Is Charlie Hebdo racist?

This irks me a bit. As an anti-racist I fully support racism being called out. But directing it at the wrong targets is no help at all.

Do we need to have this discussion here?

I ask because I suspect it will turn stupid in short order, because this is the internet. We get enough of that on IF-related topics without importing all the others.

The suggestion is on someone’s signature here. Hence the topic appearing here.

I was interested in discussing why Charlie Hebdo using racist imagery in order to attack the French far-right is seen by some as racism by Charlie Hebdo themselves. There-in lies the stupidity you’re keen not to promote.

God forbid we should attempt to discuss something in the off-topic section. I guess we’ve been deemed too stupid to be able to handle it.

“Is X of type Y” is the most simplistic discussion of media one can possibly have. The reality is that human expression is complex enough that it can be both. There are many great discussions and analyses on Charlie Hebdo and terrible clumsy satire in general about how in attempting to subvert or criticize a topic can end up reinforcing that topic. Also see the many discussions about how “appropriation” of specific imagery with a certain intent does not automatically erase the history of that imagery or the gut reaction it invokes. It is not satirical bravery for members of a majority to hold up images that have been used to hurt others, and claim that if you look close enough, you will see their intent was noble.

I am loathe to respond to this in the first place, since you don’t really seem to be looking for a discussion of ideas, you want a coronation of your opinion as Correct and Good. At least, that’s what I gather when you say anyone who comes to a different conclusion than yourself on Charlie Hebdo to be “stupid.”

Why would it be racist?

Does it even make sense to call a magazine “racist” based on what I suspect might be a very small number of cartoons published in it?

Most of all – does it make sense to question the moral stature of an obscure French magazine for no other reason than that a high-profile crime committed against them has garnered them media attention? That seems uncomfortably like discussing the sexual mores of a rape victim. Unnecessary and inappropriate.

He’s on my case for some reason!

I just feel that most non-offensive topics can be discussed in the off-topic section. We are adults and we now have a code of conduct to give us some rails for our discussions. To decide that something shouldn’t be discussed in the off-topic section because it “will get stupid fast” is intolerably insulting.

If you don’t like satire, that’s fine; say so. But attacking a satirical magazine for publishing satirical material is odd, to say the least. Even more so when you’re accusing them of racism based on a publication attacking that very thing.

In short: tropes are bad. But satire can’t exist without them.

let’s face it: that rape victim has been flirting with the enemy and running around half-naked. I’m not apologizing for rape or terrorism, just stating the facts.

There are jokes that are bad, and there are jokes that are ineffective. If you’re asserting that all satire is the same, and anyone with a pencil is equal to Voltaire and Swift because of the author’s intent, then there is no meaningful conversation we can have. “You disagree with me so clearly you hate satire”? Are you serious?

There are articles out there with long winded explanations about the history and context for each of those cartoons, and there’s something to be said for cultural context, but y’know what? If ANY joke, satire or not, needs like a page of explanation backing it up, maybe it’s not a great joke.

It’s always a good look to use rape victims as a tool to get your point across.

It did.

This turns out not to be the case.

This thread has sparked multiple reports and complaints of Code of Conduct violations. Based on the conversation so far, I don’t see it getting any better. I’m going to close this down.