becuase they used Muhammed to make their point, but I don't agree that that alone shifts the target from the fanatics to the ordinary muslim. That is not the meaning of their satire, and in my opinion a misreading of what they do. Although, I haven't gone through their entire record, so there might be drawings which does what you say. It's difficult to know without being given examples of that though. Seeing as you have this idea, couldn't you point out what pictures you think are wrong?

I was just going to make this point- the question surely is why can't anyone draw cartoons of Muhammed? Who gains from exerting control over what people can/ can't drawn, and then taking it further what people can/can't wear, who people can/can't meet, what education is taught etc etc. The satire isn't against average Muslims- it is surely against a repressive religion and those who want to use it to control hundreds of millions of people.

It is only by exposing what nonsense it is to kill someone for drawing a cartoon that will hopefully make people question other parts of the religion that are being used to stop people thinking and living freely.

[robgomm]

How on earth is that a straw man argument? if anyone is making a straw man argument it's Will Self with his made up 'test' of what constitutes satire.

Because you are associating moral purpose with being weak or non-offensive. It's only you that's suggested that, not me and not Will Self.

I'll just repeat again - 'afflict the comfortable and comfort the afflicted' is not and never has been a definition of satire. It's not even a very good definition of good journalism.

Again, I don't care what the definition of satire is - I care whether it is helpful/useful/interesting to describe satire with the phrase we're talking about. It isn't a definition, it's a way of thinking about satire and Self specifically says it's how he thinks about it, not how the dictionary should define it. You obviously don't think it's useful, no problem there.

And Chris Morris? Really? The Brass Eye Paedogeddon special received 3,000 complaints and was a gloriously offensive and savage attack on the moral panic and media hysteria over paedophillia. I don't think it did anything or tried to do anything other than have a go. It didn't comfort anyone.

How did the lyrics to the Myra Hindley song in the Sex episode 'comfort' the relatives of the Moors Murder victims?

Every time I see your picture, Myra/I have to phone my latest girlfriend up and fire her/And find a prostitute who looks like you and hire her/Oh, me oh Myra

What did you think of Four Lions? by the way...

Brass Eye satirised the media, absolutely. It afflicted the media, which is why they responded with outrage and most of the complaints were off the back of the ridiculous media coverage. He has satirised the media ever since he's been a part of it. On The Hour includes an absolutely amazing piece with him trying to sell to newspapers a made up tape of Neil Kinnock getting angry at someone in a restaurant, I think, or a hotel. He convinces a journalist to buy the story before finally revealing it to be a piss take, not in a Beadleesque way but by saying "I want a framed picture of your editor".

Comforted is not the best word but On The Hour, The Day Today and Brass Eye is a representation and voice for those of us that think the media as is is often corrupt, appallingly sensational and ridiculously presented. Some of it is done a bit lovingly, I think - TDT mocks grandiose introductions but in a way the news wouldn't be the same without them - but some of it is utterly piercing and without it I'd not have a satirical example to point to and say "look, this is what Sky news (for example) is actually like!" It comforts me or, better, represents me in that way.

Four Lions was brilliant. It presented the main character in a deep and layered way and was funny and pretty moving, all told. It didn't receive half the controversial press some papers were hoping they could give it because the subject was well researched and well presented. It also satirises terrorism, primarily, and the misguided reasons for involvement in it rather than Islam per se. It certainly satirises some aspects or perceptions of the culture, though, definitely.

It doesn't all work, sometimes he misses the mark or maybe just wants to piss people off. But often I think there's a lot of sense behind what he does.

[Conocinico]

I was commenting on the misremembered quote. That's all. I wasn't arguing Self is right about the nature of satire as I don't think he is.

[robgomm]

I was just going to make this point- the question surely is why can't anyone draw cartoons of Muhammed?

They can. And do. All the time. What you mean, I guess, is why can't they do it without being threatened by mentalists or fanatics? They should be able to, of course, but they shouldn't expect to do it without causing offence to non-violent, non-mental Muslims and they should consider those implications because the fanatics hate them and the rest of us regardless. A cartoon is just a pretext to them.

It is only by exposing what nonsense it is to kill someone for drawing a cartoon that will hopefully make people question other parts of the religion that are being used to stop people thinking and living freely.

This is exactly the part of the cycle I refer to earlier - it is not part of Islam to kill people for drawing cartoons of Mohammed. Any religion, any ideology can be subverted and there is nothing special about Islam in that regard.

[Alan_X]

I was commenting on the misremembered quote. That's all. I wasn't arguing Self is right about the nature of satire as I don't think he is.

Fair enough. I thought you were suggesting that because a quote is misunderstood, it's ok simply to accept it. 

[Alan_X]

Because you are associating moral purpose with being weak or non-offensive. It's only you that's suggested that, not me and not Will Self.

No I'm not. I have no idea where you get that from.

Again, I don't care what the definition of satire is - I care whether it is helpful/useful/interesting to describe satire with the phrase we're talking about. It isn't a definition, it's a way of thinking about satire and Self specifically says it's how he thinks about it, not how the dictionary should define it. You obviously don't think it's useful, no problem there.

How can you describe satire in those terms without defining it? It's meaningless. Self chooses to redifine satire in order to dismiss Charlie Hebdo for not meeting his arbitrary test. In what way is that useful?

Brass Eye satirised the media, absolutely. It afflicted the media, which is why they responded with outrage and most of the complaints were off the back of the ridiculous media coverage. He has satirised the media ever since he's been a part of it. On The Hour includes an absolutely amazing piece with him trying to sell to newspapers a made up tape of Neil Kinnock getting angry at someone in a restaurant, I think, or a hotel. He convinces a journalist to buy the story before finally revealing it to be a piss take, not in a Beadleesque way but by saying "I want a framed picture of your editor".

Comforted is not the best word but On The Hour, The Day Today and Brass Eye is a representation and voice for those of us that think the media as is is often corrupt, appallingly sensational and ridiculously presented.

And there you go. As soon as you deal with actual cases the concept of afflicted/comfortable descends into convoluted bastardisation of the language. Comforted is not the right word - it's a ridiculous word to use. And it's a bizarre definition of 'the afflicted' that includes the audience if The Day Today and Brass Eye - largely white, middle-class Guardian readers.
 

Some of it is done a bit lovingly, I think - TDT mocks grandiose introductions but in a way the news wouldn't be the same without them - but some of it is utterly piercing and without it I'd not have a satirical example to point to and say "look, this is what Sky news (for example) is actually like!" It comforts me or, better, represents me in that way.

Four Lions was brilliant. It presented the main character in a deep and layered way and was funny and pretty moving, all told. It didn't receive half the controversial press some papers were hoping they could give it because the subject was well researched and well presented. It also satirises terrorism, primarily, and the misguided reasons for involvement in it rather than Islam per se. It certainly satirises some aspects or perceptions of the culture, though, definitely.

It doesn't all work, sometimes he misses the mark or maybe just wants to piss people off. But often I think there's a lot of sense behind what he does.

So would you say that on the one hand, the depiction of specific satirical targets by Chalie Hebdo will be misunderstood by ordinary Muslims as actually representing them. But the depiction of ordinary Muslims as terrorists won't cause offence because the Muslim-in-the-street is sophisticated enough to understand that the film doesn't apply to them?

*edit - just for clarity, who were the 'comfortable' in the movie and who were the 'afflicted'?

[robgomm]

Alan, I read the following as a link between moral imperative/purpose with avoiding upset or discomfort here, for example:

Satire is satire. The point of satire is to attack your targets with wounding and scathing humour. There is no moral imperative to avoid upset or discomfort. If a despot uses propaganda and the cult of personality to endear himself to his followers then satirising will upset those he oppresses.

How can you describe satire in those terms without defining it? It's meaningless. Self chooses to redifine satire in order to dismiss Charlie Hebdo for not meeting his arbitrary test. In what way is that useful?

Defining is to state factually and exactly what something is. Self didn't say satire is limited to his description, he simply gave a description of what satire meant to him. It's a discussion point. "Should satire afflict the comfortable and comfort the afflicted? Discuss." It's not some hard and fast definition that needs to be tested as if it's a scientific hypothesis.

And there you go. As soon as you deal with actual cases the concept of afflicted/comfortable descends into convoluted bastardisation of the language. Comforted is not the right word - it's a ridiculous word to use. And it's a bizarre definition of 'the afflicted' that includes the audience if The Day Today and Brass Eye - largely white, middle-class Guardian readers.

It's hardly convoluted to argue that it represents me and makes me feel better about my own views on the media. I don't know about anyone else. It's also funny, that helps.

What meets your standard for an afflicted group, if it need be a group that's afflicted? I don't have a standard, incidentally. Most of us suffer for having a media that includes papers like the Mail and the wider national media and its coverage of UKIP is the prime reason they have shot up the polls, for example. Media representation is almost certainly why my hometown has enough anti immigrant feeling to suggest UKIP could be competitive at the next election and a genuine anti-Muslim sentiment, despite there being a relatively small number of immigrants and a very small Muslim community.

So would you say that on the one hand, the depiction of specific satirical targets by Chalie Hebdo will be misunderstood by ordinary Muslims as actually representing them. But the depiction of ordinary Muslims as terrorists won't cause offence because the Muslim-in-the-street is sophisticated enough to understand that the film doesn't apply to them?

Charlie Hebdo targets religion, including Islam. It is anti-religion, anti-Catholicism, anti-Islam. Four Lions is not anti-Islam, its focus is the absurdities of extremism and terrorism.

[Alan_X]

Alan, I read the following as a link between moral imperative/purpose with avoiding upset or discomfort here, for example:

'There is no moral imperative to avoid upset or discomfort' means exactly what it says - the moral duty (if any) of satire is to attack the privileged and to highlight idiocies and mad/bad ideas. Whether it upsets someone other than the intended target is neither here nor there.

Defining is to state factually and exactly what something is. Self didn't say satire is limited to his description, he simply gave a description of what satire meant to him. It's a discussion point. "Should satire afflict the comfortable and comfort the afflicted? Discuss." It's not some hard and fast definition that needs to be tested as if it's a scientific hypothesis.

You need to go back and read the transcription or listen again. He didn't say: "Should satire afflict the comfortable and comfort the afflicted? Discuss." He was referring to an essay title from school:

I've always believed - or at least believed I believed - in the moral purpose of satire. Indeed, I remember an essay title from school: "The aim of satire should always be the moral reform of society - discuss," and just how eager I was to discuss it.

He then goes on to say:

My personal yardstick for whether or not something qualifies to be satire at all is thus an adaptation of a classic definition of what constitutes good journalism - such an enterprise, it was written, should "comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable". Whenever I'm presented with a cartoon, a piece of writing or a comic shtick purporting to be satiric I always interrogate it along these lines: Who does it afflict, and who does it comfort? If in either case the work is mis-targeted - so afflicting the already afflicted, or comforting those already well-upholstered - it fails the test, and will need to be re-classified, usually as merely offensive, or egregiously offensive.

His test of what is satire and what isn't is not a discussion point. It's a definition of what satire is and what it is not. And:

... If we consider the scatter-gun nature of the seeming satire that Charlie Hebdo dispensed we can see quite clearly that it fails to pass the test...

Having created the straw man of what constitutes satire - he whacks it four square and takes Charlie Hebdo out with it...

It's hardly convoluted to argue that it represents me and makes me feel better about my own views on the media. I don't know about anyone else. It's also funny, that helps.

It's convoluted because for the definition to have any sense you have to become the 'afflicted' in need of 'comfort'.

What meets your standard for an afflicted group, if it need be a group that's afflicted? I don't have a standard, incidentally. Most of us suffer for having a media that includes papers like the Mail and the wider national media and its coverage of UKIP is the prime reason they have shot up the polls, for example. Media representation is almost certainly why my hometown has enough anti immigrant feeling to suggest UKIP could be competitive at the next election and a genuine anti-Muslim sentiment, despite there being a relatively small number of immigrants and a very small Muslim community.

I don't have a standard for any 'afflicted group' because the whole thing as defined by Will Self is complete bollocks. It's a stupid definition concocted to support a particular viewpoint on the Charlie Hebdo shootings.  Afflicting the comfortable is a reasonable definition of satire. It's applying the reverse (comforting the afflicted) to satire that is an invention of Self's. I've never heard that applied before and if it did then most of the great satirists and the great satires fail his test.

Charlie Hebdo targets religion, including Islam. It is anti-religion, anti-Catholicism, anti-Islam. Four Lions is not anti-Islam, its focus is the absurdities of extremism and terrorism.

So Four Lions is a satire that afflicts no one? It just afflicts an idea? And who is it comforting?

It's a satire in my book, because I don't use the mis-application of a satirical quote as my definition of what constitutes satire.

[Piggies in Blankies]

Who cares what will self says?

Really not sure why it's of interest.  Seems like some would have his opinion just because he's intelligent rather than being right.

[Alan_X]

Who cares what will self says?

Really not sure why it's of interest.  Seems like some would have his opinion just because he's intelligent rather than being right.

It was of interest because his view and that quote has been taken up by others. I agree that it's been done to death now.

[robgomm]

To finish it then, I'll give you one three sentence statement from Self that you've just posted that shows why you treating this afflicted/comfortable idea as some kind of scientific hypothesis or hard and fast definition is absurd:

My personal yardstick

He might personally consider Apocalypse Now as the greatest war film in history too and judge all other war films against it. That doesn't mean he thinks the rest of us should.

Afflicted/comfortable is a useful framework if it makes you think about what satire is and who it is for, if anyone. You yourself have repeated an assertion that satire is supposed to attack the privileged or powerful (amongst other things) so there is a sense in which you agree with part of Self's yardstick, I think.

[LondonRapLondon]

That's a needlessly glib response to a well thought out piece, even if you do not agree with his views. Such 'putdowns' take away from the debate and add nothing of substance.

Nobody is asking you to define your 'worldview' based on his beliefs. The least you can do is have a read and come back with a decent rebuttal in the spirit of discussion.

Thanks.

To be honest, there's a bit of this type of thing going on. Cliques who just want to wind people up and try to get people into trouble with mods for no real reason other than having a differing view point.

Gives the discussion a bad taste.

[At the Xmas works do asking someone to give them one]

Gives the discussion a bad taste.

I'll tell you what gives this thread a bad taste.

Weeks ago in this thread you accused Charlie Hebdo of being racist. They had, according to your mean understanding, depicted one of 'your people' as a monkey. Some generous posters took the trouble to post links explaining why you were wrong, massively wrong. You had neither the good grace to acknowledge their efforts, nor the character to admit you were ill-informed. And wrong.

[LondonRapLondon]

The idea that satire's primary goal should be to comfort the afflicted made no sense to me so I did a little research and actually the phrase 'comfort the afflicted' has nothing to do with the definition of satire. It was coined by Finley Peter Dunne speaking in the character of the fictional Mr Dooley, an irish immigrant living in Chicago who spent most of his days in the pub. The irony is that the quote is a satire on the hypocrisy and self-importance of newspapers. The full quote runs like this:

"Th newspaper does ivrything f'r us. It runs th' polis foorce an' th' banks, commands th' milishy, controls th' ligislachure, baptizes th' young, marries th' foolish, comforts th' afflicted, afflicts th' comfortable, buries th' dead an' roasts thim aftherward".

Yet Will Self claims that this is in fact a definition of what constitutes good journalism, and one which he then (mis) uses as his 'yardstick' for what is good satire. The obvious point of the Mr Dooley piece is that the newspapers don't do all those things - they are just so self-important that they think they do.

I don't think where Will Self may or may not have got the idea of comforting the afflicted is of any relevance at all.

The point here is not about, definitions. It's about reason behind usage. Purpose.

He's simply trying to add a positive purpose to satire, rather than just being something superficial that is only about attacking (i.e trolling people or groups).

This is the purpose he attributes to satire, and thus concludes the Charlie Hebdo stuff failed in his view.

And I think Pope Francis offers profound wisdom which really does sum up a lot of what I'm saying:

"If my good friend Doctor Gasparri [who organises the Pope's trips] speaks badly of my mother, he can expect to get punched," he said, throwing a pretend punch at the doctor, who was standing beside him.

"You cannot provoke. You cannot insult the faith of others. You cannot make fun of the faith of others. There is a limit."

(From BBC News)

Acting as a troll is not what decent human beings should do. Either on the net or in real life. Also, I just want to add, we live in globalized community, so for business and friendship to prosper, good manners and respect is required.

[LondonRapLondon]

I'll tell you what gives this thread a bad taste.

Weeks ago in this thread you accused Charlie Hebdo of being racist. They had, according to your mean understanding, depicted one of 'your people' as a monkey. Some generous posters took the trouble to post links explaining why you were wrong, massively wrong. You had neither the good grace to acknowledge their efforts, nor the character to admit you were ill-informed. And wrong.

Oh really?

Perhaps I missed that under the deluge of a clique who were just trolling me. I even had one guy accuse me of racism because I emnetioned the colour of the people who were bombed by the British and US.

Not everybody finds that level of discussion engaging and thus I just walk away.

So yeah, blame them if you really care about discussion...

[kakskümmend neli seitse shagging kõik jõulunädal]

Oh really?

So yeah, blame them if you really care about discussion...

Not prepared to take any responsibility yourself then? No? It's all other people's fault is it? That smacks of "YOU'RE ALL WRONG!!!!!" just a tiny bit doesn't it. Lobbing metaphorical handgrenades into topics and then walking away when you're challenged doth not a discussion make, Sir. But it's okay, you carry on believing there's a clique hell-bent on trolling you. Cos that's what your contributions ultimately end in - it becomes all about you. It's tiresome, it truly is.

[robgomm]

Not much of an argument from the Pope is it but it does nicely sum up the behaviour of most gangsters ever.

[Alan_X]

To finish it then, I'll give you one three sentence statement from Self that you've just posted that shows why you treating this afflicted/comfortable idea as some kind of scientific hypothesis or hard and fast definition is absurd:

He might personally consider Apocalypse Now as the greatest war film in history too and judge all other war films against it. That doesn't mean he thinks the rest of us should.

Afflicted/comfortable is a useful framework if it makes you think about what satire is and who it is for, if anyone. You yourself have repeated an assertion that satire is supposed to attack the privileged or powerful (amongst other things) so there is a sense in which you agree with part of Self's yardstick, I think.

I know it's his personal yardstick but his views are published in the national media and he was quoted here as an expert on satire.

As I said, you have completely missed the point, which is that if we must refer to that saying at all, then satire is just the one part (attacking privilege etc) and the other part (comforting the afflicted) is completely irrelevant to whether something is satirical or not.

Self has bastardised a satirical observation about the press in order to attack Charlie Hebdo.

Do you really not understand?

[Alan_X]

I don't think where Will Self may or may not have got the idea of comforting the afflicted is of any relevance at all.

The point here is not about, definitions. It's about reason behind usage. Purpose.

He's simply trying to add a positive purpose to satire, rather than just being something superficial that is only about attacking (i.e trolling people or groups).

This is the purpose he attributes to satire, and thus concludes the Charlie Hebdo stuff failed in his view.

And I think Pope Francis offers profound wisdom which really does sum up a lot of what I'm saying:

"If my good friend Doctor Gasparri [who organises the Pope's trips] speaks badly of my mother, he can expect to get punched," he said, throwing a pretend punch at the doctor, who was standing beside him.

"You cannot provoke. You cannot insult the faith of others. You cannot make fun of the faith of others. There is a limit."

(From BBC News)

Acting as a troll is not what decent human beings should do. Either on the net or in real life. Also, I just want to add, we live in globalized community, so for business and friendship to prosper, good manners and respect is required.

I know it's about definitions and purpose. Self misattributes, misuses and misquotes 'Mr Dooley's' saying as follows:

Setting to one side the premonitory character of this cartoon, and the strangeness of a magazine editor who was prepared to die for his convictions (or so Charb said after the Charlie Hebdo offices were firebombed in 2011), yet not to get the basic facts about his targets correct, is it right to think of it as satire? Whatever else we may believe about people so overwhelmed by their evil nature that they're prepared to deprive others of their lives for the sake of a delusory set of ideas, the one thing we can be certain of is that they're not comfortable; moreover, while Charb's cartoon may've provoked a wry smile from Charlie Hebdo's readers, it's not clear to me that these people are the "afflicted" who, in HL Mencken's definition, require "comforting" – unless their "affliction" is the very fact of a substantial Muslim population in France, and their "comfort" consists in inking-in all these fellow citizens with a terroristic brush.

How many types of wrong are there in this piece?

1. He has a dig at the (dead) editor of Charlie Hebdo for getting his facts wrong (the character in the cartoon had the wrong hat on) while not getting the basic fact correct about the author and the meaning of the quote that is at the heart of his piece.

2. He manages to perform the incredible trick of making the terrorists not valid targets for satire because they are somehow not 'comfortable'.

3. The piece de resistance is the magnificent fuckwittery that requires him to apply his 'test' to the 'afflicted'. These he says must be the CH readers who clearly aren't afflicted (of course they aren't). Unless - and here's the masterstroke... his readers are 'afflicted' by Muslims...

Ta-da!.. There you have it. Religious fanatics should not be targets for satire and anyone who finds the cartoons funny is a racist... It is a conclusion that derives straight from his straw man introduction of the idea that satire has a duty to 'comfort the afflicted'. It doesn't and his conclusion is completely erroneous.

The quote from the Pope is as has been said on here already, a stupid and un-Christian thing to say. 

What decent humans should not do is make excuses for murderers and terrorists. Of course you can make fun of the faith of others. Any faith that cannot accept the idea of having the mickey taken out of it is a very, very dangerous thing.

*edit - and by the way - Will Self is a massive troll and his comments on the Charlie Hebdo massacre are high level trolling of the worst kind.

[robgomm]

As I said, you have completely missed the point, which is that if we must refer to that saying at all, then satire is just the one part (attacking privilege etc) and the other part (comforting the afflicted) is completely irrelevant to whether something is satirical or not.

No, I got this ages ago and said so. That's you saying part of that saying is true, the other part isn't. Perfectly reasonable position to take, as I said.

And it means your view is that satire is to attack the privileged. I don't know if I'd regard extremists as privileged, frankly, that seems a bit odd. They are powerful in so far as they are capable of violence, I suppose, and invoking fear. They are not in a position of privilege.

Self has bastardised a satirical observation about the press in order to attack Charlie Hebdo.

Do you really not understand?

Ironic isn't it? Maybe he was being satirical.

Regardless, as I said earlier and as you accepted from someone else who said it - the origin of the quote does not in any way invalidate using the line to make a different point. Not even slightly. All it does is bring some irony.

[Piggies in Blankies]

I've just seen a chap on the news shouting "down with democracy".

Somewhat ironic I think.

This argument brings greater problems.  People like this gentleman will never be happy with what is promoted in the western media.  I can see why pictures of Mohammed might offend a lot of people, I wouldn't put them in my newspaper unless there was a really good cause, but where does it stop.  The maniacs that did this will surely find a new issue to be outraged by?

I fear that this may emanate a new wave of conservatism in the media.  Many muslims are offended by actors for instance, or models.... Where will the next line of offence be? (Many muslims aren't of course, and I could make the same point about other religions, but they weren't the ones involved in this case).


Seemingly forgotten about in all this were those killed in the supermarket.

What had they done to offend these dreadful people?  I've never seen that really answered in the media? Had they offended someone?

Edit:  in short I'm trying to show that clearly, these attacks were nothing to do with satire.

[Alan_X]

No, I got this ages ago and said so. That's you saying part of that saying is true, the other part isn't. Perfectly reasonable position to take, as I said.

And it means your view is that satire is to attack the privileged. I don't know if I'd regard extremists as privileged, frankly, that seems a bit odd. They are powerful in so far as they are capable of violence, I suppose, and invoking fear. They are not in a position of privilege.

Ironic isn't it? Maybe he was being satirical.

Regardless, as I said earlier and as you accepted from someone else who said it - the origin of the quote does not in any way invalidate using the line to make a different point. Not even slightly. All it does is bring some irony.

I give up...

[robgomm]

I have no idea what the miscommunication is really, other than you seem to think Self is taking the piss and I don't think he is or that it really matters anyway.

[Roger Federer]

And I think Pope Francis offers profound wisdom which really does sum up a lot of what I'm saying:

"If my good friend Doctor Gasparri [who organises the Pope's trips] speaks badly of my mother, he can expect to get punched," he said, throwing a pretend punch at the doctor, who was standing beside him.

"You cannot provoke. You cannot insult the faith of others. You cannot make fun of the faith of others. There is a limit."

Violence in response to insults is profound wisdom? Perhaps it's understandable - if not acceptable - in some cases and in direct confrontation with another person, but bizarre coming from the head of the Catholic Church (turn the other cheek springs to mind), and an awful thing to say days after the Charlie Hebdo attack.

I'd like to know what the Pope thinks the four men who were murdered in the supermarket had done, by the way. Perhaps they had it coming as well, just being jewish does provoke some fundamentalists after all.

[LondonRapLondon]

I know it's about definitions and purpose. Self misattributes, misuses and misquotes 'Mr Dooley's' saying as follows:

Setting to one side the premonitory character of this cartoon, and the strangeness of a magazine editor who was prepared to die for his convictions (or so Charb said after the Charlie Hebdo offices were firebombed in 2011), yet not to get the basic facts about his targets correct, is it right to think of it as satire? Whatever else we may believe about people so overwhelmed by their evil nature that they're prepared to deprive others of their lives for the sake of a delusory set of ideas, the one thing we can be certain of is that they're not comfortable; moreover, while Charb's cartoon may've provoked a wry smile from Charlie Hebdo's readers, it's not clear to me that these people are the "afflicted" who, in HL Mencken's definition, require "comforting" – unless their "affliction" is the very fact of a substantial Muslim population in France, and their "comfort" consists in inking-in all these fellow citizens with a terroristic brush.

How many types of wrong are there in this piece?

1. He has a dig at the (dead) editor of Charlie Hebdo for getting his facts wrong (the character in the cartoon had the wrong hat on) while not getting the basic fact correct about the author and the meaning of the quote that is at the heart of his piece.

2. He manages to perform the incredible trick of making the terrorists not valid targets for satire because they are somehow not 'comfortable'.

3. The piece de resistance is the magnificent fuckwittery that requires him to apply his 'test' to the 'afflicted'. These he says must be the CH readers who clearly aren't afflicted (of course they aren't). Unless - and here's the masterstroke... his readers are 'afflicted' by Muslims...

Ta-da!.. There you have it. Religious fanatics should not be targets for satire and anyone who finds the cartoons funny is a racist... It is a conclusion that derives straight from his straw man introduction of the idea that satire has a duty to 'comfort the afflicted'. It doesn't and his conclusion is completely erroneous.

The quote from the Pope is as has been said on here already, a stupid and un-Christian thing to say. 

What decent humans should not do is make excuses for murderers and terrorists. Of course you can make fun of the faith of others. Any faith that cannot accept the idea of having the mickey taken out of it is a very, very dangerous thing.

*edit - and by the way - Will Self is a massive troll and his comments on the Charlie Hebdo massacre are high level trolling of the worst kind.

OK Alan, what I see here is that you are picking apart errors of Will Self's research. However, none of that affects the fact that he has come up witha 'purpose' of satire. And this is what's important here. Not whether he has cited or understood a preliminary correctly. I think he's trying to ennoble satire and he has held this view for a long time. It really would be interesting for a bunch of famous satirists to have a panel discussion on this, I'd pay to listen to that.

There are two profound points coming from Self imo:

Satire across cultures is a form of 'imperialism' and it's unfair on the Westerner's part to malign some group across the world (through satire) for having a different view point. Satire is only 'effective' if done within one's own culture and borders. Many African countries, in fact all, differ to the West's views on a few matters...a satirist depitcing charicatures of us Africans and lampooning us for not following some Western secular value is not going to have ANY effect on us but to just embolden us further and resist the change the satirist wants to see. I'm sure this is the same case for the IS or Russian people or whoever they are focussing on.

Satire has a purpose other than making fun and offending. Self offers his view on this and it just goes to show the Hebdo guys were picking on a weak group (the prison population in France is made up of 60% of people of North Africans origin) and this group has historically had a bad deal from the French. Hedges even mentions they get beat up by the police. What purpose does offending this group serve? None, well no positive prupose.

--------------------------------------------------------

You have tried to circumambulate the point of the afflcted by saying the readership were likely not to be Muslim. OK, so if a Christian magazine is circulated in the UK and is making satire of homosexuals. Or if the KKK in America were satiring us black people with silly cartoons, would you argue the same thing? Regardless of the readership, it still is targeting that group of people and that offense will still be there once seen.

But having made that point of the CH readership not being Muslims, then you go on and talk about targetting terrorists with satire.  /you contradicted yourself. I assume, you also believe the CH readership is not full of terrorists? If you do then the CH cartoons are not targetting terrorists but rather people who are already against terrorism, people within one's own mindset and culture. Thus it falls into the hands of Will Self, satire does not work cross-cultures.

Just like, if the KKK are 'satirising' us with cartoons, it's not making any impact on me or any non racist white non-black person (no non racist black person is going to look at those cartoons and think, oh I'm going to go out and become a racist). The KKK would merely be using upsetting imagery and 'sentiment' to attack us without any real purpose...apart from mockery. That's what CH were doing imo.


You wrote:

- and by the way - Will Self is a massive troll and his comments on the Charlie Hebdo massacre are high level trolling of the worst kind.

I think you must have missed the point that Self was invited to talk about it as a satirist. So that's not trolling...he's invited and the topic is pertinent to his profession. Just because you may disagree with his views, does not make him a troll.


You also wrote:

What decent humans should not do is make excuses for murderers and terrorists. Of course you can make fun of the faith of others. Any faith that cannot accept the idea of having the mickey taken out of it is a very, very dangerous thing.

Nobody has supported the CH killings. Not Pope Francis nor Will Self. These are just nuanced points they have made. And very profound ones at that too. The last part is like saying, anybody who cannot take their wife, mother, husband getting verbally abused is a dangerous person. Humans are all different, some people may react differently to different provocations.

Trust me, I've confronted racist bigots for insulting my wife for being with a black guy. Does that make me a dangerous person because I cannot take listening to that type of vile mockery? A lot of African culture is different, you insult somebody's mother you are in for a confrontation. End of. Does that make many Africans dangerous people? The same applies to faith and anything somebody values, people react differently to mockery of what they hold dear.

So should decent humans troll others with mockery? No. CH were wrong (that does not make the terrorists right for killing them).

[LondonRapLondon]

Violence in response to insults is profound wisdom? Perhaps it's understandable - if not acceptable - in some cases and in direct confrontation with another person, but bizarre coming from the head of the Catholic Church (turn the other cheek springs to mind), and an awful thing to say days after the Charlie Hebdo attack.

I'd like to know what the Pope thinks the four men who were murdered in the supermarket had done, by the way. Perhaps they had it coming as well, just being jewish does provoke some fundamentalists after all.

He was speaking on the freedom to mock.

And he's from a country in which it would not be unusual for a person to confront somebody for insulting their mother. Pope Francis is not encouraging it or condoning it in this comment. He is just making the point that provoking somebody through mockery (i.e. being a troll) is not a good idea.

[electricghost]

He was speaking on the freedom to mock.

And he's from a country in which it would not be unusual for a person to confront somebody for insulting their mother. Pope Francis is not encouraging it or condoning it in this comment. He is just making the point that provoking somebody through mockery (i.e. being a troll) is not a good idea.

To be fair LRL he goes further than saying it is a bad idea, he says provoking someone through mockery will have bad consequences for the person mocking. There is a nasty undertone of blackmail to it.

[LondonRapLondon]

Not prepared to take any responsibility yourself then? No? It's all other people's fault is it? That smacks of "YOU'RE ALL WRONG!!!!!" just a tiny bit doesn't it. Lobbing metaphorical handgrenades into topics and then walking away when you're challenged doth not a discussion make, Sir. But it's okay, you carry on believing there's a clique hell-bent on trolling you. Cos that's what your contributions ultimately end in - it becomes all about you. It's tiresome, it truly is.

Wait, so you want me to take responsibility for missing a comment by somebody and thus not being able to interact with their point?

Listen, don't let this green 'watched' sign skew your opinion of me. Go through all my posts and see I interact with people as well as most people on here. And I don't troll anybody. That green 'watched' sign came because somebody accused me of being racist for mentioning the skin colour of the Iraqis in a point about the different values the media puts on different lives:

http://www.redandwhitekop.com/forum/index.php?topic=319924.0

It's easier to blame one person, rather than a few regulars with higher post counts or 'supporter status'. Others have criticised the clique mentality on this side of the forum. It's not just me.

Anyways, it's a forum on the net, it's not worth getting into a fight over. You've got your opinion (which I hope will change because I'm defo not a troll, would AlanX be dialoguing with me if I was a troll, I've had some long discussions with him...even though I don;t agree with some of the things he says) and I've got my opinion (most people are sincere, some people are insincere...I allocate time accordingly)

Respect.

[LondonRapLondon]

To be fair LRL he goes further than saying it is a bad idea, he says provoking someone through mockery will have bad consequences for the person mocking. There is a nasty undertone of blackmail to it.

I see your concern.

Well you know he's just speaking about the culture he was raised in. A lot of us Africans come from cultures where it's not surprising to see confrontation when somebody insults a person's mother. I suspect the same for Latin cultures.

I don't think he's condoning it, he's just making the point of how provocation can lead to emotional reactions on an everyday level never mind a campaign to provoke through media cartoons etc.

[At the Xmas works do asking someone to give them one]

Nobody has supported the CH killings. Not Pope Francis nor Will Self. These are just nuanced points they have made. And very profound ones at that too.

The Pope condemns the killings on the one hand and then goes on to agree with the CH killers that the appropriate response to an insult is violence. How very profound.

[Piggies in Blankies]

He was speaking on the freedom to mock.

And he's from a country in which it would not be unusual for a person to confront somebody for insulting their mother. Pope Francis is not encouraging it or condoning it in this comment. He is just making the point that provoking somebody through mockery (i.e. being a troll) is not a good idea.

There's a big difference between trolling and mockery of the ridiculous reaction to the Danish cartoons.

It's a shame that this bit of what the pope said was latched on to so singularly.  The other pieces he said in the same speech were far more relevant.
Of course he didn't say that it's ok to blow someones head off if they insult your mother, people have missed that.
No satire, no mockery is ever an excuse for what those wicked people did in Paris.
No satire, no mockery was the cause of the deaths in the supermarket.
I'm a wee bit  worried that talk about what is or isn't satire maybe obscuring this issue.

These people wanted to kill other people, they were looking for excuses to do so, but their vile acts were not caused or provoked by satire however one defines it.

[At the Xmas works do asking someone to give them one]

Wait, so you want me to take responsibility for missing a comment by somebody and thus not being able to interact with their point?

Here's the post in question:

Indeed

http://www.understandingcharliehebdo.com/

With regard to the cover that some have deemed to be racist...


Translation

“RACIST BLUE UNION”
Symbols

    The font chosen (serif) is reminiscent of traditional right-wing political posters. Left-wing and communist posters in France usually use a sans-serif font. This is the first hint that the cartoon is mocking a right-wing element.
    The blue and red flame logo on the bottom-left is the logo of the Front National, a far-right political party in France.
    The person depicted is Justice Minister Christiane Taubira, drawn as a monkey. This is referencing various occasions of far-right activists depicting Taubira as a monkey (online sharing of photoshops, sound imitations, calling out, etc.).
    The title is a play on words of Marine Le Pen's slogan “Rassemblement Bleu Marine” (Navy blue Union).

Satire

The cartoon was published after a National Front politician Facebook-shared a photoshop of Justice Taubira, drawn as a monkey, and then said on French television the she should be “in a tree swinging from the branches rather than in government” [Le Monde] (she was later sentenced to 9 months of prison). The cartoon is styled as a political poster, calling on all far-right “Marine” racists to unify, under this racist imagery they have chosen. Ultimately, the cartoon is criticising the far-right's appeal to racism to gain supporters.




The cartoon was drawn by Charb. He participated in anti-racism activities, and notably illustrated the poster (below) for MRAP (Movement Against Racism and for Friendship between Peoples), an anti-racist NGO.



Translation:
Let's break the silence!
[speech-bubble] I would hire you, but I don't like the colour of ... euh ... your tie!

So, you can answer the question: Are CH racist as you claimed or were you complete wrong?

[LondonRapLondon]

So, you can answer the question: Are CH racist as you claimed or were you complete wrong?

Thanks for bringing this to my attention.

I do recall mentioning that they had been racist against my race (black). However this was based on information that /i received that they depicted a female black politician as a monkey.

I clearly see there are people out there (some prominent ones too) who are saying they were not racist. However, can I ask, do you have any information about this cartoon depicting a black lady as a monkey.

If it was they NF group that produced the cartoon and the CH guys were responding to it, then I COMPLETELY RETRACT this accusation but if the CH guys produced it then I will have to look into it further.

Thanks

[Yorkykopite]

Publishing any image of Mohammed does not just upset fanatics, it upsets many average Muslims. It did upset average Muslims in France.

As Obama has just said, we need to do all we can to avoid giving terrorists religious legitimacy. If you want to satirise terrorists, use symbols and imagery of terrorism and not symbols and imagery they merely reinforces a perception that Islam itself is the root of the problem.

But the best and most consistent image/symbol of terrorism today is someone shouting 'God is Great' as he kills an innocent person.

[Yorkykopite]

Seemingly forgotten about in all this were those killed in the supermarket.

What had they done to offend these dreadful people?  I've never seen that really answered in the media? Had they offended someone?

Yes they had. They were Jews and it seems that some (many?) Muslims are offended by them - as well they should be if they read their Koran. 

[Piggies in Blankies]

Yes they had. They were Jews and it seems that some (many?) Muslims are offended by them - as well they should be if they read their Koran. 

Which is why we shouldn't be arguing about satire.

It's irrelevant.  They just wanted to kill.  Racism, lack of compasion they had it all.

Anything else was an exceptionally poor excuse.