People have to be taught to view women as possessions with no rights of their own.
Blame the people who teach that principal, not the cartoonists who mock it.

i'm pretty sure that the cartoon mocks people who believe that all migrants think this way, trip.

Thoughts?

Good for them to continue to mock the absurd things in society despite the attack they faced the previous year.

Good that they make the news with a mocking cartoon that doesn't concern the Islam, as well.

I've seen another translation from the story below

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/charlie-hebdo-alan-kurdi-cartoon-1.3403085

"Migrants, what would little Aylan have become if he had grown up? A bum groper in Germany."

I'm not sure how that would be mocking people who believe all Muslims are evil, and I haven't seen any outrage from that group, but you're free to believe what you'd like.

i don't know how you think that satire works, but ridiculing beliefs of groups by turning them into extremes is very common.

kas, I have two questions:

1) Why do I have to be ignorant of something to believe what I do?

2) If you're only interested in your own opinion, why ask for other's thoughts?

@trip: There's no "migrants" in that sentence. The other relevant difference seems to be 'bum groper' as opposed to 'groper'. I don't know what translation would be best, but that kind of nuance is typically quite context-y so I would think both translations are fine.

Oh, a larger picture actually shows that it's titled 'Migrants'. That's still an important difference, since putting it in the sentence like you did frames it to be an attack on migrants, rather than ridiculing an opinion about migrants.

I'm not accusing you of framing it, to be clear, but it should be useful to be aware of the difference.

steephie: OK. I know diddly squat about French, and whether or not the word "migrants" was used doesn't really change anything.

So what was the point of posting your other translation?

In my opinion, having the word "migrant" in the title, or anywhere else, isn't needed to figure out who the cartoon was directed towards. I added the other quote because I don't know who had the right quote and figured at some point a person who speaks French would straighten it out. Thank you.

Okay.

So you think it's more likely that a satirical magazine is serious about having a radical point of view, rather than it being satire?
I'm not sure whether I've had a hostile tone in my past posts, but I'm genuinely trying to figure out why you think that.

No hostility, just a conversation. I only asked kas those questions because he felt the need to make it about me.

Does one of us have to be wrong?

I may need a sec on that last part. Please hold.

Heh. In the US, this line would be at the end of a long thinkpiece excoriating people who lack empathy for migrants, making the sarcasm blindingly obvious. Or it'd be an Onion comic, and similarly telegraphed, for the sake of the irredeemably dim. Good on Charlie Hebdo for aiming a little higher with their satire.

Shit, dinner.

This is going to be a long hold.

trip, the reason i opened this thread was because i was convinced that it was glaringly obvious what the comic was mocking, with charlie hebdo being extremely left wing and so on. but earlier this day i found out that not everyone understood it the was i did, so i wondered what webdip had to say about it. that's all. i wasn't suggesting that you're ignorant of the meaning of the word satire (it sounded a bit like that, apologies), it just felt really obvious to me.

if a right-wing blog would post that same comic, but with the punchline that he'd become a student of gender studies of something like that, no one would be thinking that they find it funny because they think it's true, but because they accuse their opponents of suggesting exactly that (that he'd become a student of gender studies).

I saw it as a satire of the effects of the rape culture that is prevalent in many places that migrants are coming from.

Honestly, the more I think about it, the more I believe the cartoon was done so it could be viewed in a variety of ways.

The right-wing blog equivalent of this comic's satire would use a video of a Muslim beheading Christians as the insert image, and (as kasimax suggests) a gender studies class as the main image. The implication would be that bleeding-heart left-wingers think all these radical terrorists need is passage to Europe and they'll automagically become European left-wingers themselves.

Of course, a right-wing blog is equally likely to just post a serious equivalent of the above comic. For example:
https://goo.gl/7DtKBQ
(Translation courtesy of an anonymous Quora user: "I want to live a safe and clean life, eat gourmet food, go out, wear pretty things, and live a luxurious life… all at the expense of someone else. I have an idea. I'll become a refugee.")

Why not both?

I think one should look at the net effect, which clearly seems to be that people find an extreme-right-wing view appalling, so the cartoon strikes a blow against the extreme right wing.

Does that make sense? It seems extremely unlikely that anyone would vote extreme-right-wing because 'yeah this comic is right!'.

I don't rule out the possibility that I'm delusional though, which trip has so kindly pointed out to me :-)

Looks to me like a cynical attempt at self promotion that has caused a huge amount of distress to the young lad's family.

That's an acceptable explanation for me as well.

At the end of the day satire does not have to be offensive..if something can be viewed easily as offensive by a substantial amount of people then it is offensive. I do not think Charlie are an effective source to enlighten the world .

Their cartoons ( regarding drowned children) and the response last year ( to the Allah cartoon) were both disgusting acts of base humanity.

Divisiveness is not the way forward that I though was patently obvious.

Just my 2 cents worth..

but what conclusions do you draw from this? sure they're offensive, probably to many, but what do you want to do about that. you can simply refuse to read it.

I agree with Smokey Gem. That said, one might expect that Charlie Hebbo would have a strikingly dark sense of humor given what happened.

Kasimax, I don't think you can always refuse to read these cartoons given they make headlines often.. What you can do is denounce it for being tasteless, which is effective in itself. Not violently, but I also agree with Gem.

Most Charlie Hebdo stuff isn't even funny. At least this one was funny, if tasteless, but no one should be shot over it.

In this thread: kids attempt to establish the absolute truth about completely subjective matters. Ain't they cute!