The Stupidity of Charlie Hebdo

mocking means
making fun of....in a cruel way

so do you think it is not making fun
or not being cruel?
or perhaps both

It's mocking the people.

Oh it is mocking! "Cartoon" type of drawing has to be. It over emphasises people's imperfections. That's how they get their nefarious (IMO) laughs.

Or if it is mocking, it's mocking Italian food.

Why is it necessarily mocking? I don't think it is.

TBH, if a member of my family was that badly injured (which has happened, actually) or killed, I don't think I'd be concerning myself with some weirdo cartoonist's impressions. I'd have more important things to think about. So no, I wouldn't feel any more hurt than I was already feeling. And neither would the injured relative.

It is pure mocking.

Of earthquake victims.

Don't answer. don't answer. don't answer!

Ok Bags. Who the fuck was Hieronymous Bosch?

I don't specially want it banned. I just wonder, why? And how they could do it?

News pictures are a different thing altogether. This is poking fun. Not reporting.

I don't know whether anybody remembers the 1980s jokes about the Ethiopian famine. You can Google some of them. They were quite popular at the time (particularly amongst school children) and I think this is the same kind of 'joke'. It's a play on words about different kinds of pasta, but (in my opinion at least) not the slightest bit satirical or funny.

They are not drawings of actual recognisable individuals, are they?

Or Hieronymous Bosch.

But the point is they are hurtful.
Would you want a member of your family, depicted in that way?
Perhaps that is ok with you?

I don't get the Italian one because I don't know what the cartoon is getting at. We all know people get injured in earthquakes. Good cartoons have a 'back story'. This one just strikes me as a kind of reproduction of many of the kind of photos and film there is always a lot of when something like an earthquake happens. Nobody objects to the photos. They probably don't 'like' the photos but they don't want them banned.

Maybe that's the point.

Plus that images of the mess people are in after such disasters has made someone (the cartoonist) think of food images. If that's how someone thinks, it's just really weird in my view. No worse than some Salvador Dali paintings. Better ignored than banned.

I think Bags posted before she had looked at the cartoon.

I don't understand it. Their cartoons would normally have some sort of 'back story', but this is just plain nasty and cruel. There is nothing they are railing against.

and mock[carries on from last post]

Sorry bags crossed posts.
What I don't understand is that last post.
Someone disagrees with the majority so that means they'don't get it'?
Everyone doesn't have the same simplistic philosophy.
Surely that's self evident.

I think their aim is to be very very hurtful.

Their aim is to shock. They paid a huge price for that before. Why are they doing this? Who benefits? What do they think they are doing? It all has a very adolescent feel about it and we should not take them seriously as a worthwhile publication.

post to thatbags

I just dont get why you dont get it like nearly everyone else does. Particularly as I generally agree with you.

If it is ok to ask, has something happened in your life, or in how you grew up, to contribute to the way you think about this?

Check the op bags. Absolutely agree that it's quite wrong to expect all cartoons to be amusing - thereby missing the whole point of satire. However these are partcularly disturbing.

Paintings too.

But I also think some supposedly excellent literature is odd and revolting and disgusting and cruel too. And films. All sorts of stuff really. Why's everyone fixated one weird cartoons?