Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Philosophy, in all its guises. => Topic started by: Bubbles on February 02, 2016, 09:07:31 AM
-
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/07/opinion/free-speech-vs-hate-speech.html?_r=0
I'm sure we all have our different opinions on where the line should be drawn.
An example for me would be that although I am tolerant of Charlie Hebdo critising and sending up religions I am not so tolerant of one of their latest offerings.
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/jan/14/charlie-hebdo-cartoon-depicting-drowned-child-alan-kurdi-sparks-racism-debate
Now that upsets me, I think they have crossed a line.
cartoon in the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo has caused online shock by suggesting drowned toddler Alan Kurdi would have grown up to be a sexual abuser like those immigrants allegedly involved in the assaults in Cologne.
Charlie Hebdo' s attitude seems to be theirs is a dissenting voice.
The cartoon was published a week after the anniversary of the attacks on the offices of Charlie Hebdo, when free speech organisations came together to proclaim the importance of protecting dissenting voices.
Dissenting voices?
No, it was an unpleasant slur on a little boy that drowned. In fact it devalues refugee children's lives because in a way it kind of says, it's ok for them to die, look what they could grow up to be........
If you take dissenting voices as meaning "offensive views", where does that impact on the freedom to voice for example ( dissenting voices) the man who wants to legalise rape on private property?
Is he a dissenting voice?
At what point, do you suppress dissenting voices? And can that lead to no dissenting voices at all, when decided by the majority who can have wide ranging views on what is acceptable and what isn't?
Personal judgement is difficult because we all get offended by different things.
Should we just go by numbers of people offended? Or not bother to suppress anything no matter how offensive.
Some might argue it should be suppressed if it causes harm. But who can decide if someone is harmed? And whose definition of harm?
Some people are probably deeply offended by mother in law jokes, and might say it stereotypes mothering laws and causes harm.
Now people will agree racist jokes might fit that one , but mother in laws don't tend to get a look in.
I think jokes made at the expense of a drowned child and stereotyping refugees causes harm.
So where would you draw the line?
🌹
( one persons politically incorrect speech, is another persons hate speech)
-
"Free Speech, except..." is not free speech, it's as simple as that. As soon as you draw a line, as soon as you accept that the concept of a taboo is valid, as soon as you privelege some ideas and areas as being beyond discussion, you've created something that can't be questioned, and everything has to be questioned.
I wouldn't draw a line - all ideas have to be free to be published, free to be seen. It's how we know who the idiots and the hatemongers are, how we let them identify themselves, how we detect that patterns in their thoughts and behaviours, and how we show each other what it is that needs to be countered.
No ideas can be beyond criticism. All opinions can be dismissed, but they have to be made first.
Personally I find some of CH's output distasteful and provocative, but I don't see provocative as a bad thing, and distasteful is about how I take it, not what they do.
O.
-
The purpose of the Hebdo cartoon was to expose Europe's hypocrisy over the refugee crisis - one minute weeping over dead children and the next treating them all like potential sex offenders. It was a very unpleasant cartoon but the sickness of human nature can also be highly unpleasant, and the work of satire is to expose that to ourselves. No wonder we prefer not to see it.
-
The purpose of the Hebdo cartoon was to expose Europe's hypocrisy over the refugee crisis - one minute weeping over dead children and the next treating them all like potential sex offenders. It was a very unpleasant cartoon but the sickness of human nature can also be highly unpleasant, and the work of satire is to expose that to ourselves. No wonder we prefer not to see it.
It upset his family, not sure they saw it that way.
-
It upset his family, not sure they saw it that way.
And that's sad and unfair. But at the same time it's possible for the family to hear why the cartoon was drawn and published. Personally I think given the toxic situation brewing we need to have a clear-eyed view of it, including our own part in it. It shouldn't take the work of Charlie Hebdo and those like them to make us think about our attitudes and motives but maybe they think they have no choice if more moderate voices are being ignored.
-
The purpose of the Hebdo cartoon was to expose Europe's hypocrisy over the refugee crisis - one minute weeping over dead children and the next treating them all like potential sex offenders. It was a very unpleasant cartoon but the sickness of human nature can also be highly unpleasant, and the work of satire is to expose that to ourselves. No wonder we prefer not to see it.
Christopher Hitchens used to talk a lot about the ironic mind versus the literal mind - the literal mind is the one that's a bit Asperger's (no slight intended) and is tone-deaf to irony and/or sarcasm and sees only what's immediately apparent without picking up on subtext. The danger with satire is that in being overly subtle, the literal-minded see only surface and miss out on what's being satirised; therefore many people took serious offence at the CH cartoon because the thing being satirised - ugly and obnoxious attitudes toward refugees, not a small dead child - passed them by. It's a dangerous line to tread and a fine one, and satirists have always been aware of this.
-
And that's sad and unfair. But at the same time it's possible for the family to hear why the cartoon was drawn and published. Personally I think given the toxic situation brewing we need to have a clear-eyed view of it, including our own part in it. It shouldn't take the work of Charlie Hebdo and those like them to make us think about our attitudes and motives but maybe they think they have no choice if more moderate voices are being ignored.
Here is a clear eyed veiw on it
Erbil // The father of a drowned Syrian toddler wept when he saw a cartoon depicting his drowned son Aylan Kurdi as an adult involved in sexual harassment.
“When I saw the picture, I cried,” Abdullah Kurdi said on Saturday, referring to the cartoon in French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo. “My family is still in shock.”
He said the cartoon was “inhuman and immoral” and as bad as the actions of the “war criminals and terrorists” who have caused widespread death and displacement in Syria and elsewhere.
The cartoon shows a pervert chasing a woman, with the caption asking: “What would have become of small Aylan if he grew up?”
“Someone who gropes asses in Germany,” it added, alluding to a rash of crime targeting women at New Year’s festivities in Cologne that has been blamed on migrants.
http://www.thenational.ae/world/middle-east/drowned-syrian-toddlers-father-wept-over-charlie-hebdo-cartoon
The real motive of Charlie Hebdo, is to make money.
-
Christopher Hitchens used to talk a lot about the ironic mind versus the literal mind - the literal mind is the one that's a bit Asperger's (no slight inended) and is tone-deaf to irony and/or sarcasm and sees only what's immediately apparent without picking up on subtext. The danger with satire is that in being overly subtle, the literal-minded see only surface and miss out on what's being satirised; therefore many people took serious offence at the CH cartoon because the thing being satirised - ugly and obnoxious attitudes toward refugees, not a small dead child - passed them by. It's a dangerous line to tread and a fine one, and satirists have always been aware of this.
I see it differently.
It's not hypocritical to feel sadness at the death of a small boy, and to next feel cross at the behaviour of some male adults, just because they happen to have the same ethnic background.
I took offence at the cartoon because it's nasty and implies something that people are not really saying.
-
Here is a clear eyed veiw on it
The real motive of Charlie Hebdo, is to make money.
There are easier ways of making money than risking being mown down by Kalashnikovs. The cartoonists had armed guards for years before the attacks.
The offence taken by the family is very sad. I wish it hadn't happened. But on focussing on that it's easy to avoid the cartoon's actual message, and get outraged over that rather than our attitude to the refugee crisis.
-
Here is a clear eyed veiw on it
Not really - it's just a view you happen to agree with, which is not the same thing.
The real motive of Charlie Hebdo, is to make money.
It's a magazine whose staff don't work for free, nor do the printers and distributors and the newsagents and other shops where it's sold.
None of that precludes them from being able to satirise what they think needs to be satirised.
-
I took offence at the cartoon because it's nasty and implies something that people are not really saying.
Some people are saying that hordes of swarthy ragheads are infesting Europe to besmirch our fragrant and chaste ladies, however - it's that sort of mindless idiocy that CH was taking the piss out of.
-
Some people are saying that hordes of swarthy ragheads are infesting Europe to besmirch our fragrant and chaste ladies, however - it's that sort of mindless idiocy that CH was taking the piss out of.
So hundreds of German women are lying then? and in this case it's ok to tell them it's their fault because they need to dress a certain way, to discourage groping hands.
http://www.independent.ie/world-news/europe/german-women-now-fear-their-safety-is-being-compromised-for-the-sake-of-political-correctness-34345609.html
-
So hundreds of German women are lying then? and in this case it's ok to tell them it's their fault because they need to dress a certain way, to discourage groping hands.
http://www.independent.ie/world-news/europe/german-women-now-fear-their-safety-is-being-compromised-for-the-sake-of-political-correctness-34345609.html
Where on earth did you get to that from Shaker's post? He said nothing of the kind.
-
All liars?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-35250903
-
Some people are saying that hordes of swarthy ragheads are infesting Europe to besmirch our fragrant and chaste ladies, however - it's that sort of mindless idiocy that CH was taking the piss out of.
Doubt that most people would read it that way.
-
So hundreds of German women are lying then? and in this case it's ok to tell them it's their fault because they need to dress a certain way, to discourage groping hands.
http://www.independent.ie/world-news/europe/german-women-now-fear-their-safety-is-being-compromised-for-the-sake-of-political-correctness-34345609.html
No they're not lying at all, but this was an isolated incident that doesn't reflect on all refugees in the way that right-wingers and xenophobes make out. It's fallacious thinking of the Hitler-Stalin-Franco-had-moustaches-therefore-any-man-with-a-moustache-is-a-dictator kind - taking a few and making them representative of the whole.
-
Where on earth did you get to that from Shaker's post? He said nothing of the kind.
Indirectly he did.
-
Doubt that most people would read it that way.
Indeed - most people would not and do not, as most people are not complete pilchards.
The fact however that it's a sentiment we've seen expressed on this very forum indicates that it's a view held by some not overly bright and fearful people.
-
Indirectly he did.
No he didn't.
-
I'm getting rather disturbed by this idea that anyone saying there's hypocrisy in our attitude to refugees is somehow accusing the Cologne victims of lying.
-
No they're not lying at all, but this was an isolated incident that doesn't reflect on all refugees in the way that right-wingers and xenophobes make out. It's fallacious thinking of the Hitler-Stalin-Franco-had-moustaches-therefore-any-man-with-a-moustache-is-a-dictator kind - taking a few and making them representative of the whole.
No it doesn't, but some people appear to be running away from the idea that a high percentage of the perpetrators Could have been as the women describe.
That doesn't mean they are all guilty though.
We need to see more of this on the media.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-35322484
IMO.
The immigrants who have done this should be seen to be punished, just like anyone else who has ( there have been claims of a cover up to stem the anti immigrant leanings)
I think that's not helpful.
-
Indeed - most people would not and do not, as most people are not complete pilchards.
The fact however that it's a sentiment we've seen expressed on this very forum indicates that it's a view held by some not overly bright and fearful people.
No .. I mean't the opposite of what you took .. :)
Most people would read it as, humorously though sadly, reinforcing criticism of immigration and calling for some realism.
-
No it doesn't, but some people appear to be running away from the idea that a high percentage of the perpetrators Could have been as the women describe.
That doesn't mean they are all guilty though.
We need to see more of this on the media.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-35322484
IMO.
The immigrants who have done this should be seen to be punished, just like anyone else who has ( there have been claims of a cover up to stem the anti immigrant leanings)
I think that's not helpful.
Who are these 'some people'? We know there was a playing-diwn of the ethnic identity of the perpetrators to start with, but that was trying to hush things up, not running away - and a massive breach of trust to boot.
Unless you mean posters here are running away from it?
-
I'm getting rather disturbed by this idea that anyone saying there's hypocrisy in our attitude to refugees is somehow accusing the Cologne victims of lying.
Well either the women were attacked by men that fitted the description they gave, or they weren't.
Because if the CH cartoon implies what you say it does, it implies that the women claiming this, are part of some hypocritical attitude towards immigrants, and it's all a big attitude problem.
Ultimately then......
That by the women sympathising with the death of the little boy while claiming to be abused by immigrants, they are being hypocritical.
Can you not see that?
It implies any criticism of immigrants or group of immigrants ( even in the wrong) shouldn't be criticised.
It reminds me of the U.K. When social workers refused to tackle child abuse and Asian men in case they were accused of racism.
Sometimes, it happens.
Groups of individuals doing wrong get protected because they are perceived of being in a protected group.
CH by using that cartoon, and implying that anyone linking immigrants with a situation....... Is creating protection for criminals within a protected group.
To me, that's despicable
Just like the social workers not looking into child abuse properly, because of the ethnic group of the perpetrators.
-
Who are these 'some people'? We know there was a playing-diwn of the ethnic identity of the perpetrators to start with, but that was trying to hush things up, not running away - and a massive breach of trust to boot.
Unless you mean posters here are running away from it?
I just wrote a reply but the site won't let me post it.
Basically it's the " some "people glossing over it. Making aspects Taboo rather than dealing with it. Bit about it here.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-35241808
It might be a good idea to split some of this thread and put the relevant posts on the other thread, about the attacks.
We are drifting ..... :)
-
Well either the women were attacked by men that fitted the description they gave, or they weren't.
Because if the CH cartoon implies what you say it does, it implies that the women claiming this, are part of some hypocritical attitude towards immigrants, and it's all a big attitude problem.
Ultimately then......
That by the women sympathising with the death of the little boy while claiming to be abused by immigrants, they are being hypocritical.
Can you not see that?
It implies any criticism of immigrants or group of immigrants ( even in the wrong) shouldn't be criticised.
It reminds me of the U.K. When social workers refused to tackle child abuse and Asian men in case they were accused of racism.
Sometimes, it happens.
Groups of individuals doing wrong get protected because they are perceived of being in a protected group.
CH by using that cartoon, and implying that anyone linking immigrants with a situation....... Is creating protection for criminals within a protected group.
To me, that's despicable
Just like the social workers not looking into child abuse properly, because of the ethnic group of the perpetrators.
Don't be ridiculous. The cartoon says nothing of the kind. It's what you want to see as a way of justifying your own fears and prejudices.
-
I just wrote a reply but the site won't let me post it.
Basically it's the " some "people glossing over it. Making aspects Taboo rather than dealing with it. Bit about it here.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-35241808
It might be a good idea to split some of this thread and put the relevant posts on the other thread, about the attacks.
We are drifting ..... :)
I'd read the same article. It appears that the reason the authorities tried to cover this up was to stop racial violence. It's a huge breach of trust of the women of Cologne.
But that has nothing to do with the CH cartoon.
-
Don't be ridiculous. The cartoon says nothing of the kind. It's what you want to see as a way of justifying your own fears and prejudices.
I think it's a hurtful, horrible thing to post about a dead child.
I don't care if some people think it's satire!
I think it's tactless and ignorant.
(the use of humour, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people's stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues.)
I think it's bad satire.
To use something like the death of a vunerable child to make a point, hurting the family in the process.
-
Thinking it hurtful and vile is one thing. Going a step further and saying that CH are accusing the Cologne victims of lying is quite another.
-
I'd read the same article. It appears that the reason the authorities tried to cover this up was to stop racial violence. It's a huge breach of trust of the women of Cologne.
But that has nothing to do with the CH cartoon.
Well it has.
You said
The purpose of the Hebdo cartoon was to expose Europe's hypocrisy over the refugee crisis - one minute weeping over dead children and the next treating them all like potential sex offenders. It was a very unpleasant cartoon but the sickness of human nature can also be highly unpleasant, and the work of satire is to expose that to ourselves. No wonder we prefer not to see it.
They have taken the micky out of the victims of the assault for a start, they are in the cartoon.
That devalues their statements about it, makes them out to be hysterical, they have even been portrayed in that light.
Have another look at it.
Is that how you would want to be portrayed if you had been groped by 20 men or raped or both?
I would be annoyed if I was a victim.
Both the cartoon and the authorities are letting the victims down.
It's trivialising what happened to them.
-
Thinking it hurtful and vile is one thing. Going a step further and saying that CH are accusing the Cologne victims of lying is quite another.
Not really, it's just in the implications.
-
Rose: "I think jokes made at the expense of a drowned child and stereotyping refugees causes harm."
Yes!
We may have supported Charlie Hebdo over one issue but that doesn't mean they are forever beyond reproach. Some of these people think they can walk on water but can easily and quickly fall out of favour.
Imo, MUCH should be made of public condemnation in this instance.
-
Well it has.
You said
They have taken the micky out of the victims of the assault for a start, they are in the cartoon.
That devalues their statements about it, makes them out to be hysterical, they have even been portrayed in that light.
Have another look at it.
Is that how you would want to be portrayed if you had been groped by 20 men or raped or both?
I would be annoyed if I was a victim.
Both the cartoon and the authorities are letting the victims down.
It's trivialising what happened to them.
No, it doesn't 'take the mickey' out of the victims. Not does it question anywhere their integrity. And it doesn't trivialise anything,
But it does highlight the sorry mess and hypocrisy around the refugee issue.
-
No, it doesn't 'take the mickey' out of the victims. Not does it question anywhere their integrity. And it doesn't trivialise anything,
But it does highlight the sorry mess and hypocrisy around the refugee issue.
It's not hypocrisy to feel sadness at the death of a refugee child, and be angry because of crimes perceived to be committed by adult men who have come into your country from somewhere else.
As far as I can see, only CH has drawn the link between the drowned boy and the attackers.
Now either the hundred women reported their attackers accurately, or they didn't.
I think CH has distanced people who did support it, because it hasn't taken into account the subtlies and why you can support one with a caring attitude ( the child) and not the other. ( the attackers).
It lumps everyone together in its judgements.
-
I think CH has distanced people who did support it, because it hasn't taken into account the subtlies and why you can support one with a caring attitude ( the child) and not the other. ( the attackers).
It lumps everyone together in its judgements.
On the contrary; the fact that some people think Alan Kurdi was being mocked rather than a xenophobic attitude toward refugees suggests they've been too subtle.
And lumping everyone together is precisely and exactly the attitude being satirised.
I've just remembered that on a different thread not so long ago (will find a link when I'm on the computer and not on my phone) wigginhall used satirical irony to mock xenophobic attitudes to refugees and there also some people didn't get it and didn't pick up on the irony, taking the sarcastic for the literal. Some people as I've said before just don't seem to get irony and what's behind it and where the real target is. Irony is a very sophisticated mental process between one person and another; it's easy to misjudge.
-
On the contrary; the fact that some people think Alan Kurdi was being mocked rather than a xenophobic attitude toward refugees suggests they've been too subtle.
And lumping everyone together is precisely and exactly the attitude being satirised.
Couldn't agree with this more.
-
I don't and didn't support CH because I agreed with them. I support then because just being thought of as offensive isn't enough for them to be stopped. If I liked everything they did, they wouldn't be doing what they are supposed to correctly.
-
Don't be ridiculous. The cartoon says nothing of the kind. It's what you want to see as a way of justifying your own fears and prejudices.
Which would those be, then?
You are stereotyping me, it seems.
I took the cartoon at your own interpretation up in the thread.
-
Rose, you've been quite open about your fears around migration. It's not a stereotype, it's what you've said.
-
There's a rule about really good, effective satire; it should punch upward, at the establishment and those in positions of power and influence - the royal family; the church; politicians; celebrities - to mock their pretensions, prick their pomposity and question their authority. It should never punch downwards at the powerless, the weak, the vulnerable, the helpless, the voiceless.
Some people think that the CH cartoon was doing the latter, mocking a dead toddler. I don't get this; it's clear to me what was being satirised and it wasn't a dead kid on a beach.
-
Rose, you've been quite open about your fears around migration. It's not a stereotype, it's what you've said.
And those fears have been shown to be justified time and time again.
-
There's a rule about really good, effective satire; it should punch upward, at the establishment and those in positions of power and influence - the royal family; the church; politicians; celebrities - to mock their pretensions, prick their pomposity and question their authority. It should never punch downwards at the powerless, the weak, the vulnerable, the helpless, the voiceless.
Some people think that the CH cartoon was doing the latter, mocking a dead toddler. I don't get this; it's clear to me what was being satirised and it wasn't a dead kid on a beach.
Yes, this is what I don't understand - it's clear what the target is.
-
And those fears have been shown to be justified time and time again.
Where and when? With so many alleged examples to choose from it shouldn't be hard for you to provide a link or several.
-
Rose, you've been quite open about your fears around migration. It's not a stereotype, it's what you've said.
I have concerns about it, yes.
However I wouldn't describe it as a prejudice or a fear.
Yours is a stereotype because of the way you phrase it, like a person can't have concerns, without it being either a prejudice or fear.
Actually you can.
It just that like your irony, not everyone sees the difference, but it is there.
My concerns tend to be the effect of large numbers of people coming in and the sort of thing that is happening now.
Its the whole situation that concerns me, and that it also has a bad effect on the immigrants/refugees coming in too.
-
Go you - clearly being shot/tortured/raped/starved/blown up would be safer for them.
-
Go you - clearly being shot/tortured/raped/starved/blown up would be safer for them.
That depends how bad it gets here, in Europe.
-
That depends how bad it gets here, in Europe.
So that isn't a fear-driven statement in any way?
-
That depends how bad it gets here, in Europe.
What because a European country is going to descend into the state that Syria is in?
Stark raving, swivel eyed, fear-mongering nonsense.
You need to get a grip on yourself.
-
The news that around 10,000 unaccompanied child refugees have vanished in the heart of Europe is mind-blowing. Children have suffered unspeakable anguish as a result of child se x expl oitation.
http://www.independent.ie/opinion/letters/children-are-suffering-in-this-catastrophic-refugee-crisis-3
(had to space the letters as this site wont post certain phrases)
that's an awful lot of children to "lose"
I wonder if they feel any safer, having come all the way to Europe to escape home.
some of them might not have been bombed, starved and raped at home.
Depends where they are.
I hear the UK is taking some unaccompanied children which I think is a good thing.
-
So that isn't a fear-driven statement in any way?
no its a concern
-
What because a European country is going to descend into the state that Syria is in?
Stark raving, swivel eyed, fear-mongering nonsense.
You need to get a grip on yourself.
and you need to stop being complacent and have a look at Europe less than a generation ago.
Just because you think it cant happen again, doesn't make you right.
-
and you need to stop being complacent and have a look at Europe less than a generation ago.
Just because you think it cant happen again, doesn't make you right.
Woe, woe and thrice woe.
Well if the immigrants don't get us - global warming will. So why worry.
PS And just because you think it can happen doesn't make you right either.
-
Woe, woe and thrice woe.
Well if the immigrants don't get us - global warming will. So why worry.
PS And just because you think it can happen doesn't make you right either.
No but at least I am prepared to find out, and try and stop it happening, by joining things that try and draw attention to it, and stop it.
-
No but at least I am prepared to find out, and try and stop it happening, by joining things that try and draw attention to it, and stop it.
Which 'things'?
-
No but at least I am prepared to find out, and try and stop it happening, by joining things that try and draw attention to it, and stop it.
Stop what happening? Cologne happening? You did well there.
You think you are the only one to have the intention and ability to find things out? My aren't you just the superwoman of our age.
One way and another, for quite a lot of my life on various issues I've been doing that Rose as do many other people - so no holier than thou proclamations please.
-
Stop what happening? Cologne happening? You did well there.
You think you are the only one to have the intention and ability to find things out? My aren't you just the superwoman of our age.
One way and another, for quite a lot of my life on various issues I've been doing that Rose as do many other people - so no holier than thou proclamations please.
I was just about to post my reply to Rhiannon's question, which was about my belonging to various groups who I perceive as trying to create a situation where people meet and hopefully become more aware of each others basic humanity and dispelling stereotypes.
Given your sarcastic reply, I can see that anything I said would probably be seen by you as a"holier than thou proclamation".
We obviously don't value the same things, and if you can't even see that there is a danger in Europe of prejudice spilling over, I doubt you would be able to see the point of small steps in supporting something, which is hoping to stop it.
I find it disturbing you think such people are swivel eyed loons...............
I'm outta here
-
We obviously don't value the same things, and if you can't even see that there is a danger in Europe of prejudice spilling over, I doubt you would be able to see the point of small steps in supporting something, which is hoping to stop it.
Oh I can and do see the danger of prejudice spilling over - I just don't see from your posts how you are going to stop that. If you have concrete suggestions why not post them instead of concentrating on the irrelevancies of whether or not CH is offensive. And it is irrelevant - whatever CH or some other group publish is going to be offensive to some groups even if it's just fluffy pictures of kittens.
Sorry you feel the need to be outta here - it wasn't my intention for that to happen.
-
Satire, as Shaker suggests, is a genre which can easily lead to unforseen consequences because it relies upon saying or suggesting (often outrageous) things whilst actually trying to draw attention to a much more nuanced argument which can often be in direct contrast to that stated. Hence, I see the work of a satirist has to be particularly skilled if the point actually being made comes across to the chosen audience.
Two examples come to mind:
'Till Death Do us Part' satirised Alf Garnett's attitudes ruthlessly, and, I believe, partly succeeded in mocking his prejudiced, bigotted views. However, there were many people who actually saw Alf Garnett as some sort of hero, and, far from seeing their views being ridiculed, as Johnny Speight intended, they saw Alf as an honest working class character with views reflecting their own.
Jonathan Swift's 'A Modest Proposal' was an essay which proposed the idea of the poverty stricken Irish selling their young children and babies to well off people to be eaten by them in order to ease their own poverty. For me, this is a masterful piece of satire because Swift manages to get over the desperate conditions of the Irish poor, the inclusion of intricate cold hearted detail, and the callousness of the narrator while putting the idea of cannibalism on a seemingly practical commodity level.
My own thoughts on the CH cartoon are as follows. It is a rather ugly and ungainly attempt at being satirical at the temptation to stereotype migrants. It doesn't seem to have the quality of shaming those who hold the views expressed, because one is easily sidetracked by the simple unpleasantness of the juxtaposition of the dead child and the 'groping' adult. Hence it seems to come over as simply being distasteful.
-
Satire, as Shaker suggests, is a genre which can easily lead to unforseen consequences because it relies upon saying or suggesting (often outrageous) things whilst actually trying to draw attention to a much more nuanced argument which can often be in direct contrast to that stated. Hence, I see the work of a satirist has to be particularly skilled if the point actually being made comes across to the chosen audience.
Two examples come to mind:
'Till Death Do us Part' satirised Alf Garnett's attitudes ruthlessly, and, I believe, partly succeeded in mocking his prejudiced, bigotted views. However, there were many people who actually saw Alf Garnett as some sort of hero, and, far from seeing their views being ridiculed, as Johnny Speight intended, they saw Alf as an honest working class character with views reflecting their own.
The late Warren Mitchell of blessed memory used to tell the story about being approached in the street by - let's be frank here - middle-aged white working class men congratulating him for being in a programme having a go "at them Pakis and them coons."
"No, you moron," he used to reply, "we're making fun of cretins like you."
-
The late Warren Mitchell of blessed memory used to tell the story about being approached in the street by - let's be frank here - middle-aged white working class men congratulating him for being in a programme having a go "at them Pakis and them coons."
"No, you moron," he used to reply, "we're making fun of cretins like you."
Heard that story some time a go, and had one of the best laughs I've ever had. Some folk simply don't get satire!!
-
Where and when? With so many alleged examples to choose from it shouldn't be hard for you to provide a link or several.
Cologne for a start. And then from my country, there was a similar incident on New Year's Eve and nemerous rape cases. All these have been widely reported in the press.
-
Would all those that saw that drowned little boy and thought, one less rapist to worry about, or sees any young middle eastern boy as a potential rapist of white European women, please raise your hands. Oh, I see all the staff of that Paris rag CH have their hands up. And their hands are so big the pigeons are landing on them and crapping on their heads.
The Economist arrived today and an article of free speech in Universities.
http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21689603-statement-heart-debate-over-academic-freedom-hard-say
-
...
Jonathan Swift's 'A Modest Proposal' was an essay which proposed the idea of the poverty stricken Irish selling their young children and babies to well off people to be eaten by them in order to ease their own poverty. For me, this is a masterful piece of satire because Swift manages to get over the desperate conditions of the Irish poor, the inclusion of intricate cold hearted detail, and the callousness of the narrator while putting the idea of cannibalism on a seemingly practical commodity level.
My own thoughts on the CH cartoon are as follows. It is a rather ugly and ungainly attempt at being satirical at the temptation to stereotype migrants. It doesn't seem to have the quality of shaming those who hold the views expressed, because one is easily sidetracked by the simple unpleasantness of the juxtaposition of the dead child and the 'groping' adult. Hence it seems to come over as simply being distasteful.
David Aaronovitch tried a take on this in the Times last week, putting an argument that the Syrian refugee crisis could be solved by sinking a few migrant boats:
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/columnists/article4676112.ece
It really doesn't work - it's not funny because it is too close to the lines along which people are thinking. The (il)logic needs to be blatant - as it was in 'Til death ...
-
(had to space the letters as this site wont post certain phrases).....
Sex Exploitation.
sexploitation..
Lets me post your dirty words!!
-
Sex Exploitation.
sexploitation..
Lets me post your dirty words!!
That's odd.
???
-
Cologne for a start. And then from my country, there was a similar incident on New Year's Eve and nemerous rape cases. All these have been widely reported in the press.
Indeed, but so what, frankly? These incidents, however horrible individually, say nothing about all refugees, refugees generally.
Anybody stupid enough to think this way is unlikely to understand that they're committing the fallacy of composition, which is to take something true of part (in this case, a vanishingly small number of refugees) and make it true of the whole (that is to say, all refugees). And that's a very dim way to think indeed.
-
Indeed, but so what, frankly? These incidents, however horrible individually, say nothing about all refugees, refugees generally.
Anybody stupid enough to think this way is unlikely to understand that they're committing the fallacy of composition, which is to take something true of part (in this case, a vanishingly small number of refugees) and make it true of the whole (that is to say, all refugees). And that's a very dim way to think indeed.
No one said all refugees. What is clear, however, and which seems to be ignored by some is the fact those coming from Africa and the Middle-East are many more times likely to commit rape than Europeans.