27
   

Is This Cartoon Racist?

 
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Feb, 2009 07:48 pm
@old europe,
Not similar scenarios. Sarah Palin had used the lipstick on a pittbull metaphor in her now famous speech at the GOP convention. The newspapers were filled with political cartoons of lipstick on this or that, mostly pittbulls, and Sarah was characterized and lampooned as a pittbull over and over again.

If Barack Obama had been referred to as a chimpanzee or characterized that way over and over again in the newspapers prior to this dead chimpanzee incident, then I would agree 100% that the cartoonist could not have meant anything other than the same kind of lampoon. That was not the case, however.

Also Obama completed the line about lipstick on a pig with the metaphor of the eight-year-old fish which, however he did or did not intend that, made it worse. Had the cartoonist referenced ANYTHING that had been inferred, joked about, or characterized re Barack Obama in that cartoon, then all of your accusations could have merit.

But he didn't. And they don't.

The cartoonist has made it clear since all the bruhaha started that the cartoon was not directed at the President. Barack Obama refused to apologize or explain the lipstick on the pig other than to say that John McCain had also used the metaphor one time in a speech.

It is a common metaphor and would have meant nothing without all the lipstick on a pitbull bruhaha and without the audience's obvious delight when they picked up on that during Obama's speech. He should have stopped right there and made it perfectly clear that he was not casting any aspersion on the vice-presidential nominee. He didn't

HOWEVER. . . .

If you insist on making these scenarios the same, please post your and Kicky's scathing criticism of Barack Obama for his disrespectful remarks at that time. Otherwise, how can you be so critical of a cartoonist for a far less provocative offense?
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Feb, 2009 07:53 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Quote:
They just knew there was a plausible excuse. They knew that they could rely on people like you guys to defend them. It's how the modern quasi-racist operates: put out some racially tinged material, get people to react, and then attack them for reacting, accusing them of racism for noticing what the artist and paper were originally intending to do - rile people up with race baiting.


One can defend the right for a racist to speak without defending the racist or racism. All of these people who want to tell others what to think and what they are aloud to say piss me the **** off. I will have none of that nonsense, they can take their delusions of a sanitized humanity and go straight to hell.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Feb, 2009 07:57 pm
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
They just knew there was a plausible excuse. They knew that they could rely on people like you guys to defend them. It's how the modern quasi-racist operates: put out some racially tinged material, get people to react, and then attack them for reacting, accusing them of racism for noticing what the artist and paper were originally intending to do - rile people up with race baiting.


One can defend the right for a racist to speak without defending the racist or racism. All this people who want to tell others what to think and what they are aloud to say piss be the **** off. I will have not of that nonsense, they can take their delusions of a sanitized humanity and go straight to hell.


Hey, I agree. But this is a different argument than saying that the cartoon isn't racist at all when it clearly is.

People can say what they want when they want, but everyone else has a right to comment on it all they like as well.

Cycloptichorn
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Feb, 2009 07:58 pm
You conveiniantly omited that McCain made the exact same metaphor. Quite frankly you gain nothing for defending this crap. I guess this comic is pretty important to you.

That or you just are fighting for the hell of it. In simple terms this comic offended a lot of people. I don't think there is something wrong with THEM.

T
K
O
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Mon 23 Feb, 2009 08:01 pm
Wow . . . reading Hawkeye's post, i wonder if he was spraying spittle all over the screen of his CRT when he was posting that . . . that was hilarious . . .
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Feb, 2009 08:02 pm
@maporsche,
maporsche wrote:
Personally, I didn't care about the Palin pig comment, and I don't care about the Chimp/Stimulus bill comment. I see hypocrisy though on both sides.


I can certainly agree with that...


0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Feb, 2009 08:02 pm
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:

Not similar scenarios. Sarah Palin had used the lipstick on a pittbull metaphor in her now famous speech at the GOP convention. The newspapers were filled with political cartoons of lipstick on this or that, mostly pittbulls, and Sarah was characterized and lampooned as a pittbull over and over again.

If Barack Obama had been referred to as a chimpanzee or characterized that way over and over again in the newspapers prior to this dead chimpanzee incident, then I would agree 100% that the cartoonist could not have meant anything other than the same kind of lampoon. That was not the case, however.


Oh, it was quite popular to call him that amongst the racist crowd.

http://blogs.bet.com/news/newsyoushouldknow/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/obama-monkey-shirt.jpg

http://aryanwear.com/images/obama-monkey-shirt.jpg

http://functionalambivalent.typepad.com/.a/6a00d83452032669e200e5534e24768833-800pi

Enough, Fox.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Feb, 2009 08:03 pm
@Diest TKO,
No I didn't. As I said, Obama referred to that and I acknowledged that it is a common metaphor and, in a different setting and with a different kind of news coverage and with a different audience, it would have meant nothing more than a common metaphor and I would have objected to anybody drawing any other conclusion from that.

John McCain's use of the metaphor was well before the convention and well before Sarah Palin was even a serious suggestion as the vice presidential nominee. He used it as the metaphor was intended. Barack Obama may have intended to do that too, but when it was obvious the audience didn't take it that way, he should have fixed it right then and there. He didn't.

To Cyclop, those T-shirts etc. are absolutely disgusting. Must be made by the same folks who portrayed George Bush that way all those years. Why do you thnk one was racist and the other not though?
Setanta
 
  3  
Reply Mon 23 Feb, 2009 08:04 pm
@Foxfyre,
Quote:
But he won't post the many times that I have defended Barack Obama or Bill Clinton when they have been quoted out of context or accused of saying something that they have not.


Well, if that's true, it would be far easier for you to look up and quote those posts, and link them. In fact, it would make more sense, since you are making the claim. By the way, what constitutes "many times?" Twice, three times, four?

Why don't you put your money where your mouth is, and show us the posts?
kickycan
 
  2  
Reply Mon 23 Feb, 2009 08:04 pm
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:
HOWEVER. . . .

If you insist on making these scenarios the same, please post your and Kicky's scathing criticism of Barack Obama for his disrespectful remarks at that time. Otherwise, how can you be so critical of a cartoonist for a far less provocative offense?



Everything you said up until "HOWEVER. . . ." is a lot of unrelated tangential horseshit designed to distract from the fact that you are being a hypocrite, so I'll just respond to this part.

I don't recall any scathing criticism on my part either time. At the time when Obama made those comments, I remember saying something along the lines of I thought he probably meant to call her a pig and knew how to do it cleverly enough to get away with it.

In this case, all I said is "of course the ******* thing is racist." I never gave any opinion as whether I thought it was bad, good, funny, etc.

Thanks for asking, hypocrite.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Mon 23 Feb, 2009 08:05 pm
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:

Quote:
But he won't post the many times that I have defended Barack Obama or Bill Clinton when they have been quoted out of context or accused of saying something that they have not.


Well, if that's true, it would be far easier for you to look up and quote those posts, and link them. In fact, it would make more sense, since you are making the claim. By the way, what constitutes "many times?" Twice, three times, four?

Why don't you put your money where your mouth is, and show us the posts?


C'mon Set, she obviously doesn't have time for THAT...

Cycloptichorn Wink
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  0  
Reply Mon 23 Feb, 2009 08:08 pm
And to Setanta and Kicky, I don't care what either of you think. You can blow it out your ear for all I care. I prefer to have conversations with people who know how to have one without being cruel and hateful, thank you very much.
old europe
 
  2  
Reply Mon 23 Feb, 2009 08:09 pm
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:
He should have stopped right there and made it perfectly clear that he was not casting any aspersion on the vice-presidential nominee. He didn't


No, he didn't immediately interrupt his speech to declare that he was referring to McCain's economic plans rather than to Palin.

I still find it funny that you choose to be so outraged by that. I didn't see you being that outraged when McPalin supporters where shouting "terrorist", and Palin just carried on with her bit.


It's mostly your blatant hypocrisy that is so amusing.

However, I did a quick search just to be able to post this video here, with Obama clarifying his 'lipstick' comments...:

Diest TKO
 
  3  
Reply Mon 23 Feb, 2009 08:09 pm
@Foxfyre,
Cool fox. I totally understand. You make yourself perfectly clear. Two people saying the same words means something different if you don't like one of them. As per your own post and then cyclos you have backed yourself in a corner.

Either entertain us with your usual backpeddal song and dance or have some dignity and conceed the point YOU made.

T
K
O
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Feb, 2009 08:10 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Quote:
People can say what they want when they want, but everyone else has a right to comment on it all they like as well


and people can believe what they want. We are not Borg. If a person believes that blacks are inferior to whites you and I can tell than that we don't agree, that we think they are wrong, and why, .....but when we get it into our head that they have to agree with us then we have gone off the rails of civility. That is barbaric.
Foxfyre
 
  0  
Reply Mon 23 Feb, 2009 08:10 pm
@Diest TKO,
No Diest......that is not what I made clear at all. But keep trying. One of these days you'll actually read and understand what you're reading.
Foxfyre
 
  0  
Reply Mon 23 Feb, 2009 08:12 pm
@old europe,
I wasn't outraged. I was having a perfectly calm, civil, and reasonable conversation with some folks at the time and wasn't accusing then Senator Obama of anything more than an ill advised metaphor and then allowing the audience to be cruel to Sarah Palin and actually enjoying it. It's really hard to have calm, civil, and reasoned conversations with sanctimonious, self-righteous, self-important numbnuts who use unkind ad hominem to accuse those with whom they disagree though. Don't you think?
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Feb, 2009 08:16 pm
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
People can say what they want when they want, but everyone else has a right to comment on it all they like as well


and people can believe what they want. We are not Borg. If a person believes that blacks are inferior to whites you and I can tell than that we don't agree, that we think they are wrong, and why, .....but when we get it into our head that they have to agree with us then we have gone off the rails of civility. That is barbaric.


We have every right to condemn their viewpoints. And to point out that the type of person who believes things like that is not the type of person who we want running things or receiving our acclaim in any way.

They don't have to agree with us, but they can keep their hateful beliefs out of the public discourse or suffer the consequences of having people think that it is in fact they who are inferior...

Cycloptichorn
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Feb, 2009 08:17 pm
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:

No Diest......that is not what I made clear at all. But keep trying. One of these days you'll actually read and understand what you're reading.


No dignity fox.

Lecture me about comprehension after learning a lesson or two on composition. You very literally hold obamas statement in contemp when it's verbaim he same metaphor McCain used.

You're such a hypocrite.

T
K
O
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Mon 23 Feb, 2009 08:18 pm
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:

I wasn't outraged. I was having a perfectly calm, civil, and reasonable conversation with some folks at the time and wasn't accusing then Senator Obama of anything more than an ill advised metaphor and then allowing the audience to be cruel to Sarah Palin and actually enjoying it. It's really hard to have calm, civil, and reasoned conversations with sanctimonious, self-righteous, self-important numbnuts who use unkind ad hominem to accuse those with whom they disagree though. Don't you think?


Fox, nobody uses ad hominem arguments with you based on the fact that they disagree with you...

I'm really surprised that you don't get that part.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

2016 moving to #1 spot - Discussion by gungasnake
Black Lives Matter - Discussion by TheCobbler
Racism? - Question by The UPS Man
Is 'colored people' offensive? - Question by SMickey
Obama’s Black Skin Privilege - Discussion by coldjoint
Obama, a Joke - Discussion by coldjoint
The Day Ferguson Cops Were Caught in a Bloody Lie - Discussion by bobsal u1553115
The ECHR and muslims - Discussion by Arend
Atlanta Race Riot 1906 - Discussion by kobereal24
Quote of the Day - Discussion by Tabludama
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 01/20/2022 at 05:22:55