• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Charlie Hebdo cartoon shows drowned Syrian toddler as sex attacker

The cartoon is offensive. It is just as offensive as all those who routinely defend the behavior in question.
 
Gardener said:
The cartoon is offensive. It is just as offensive as all those who routinely defend the behavior in question.
Click to expand...

Defending a cartoon is just as offensive as defending rape? Really now. I didn't know America stood for freedom of rape as well as speech.
 
Serenity said:
I've been a member here for 5 years and I've consistently and frequently shared my distaste for anyone who thinks it's ok to exploit dead kids to further whatever agenda someone is pushing. I'm not ok with that type of behaviour. It may be ridiculous to you but it is just common human decency to me.
Click to expand...

Did you complain when Obama and company were exploiting those kids shot at that school in Newtown to push gun control? How about when the Huffpo kept showing pictures of that drowned kid to garner sympathy for refugees, did you share your distaste for exploiting dead kids then?
 
calamity said:
Defending a cartoon is just as offensive as defending rape? Really now. I didn't know America stood for freedom of rape as well as speech.
Click to expand...

The cartoon is offensive because it seeks to offend. It is crass, exploitive and tasteless.

All those who defend the cultural values that are responsible for the behavior are offensive because they support the degradation of the human condition.

It's a lose/lose situation as far as I'm concerned.
 
Gardener said:
The cartoon is offensive because it seeks to offend. It is crass, exploitive and tasteless.
Click to expand...
As was intended. Obviously, it worked.

All those who defend the cultural values that are responsible for the behavior are offensive because they support the degradation of the human condition.

It's a lose/lose situation as far as I'm concerned.
Click to expand...
Would you rather CH hire a few mercenaries and extract revenge for the murder of their colleagues that way? A cartoon is a rather mild form of retribution, if you ask me.
 
calamity said:
As was intended. Obviously, it worked.


Would you rather CH hire a few mercenaries and extract revenge for the murder of their colleagues that way? A cartoon is a rather mild form of retribution, if you ask me.
Click to expand...

It's almost as if you are arguing with me for not being extreme enough in one direction as all the apologists are in another.

My attitude is that one should be careful not to sink to the same level as those one towards which one objects.
 
CanadaJohn said:
I don't know if too many people noticed, but the left exploited the death of this young child on a regular basis to gin up the need to accept around the world refugees from the conflict in Syria. It was used to shame anyone who opposed the left's cry to open borders widely to accept anyone fleeing the Middle East and Northern Africa. Here in Canada, the Liberals used this young child during our federal election to pummel the sitting Prime Minister and his government by blatantly lying that this child's family had tried to get into Canada and had been denied when that wasn't at all true and used this dead child to claim they would welcome 25,000 refugees from the area by the end of 2015. It was a ludicrous campaign pledge, that proved to be unattainable, but it made the Liberals look more compassionate and generous and many Canadians, who are compassionate and generous at heart, fell for the ploy.

I find that far more disgusting than any cartoon. That's real life exploitation of a child's death and I'm sure the left in Canada was not the only party to use this child in such a disgusting manner.
Click to expand...

I agree that the multicultists exploited the child's death to justify the wholesale transference of enormous numbers of unattached Islamic men into western civilization. They used the child to portray a picture far different than the one that was actually occurring which made it dishonest and manipulative.

By the same token, the cartoon was exploitive because it used the child's death to foster the notion of a certain degree of inevitability in regards to the misogyny. As such, it was dishonest and manipulative.


Instead of taking the position that it is o.k. to be dishonest and manipulative as long as one is exploiting the situation to import mass numbers of young Muslim men or it is o.k. to be dishonest and manipulative to expose the agenda involved, I believe it is better to reject the dishonesty and manipulation across the board.
 
Gardener said:
It's almost as if you are arguing with me for not being extreme enough in one direction as all the apologists are in another.

My attitude is that one should be careful not to sink to the same level as those one towards which one objects.
Click to expand...

No. I am simply saying that slapping back at those who mean you harm with a cartoon is a very mild form of retribution.
 
Serenity said:
This is disgusting and they have seriously crossed a line here. He was an innocent child. There is nothing even remotely funny by exploiting this childs death in such a way.

​
Click to expand...




I think you misunderstand the cartoon. To me it seems to be referencing the ficklness of the audience from "oh poor boy, lets help all the syrians refugees, welcome", to after this new years rapefest "no more rapist immigrants", at the drop of a dime.

I think language and culture of france vs what we view masks that a bit.


That's what I see though.


It's stupid, actually, as it fails to note the people followed thier governments lies until woken up by the islamic reality and have come to thier senses, they paint it as if they are simply following what is being fed to them.
 
ECHR has a few verdicts on such ''freedom of expression'' events; I hope those(all syrians in Europe) who have the right to sue them do so.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
I think you misunderstand the cartoon. To me it seems to be referencing the ficklness of the audience from "oh poor boy, lets help all the syrians refugees, welcome", to after this new years rapefest "no more rapist immigrants", at the drop of a dime.

I think language and culture of france vs what we view masks that a bit.


That's what I see though.


It's stupid, actually, as it fails to note the people followed thier governments lies until woken up by the islamic reality and have come to thier senses, they paint it as if they are simply following what is being fed to them.
Click to expand...

I actually read the cartoon literally: the little imp would have grown up to be a misogynist rapist.
 
Gardener said:
I agree that the multicultists exploited the child's death to justify the wholesale transference of enormous numbers of unattached Islamic men into western civilization. They used the child to portray a picture far different than the one that was actually occurring which made it dishonest and manipulative.

By the same token, the cartoon was exploitive because it used the child's death to foster the notion of a certain degree of inevitability in regards to the misogyny. As such, it was dishonest and manipulative.


Instead of taking the position that it is o.k. to be dishonest and manipulative as long as one is exploiting the situation to import mass numbers of young Muslim men or it is o.k. to be dishonest and manipulative to expose the agenda involved, I believe it is better to reject the dishonesty and manipulation across the board.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree - my point was simply that an editorial or political cartoon never causes me outrage or disgust. The acts of man that may lead to the cartoon or stem from the cartoon, certainly may cause outrage or disgust, but not the cartoon itself. That kind of speech never offends me in the manner outlined in the OP.
 
"The only thing I'm guilty of is bad taste." -Larry Flint
 
CanadaJohn said:
I don't disagree - my point was simply that an editorial or political cartoon never causes me outrage or disgust. The acts of man that may lead to the cartoon or stem from the cartoon, certainly may cause outrage or disgust, but not the cartoon itself. That kind of speech never offends me in the manner outlined in the OP.
Click to expand...

As far as disgust is concerned, mine is directed more towards the actions as well.

The pattern I find here played out over and over and over again, is that more disgust is expressed against those who point to the ingrained misogyny than the actions of the men involved. People are told not to react emotionally to Muslim men raping women, whereupon the person making the suggestion reacts emotionally by ripping people a new one if they do.
 
calamity said:
Did you complain when Obama and company were exploiting those kids shot at that school in Newtown to push gun control?
Click to expand...



Absolutely. Not that this thread has anything to do with that btw. The thread relates to Charlie Hebdo. If you want to talk about Newtown and gun control then start your own thread.

From the "Should the horrific photos of Newtown victims be published?" thread.

Serenity said:
No. There is absolutely no need for anyone to see pictures of these dead children. Publishing the pictures changes nothing.

Anyone who condones shamelessly exploiting dead children to push whatever agenda they are peddling needs to have a good look at themselves. Stop trying to claim the moral high ground by clambering onto the corpses of children, it's disgusting.
Click to expand...
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
maybe, but the hedbo crowd tries to be more "clever" I think anyway.
Click to expand...

I definitely agree with your interpretation. I just saw it more literal, which makes sense, since I am a rather straight forward thinker by trade.
 
Serenity said:
- There is nothing even remotely funny by exploiting this childs death in such a way.
Click to expand...

Political cartoons are not always trying to be funny; sometimes a cartoonist may be saying something else. I think the good Rev Hellhound is closest to the mark regarding what the point is - especially with regard to the French psyche.

Andalublue said:
- It seems a bit ironic that in using and abusing the refugees fleeing from Syria, Charlie Hebdo would appear to be finding common cause with ISIL -
Click to expand...

You could lay that charge at anyone then from Donald Trump whose use and abuse of refugees is open and easily understood; to ISIL and similar groups whose use may be more covert and financially driven to anyone who has lumped all refugees into suspected jihadis.

Pretty much anyone using the suffering of others to promote their own cause, position and belief is doing this. Even those of us who think the influx of huge numbers of refugees into Europe is a mistake unless we can make sure they can be returned without huge legal bills are using and abusing the refugees themselves.
Equally, those who argue that the influx is something we should do or allow on humane grounds are using and abusing refugees for our own ends and beliefs.
 
When visiting Paris I'd occasionally amuse myself by grabbing a copy. More often than not I didn't. Mainly because I'd find some of the stuff funny, much mediocre and a lot of it completely bypassing whatever sense of humor I might possess.

Learning that the only consistency of CH was in absolutely not avoiding any line that was (is) there to cross.

What gets missed in the controversy over this one (perhaps out of being not sufficiently familiar with CH's "style") is that the cartoon satirizes European anti-refugee feelings to the point of insinuating that the owners of such sentiment would consider even a kid as a future potential threat to European women (but for the grace of having conveniently drowned).

Oh yes, there are people who not only think that but actually say it out loud, perhaps not with regard to this particular child but nevertheless advocating that anyone who drowns in the Med. is one more potential problem solved.

That said, if satire is supposed to extort at least a chuckle at the target of the satire, my humor level doesn't seem that good with this one.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
I think you misunderstand the cartoon. To me it seems to be referencing the ficklness of the audience from "oh poor boy, lets help all the syrians refugees, welcome", to after this new years rapefest "no more rapist immigrants", at the drop of a dime.

I think language and culture of france vs what we view masks that a bit.
Click to expand...
gave this post a like for what it shows up to here. You seen to have understood the cartoon's intent.
It's stupid, actually, as it fails to note the people followed thier governments lies until woken up by the islamic reality and have come to thier senses, they paint it as if they are simply following what is being fed to them.
Click to expand...
Here I'd say you're misreading actual events. The anti-refugee sentiment addressed is a lot older than the recent Cologne thing and it's held primarily by the neo-Nazi rabble that has always held it and always will.

The majority of Germans and French do not take the Cologne thing as motive to now share into a general xenophobia.
 
Chagos said:
gave this post a like for what it shows up to here. You seen to have understood the cartoon's intent.
Here I'd say you're misreading actual events. The anti-refugee sentiment addressed is a lot older than the recent Cologne thing and it's held primarily by the neo-Nazi rabble that has always held it and always will.

The majority of Germans and French do not take the Cologne thing as motive to now share into a general xenophobia.
Click to expand...




I think like in the USA it's held by a lot more people than the media and governments care to admit. I know for example even suggesting that immigrants should not be there (germany) can get you in a heap of legal trouble.


You see merkel in trouble now with her own party as she tries to backtrack on her open door policy.


It's not xenophobia, it's about importing people who follow a mysoginistic religion and have no desire to assimilate into the nation they immigrate to.


Let me ask you a question, If all these people were not Muslim but belonged to a political party that advocated the killing of gays, stoning of women adulterers, making rape victims marry thier rapists, and implementing a set of laws based on this parties ideology?

What would you say? what would you call them?


Would you still be as accepting?
 
Last edited:
To me, it simply links the polar views on refugees. Those that see absolutely 'NO' harm in welcoming thousands-upon-thousands, and those that want to welcome none, at all. Using the boy as the 'provocative' part, in keeping with the CH style. The fear part, is simply not knowing how many of these refugees will turn out; again, one camp suggests a bleak future, others suggest they'll melt into society, all hunky dory. But ultimately, it has people talking about CH again.
 
Infinite Chaos said:
You could lay that charge at anyone then from Donald Trump whose use and abuse of refugees is open and easily understood; to ISIL and similar groups whose use may be more covert and financially driven to anyone who has lumped all refugees into suspected jihadis.
Click to expand...
Yes, you could and with good reason.

Equally, those who argue that the influx is something we should do or allow on humane grounds are using and abusing refugees for our own ends and beliefs.
Click to expand...
No, I don't quite get that. Could you explain a little more what you mean?

'...for our own ends and beliefs.' What ends and beliefs are you referring to? I don't agree with allowing huge numbers of refugees into the EU because I think it benefits Europe to do so. Quite the opposite. I think it costs Europe quite a lot to do so, not just economically, but in terms of social unrest, difficulties in assimilation and community cohesion and the like.

Are there those who believe in accommodating refugees in order to further some kind of agenda of dilution of ethnicities, or undermining social cohesion? I really don't think so. I think most people who accept that those refugees arriving have to be welcomed and accommodated do so because they recognise that these are fellow human beings in desperate need for asylum from murder, hardship and genocide.
 
ReverendHellh0und said:
I think like in the USA it's held by a lot more people than the media and governments care to admit. I know for example even suggesting that immigrants should not be there (germany) can get you in a heap of legal trouble.


You see merkel in trouble now with her own party as she tries to backtrack on her open door policy.


It's not xenophobia, it's about importing people who follow a mysoginistic religion and have no desire to assimilate into the nation they immigrate to.


Let me ask you a question, If all these people were not Muslim but belonged to a political party that advocated the killing of gays, stoning of women adulterers, making rape victims marry thier rapists, and implementing a set of laws based on this parties ideology?

What would you say? what would you call them?


Would you still be as accepting?
Click to expand...

The trouble you have, is defining 'assimilate'. It means something very different to some people. To me, after extensive study on the UK model of multiculturalism, we've got it terribly wrong. But others suggest, 'we are exposed to different cuisine' or 'high streets have been reinvigorated' etc. but if you scratch below the surface, society is fragmented and dis-unified. The UK has been living a lie, and only now are we waking up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom