Here is the history of this sort of agitprop interestingly termed as "satire". Inevitably, the purpose of this sort of rabble rousing is to leverage the unthinking ballast of so-called "Humanity" to affect perceptual change in the collective. I find it interesting that New Yorker is confusing its adjectives. The cartoons were, it would seem, an expression of "hate". The violent response the desired "violent response" by equally ignorant bipeds. Kindly note that this is not a note of support for either of these truly irresponsible ideologues.
Thanks for the links. I was unaware of the history. I also find it strange that the word "satire" has been appropriated by every news source reporting on the CH killings. Every time someone makes fun of something, it doesn't automatically count as satire. IMO, the best satire comes from a place of understanding or empathy with the subject of ridicule. I don't have a deep knowledge of CH and their cartoons, as I never even heard of it until last week, but my cursory scroll through their images doesn't lead me to believe that they are a "satirical magazine", as so often has been repeated. That doesn't make me sympathize with the victims any less, but it does make me pity the hapless media just a bit more than I already do.