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).