Satire Does Not Always Involve Humor. The Most Powerful Satire Never Does.

[MADem]

145. Everyone keeps saying that, and they can only come up with one post that

can be taken a number of ways. Saying "I wouldn't advise it" is not "victim blaming." That's simply a personal opinion.

I will reiterate--assessing RISK is not the same as victim blaming. There was risk. Great risk--and now is as good a time to talk about it as any. Anyone who pretends that discussing risk is somehow "unseemly" is whistling in the dark. The dead are past caring and they understood the risk better than people on DU seem to. Even the publisher--who was gunned down--not just understood it, but articulated it. I find it odd that people are denying what is so painfully obvious.

The publisher's very last cartoon before he was gunned down "poked the hornet's nest." It noted there hadn't been any terrorists with machine guns attacking in France yet, and predicted that there'd be an attack before the end of January.

The guy was right--he might not have sensed that the attack would be against his offices, but he was right about there being an attack using AK-47s in January.

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-editor-of-charlie-hebdos-last-cartoon-is-tragically-prescient-2015-1

"Still no terrorist attacks in France," the top of the cartoon drawn for the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo reads.

The subject of the cartoon, a befuddled man with loopy eyes and what appears to be an AK-47 on his back, butts in: "Wait! We have until the end of January to present our wishes."

AK-47s were used on the attack targeting Charlie Hebdo's offices in eastern Paris. The three gunmen killed 12 people, including two police officers, and injured five before fleeing the scene.

In 2012, Charbonnier, also known as "Charb," told Le Monde he was "not afraid of retaliation. I have no kids, no wife, no car, no mortgage. It may come off as a bit arrogant but I'd rather die on my feet than live on my knees."

Now, then--is it "victim blaming" when the victim, himself, notes the absence of an attack in France, indicates the possibility of one in this very month, through a cartoon of a terrorist with a machine gun? This is a victim who indicated that he didn't fear retaliation--not that he didn't anticipate it, find it possible, or rule it out-- but he didn't fear it. He had done a risk assessment, and he was willing to shoulder the risk--but he didn't deny there was risk.

I haven't seen any "victim vilifying" either--not a single post "vilifying" any of the dead. I've seen plenty that have a lot to say about the perpetrators, though, with some advocating return of the death penalty to France. Is that "perpetrator vilifying" to convict the gunmen ahead of a trial, or is it just applying common sense opinion to a tragedy?

These guys in that office DIED because they refused to modulate their viewpoints. I think it's funny as hell, frankly, that people here are accusing people discussing this tragedy of "victim blaming" and trying to silence them for expressing their views about the tragedy, the cartoons, the judgment in publishing them. It's a bit convoluted, really. "No one is allowed to opine about the advisability or inadvisability of censorship of viewpoints....you are being CENSORED from conversations of that nature!!" I don't think those guys died so people on DU can say "Stop saying that!"