Charlie Hebdo, is cartoon on a dead baby really satire?

[lego 44,165]

Were you against newspapers publishing the photo? If papers can publish and make it famous, surely it can appear in a cartoon?

It's not the same. Nothing says satire like dead body of a child, right?

Surely you'd defend Iranian contest for satirical Holocaust cartoons? Or if someone uses 9/11 victims in satirical cartoon? 

[Paco 3,040]

They didn't have to draw his dead body to convey any kind of message. It's disgusting and tasteless.

Since only his father is alive, ask him how he feels about it?

This is only meant to shock. Nothing else.

As far as i'm concerned they can draw whatever they want , a dead body, or the prophet muhammad.

What is important is the message behind it, and here it's clearly not to mock the dead kid himself at all. Charlie Hebdo is a satirical magazine, getting messages through shock since they exist, and they have been criticizing religions and societies, which they are doing now, criticizing the society, not the poor kid. They're clearly mocking the society barely giving a crap about the migrants, and just caring about themselves.

But you didnt understand that a few months ago, so why would you now?  

[lego 44,165]

As far as i'm concerned they can draw whatever they want , a dead body, or the prophet muhammad.

What is important is the message behind it, and here it's clearly not to mock the dead kid himself at all. Charlie Hebdo is a satirical magazine, getting messages through shock since they exist, and they have been criticizing religions and societies, which they are doing now, criticizing the society, not the poor kid. They're clearly mocking the society barely giving a crap about the migrants, and just caring about themselves.

But you didnt understand that a few months ago, so why would you now?  

I understand very well, I just don't agree with you.

They don't care about immigrants either, that is all BS, cartoons of pregnant boko haram slave girls on social benefits were so funny. Ha-ha. Not.

You didn't answer my question. How do you think his father feels about this? 

Or was that your answer - "don't care"?  Ok.

[Dramatica 13,698]

I don't think it's offensive, yet I don't think it was necessary to draw the little kid. There are multiple ways to make your voice heard while being considerate of other fellow humans.

[Didymus 34,380]

Can you please change the title though? I mean it's so obvious that the intention of the cartoon isn't to mock the grief and struggle of refugees (actually its intention is to highlight it in extremely painful and confronting ways) that it's just misleading and inappropriate.

[Benji 20,113]

You would be, if it was your kid. And whole world is like "relax, you didn't get the joke - are you stupid?"

But it's not my kid and it isn't yours? You can't decide what's offensive for other people and even if you are personally offended... so what? You are not this child's parents 

The cartoon is literally mocking our culture, not the child or their culture so take that emotion you're apparently feeling and channel it into what they're trying to spell out to you. They're angry the child died, hence the cartoon.

[lego 44,165]

Can you please change the title though? I mean it's so obvious that the intention of the cartoon isn't to mock the grief and struggle of refugees (actually its intention is to highlight it in extremely painful and confronting ways) that it's just misleading and inappropriate.

The original title of the article is there now.

Are you happy? 

[Dramatica 13,698]

Can you please change the title though? I mean it's so obvious that the intention of the cartoon isn't to mock the grief and struggle of refugees (actually its intention is to highlight it in extremely painful and confronting ways) that it's just misleading and inappropriate.

I recall that Charlie Hebdo are a part of the extreme-left politics in France, so I strongly believe their intentions were NOT to mock the death of a human being. But you know, one picture, different interpretations, that's art right there 

[lego 44,165]

But it's not my kid and it isn't yours? You can't decide what's offensive for other people and even if you are personally offended... so what? You are not this child's parents 

The cartoon is literally mocking our culture, not the child or their culture so take that emotion you're apparently feeling and channel it into what they're trying to spell out to you. They're angry the child died, hence the cartoon.

 

So if it's not yours or mine, but it's someone else's so it must be ok?

Are you not able to put yourself in someone else's shoes?

 

They are not angry at anything, it's a trash paper with aim to shock and offend, that's how they sell their magazine.

 

[Paco 3,040]

I understand very well, I just don't agree with you.

They don't care about immigrants either, that is all BS, cartoons of pregnant boko haram slave girls on social benefits were so funny. Ha-ha. Not.

You didn't answer my question. How do you think his father feels about this? 

Or was that your answer - "don't care"?  Ok.

They do care, they're criticizing the society that doesnt care about emigrants, if they didnt care they wouldnt have drawn about it.

How do you think his father feels about the picture of his drowned baby being on the cover of every magazine and being all over the news? it's no different

My answer is that maybe drawing the dead baby may be undelicate, but it is NOT mocking the kid at all.

 

[Didymus 34,380]

The original title of the article is there now.

Are you happy? 

Yeah, I am Thanks.

[Benji 20,113]

 

So if it's not yours or mine, but it's someone else's so it must be ok?

Are you not able to put yourself in someone else's shoes?

 

They are not angry at anything, it's a trash paper with aim to shock and offend, that's how they sell their magazine.

 

Pot and kettle. You're questioning my ability to look from a different perspective then post "They are not angry at anything, it's a trash paper with aim to shock and offend, that's how they sell their magazine."

Imagine if the death of your child became the image that changed the world. It guaranteed the protection of your neighbours, it made people question the world they live in where a crisis was being silenced.... A death, especially a child's is horrific, but at least he did not die in vain.

[Voltaire 4,531]

It's supposed to be uncomfortable. It's supposed to make you feel queasy. It's supposed to make you angry. It's intention may even be to make you cry.

The outrage to be had isn't that the poor little child is drawn on a piece of paper. The outrage is that a real little boy actually did die as depicted, and he isn't the only one.

Be outraged that more will take issue with a cartoon than they will about a boy, a human being, having politics placed above his life.

Anything that points that we as a human race should be ashamed that our reaction to lives isn't to save them first and ask political questions later is a good thing to me. When someone is drowning, you don't stop and wonder if your phone will get ruined in your pocket if you dive in. You solve that f*cking problem later.

Save the d*mn lives; and then I don't care what they print in the papers to get that point across.

 

[River 127,329]

Sorry but what everybody did, from the media to the people was to use the baby for their agenda.

They used the baby as a tool without any respect to his body, human rights and his death rights.

They simply "raped" him and his body, it's even worst than death.

After few hours, I said, enough, really, show some respect to him, but the media and the people kept using his image over and over....

Finally someone speaks and tells everybody - you are wrong, stop using the tragedy of the family and the death of the baby for your agenda, and show some little respect to him.

What those cartoons did is to simply show you how everybody acted.

May he rest in peace.

[lego 44,165]

Pot and kettle. You're questioning my ability to look from a different perspective then post "They are not angry at anything, it's a trash paper with aim to shock and offend, that's how they sell their magazine."

Imagine if the death of your child became the image that changed the world. It guaranteed the protection of your neighbours, it made people question the world they live in where a crisis was being silenced.... A death, especially a child's is horrific, but at least he did not die in vain.

 

Nothing has really changed. Same people who were always against refugees blamed his parents for his death and "being greedy".

Some others were like "oh so sad" then forgot about it next week.

And I wouldn't like my dead child's body to be drawn like that with "Promotion: Two children for the price of one" sign. 

It's not smart nor funny. And I'm tired of pretentious people who think you're dumb if you don't find it funny.