27
   

Is This Cartoon Racist?

 
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Feb, 2009 08:20 pm
No I do get it Cyclop. I get it from those two most of the time if there is any interaction at all and from you often enough to make it impossible not to get it. But it's okay. I'm used to it from people who have absolutely no other ammunition to use to debate but who desperately want to have something to say. I guess everybody needs a hobby.

You didn't answer my question though. Why is Barack Obama portrayed as a chimp racist after eight years of portraying George W. Bush as a chimp? Please explain that to me.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Feb, 2009 08:22 pm
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:

No I do get it Cyclop. I get it from those two most of the time and from you often enough to make it impossible not to get it. But it's okay. I'm used to it from people who have absolutely no other ammunition to use to debate but who desperately want to have something to say. I guess everybody needs a hobby.


Well, I understand that you say you get it, but the things you say make it seem like you don't, in fact, understand what I was saying.

You will note that there are others who have different ideological positions than the posters in question, and yet they don't (or rarely) seem to get into the sorts of conflicts you do. What is the difference between your posts and theirs? I am quite interested to know your answer to this question.

Cycloptichorn
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Feb, 2009 08:22 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Quote:
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...


No way, if their "hateful" beliefs are inferior as you believe than you should be able to make a better argument. If you can't then maybe it is you who is wrong. Everybody must be allowed their chance to say their piece, to attempt to build a majority around their ideas, no matter how much you hate them or their ideas.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Feb, 2009 08:23 pm
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
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...


No way, if their "hateful" beliefs are inferior as you believe than you should be able to make a better argument. If you can't then maybe it is you who is wrong. Everybody must be allowed their chance to say their piece, to attempt to build a majority around their ideas, no matter how much you hate them or their ideas.


What 'argument' are you referring to?

The concept that humans from all races are equal in ability?

This is also turning out to be a quite interesting conversation, I must say.

Cycloptichorn
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Feb, 2009 08:24 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Yeah, I probably should learn to be a dipshit like some and probably people wouldn't think being unkind was so much fun. Just isn't fun for me though. So I'll pass.

Are you going to answer my question or aren't you?
old europe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Feb, 2009 08:29 pm
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:
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?


Irony?
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Feb, 2009 08:31 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Quote:
What 'argument' are you referring to?

The concept that humans from all races are equal in ability


any. Trying to shout down and/or punish racists, homophobs, socialists..whomever....is barbaric. If a person acts upon those beliefs in such a way that they violate the rights of others then you can take action, but not before. You don't have the right to demand that your beliefs go unchallenged, no matter how much you feel that the alternate argument to yours is inferior or contemptible.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Feb, 2009 08:32 pm
@old europe,
If you can find anywhere that I've followed you around specfically to attempt to embarrass you or make ad hominem comments about you or claimed any moral superiority about anything to anybody here, or based any argument on ad hominem criteria, I will publically and profusely apologize. Go for it.
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Feb, 2009 08:38 pm
@Foxfyre,
And OE, for that matter, if you can find any place that I've ever insulted or been unkind to anybody here other than in self defense, I will hugely publically and profusely apologize.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Feb, 2009 08:44 pm
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:

Yeah, I probably should learn to be a dipshit like some and probably people wouldn't think being unkind was so much fun. Just isn't fun for me though. So I'll pass.

Are you going to answer my question or aren't you?


You might want to be careful with your edits of your posts, Fox, if you plan on going around giving people a hard time.

This question -

Quote:

You didn't answer my question though. Why is Barack Obama portrayed as a chimp racist after eight years of portraying George W. Bush as a chimp? Please explain that to me.


was not in your post when I responded to it, 2 minutes after you posted it. I never saw it. Try preview!

(Only one r, please.)

But to answer,

There is a history of linking African Americans and monkeys in order to denigrate them. The picture of a smiling, human-looking monkey was a popular way to depict blacks in cartoons and artwork for much of our country's history.

This creates associations in people's minds that links them with emotions and events from the past. So pictures have a real visceral impact and symbolism to them that requires one to be careful when using them in public discourse.

Scenario - I make a cartoon showing Republicans all getting swastikas tattooed on their arms!

You guys get up in arms, say 'boo! how hateful and UnAmerican!'

I respond, 'hey! They're just followers of Buddhist thought and you should be proud of that!'

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/63/HinduSwastika.svg/140px-HinduSwastika.svg.pngThe Hindu Swastika

An idea for another comic hits me! I'll draw a picture of Roy Blunt, Boehner, and Mitch McConnell dressed up in menacing white hoods and marching through a black neighborhood!

You would cry '"Foul! You democrats are the racists, not us, and this is ridiculous!"

Tee hee! It was really just about trick-or-treating! No harm done!

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_OhcdaGi2G1I/SQueDsbZ8_I/AAAAAAAABm4/scbIDQ6FYS0/s400/peanuts-halloween-trick-or-treat.jpg

My guess is you'd be less than amused.

And with good reason.

Now stop playing dumb on this issue and admit that these idiots should have known better before running this cartoon. Just because you can construct a plausible argument against something doesn't make that argument the truth of the situation.

Cycloptichorn
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Feb, 2009 08:57 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
The short answer: it's racist because you say it is. My argument: it will always be racist as long as some insist on it being racist.

Which has been my whole point in this entire debate.

There is nothing racist in the cartoon. It is the inference of racism drawn by its critics that causes the conflict. If no inference is drawn, perhaps there would be one less fight over racism and one more flash point could be extinguished. If we can extinguish enough flash points, then racism becomes mostly just an interesting footnote in history.
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Feb, 2009 09:19 pm
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:

The short answer: it's racist because you say it is. My argument: it will always be racist as long as some insist on it being racist.

Which has been my whole point in this entire debate.

There is nothing racist in the cartoon. It is the inference of racism drawn by its critics that causes the conflict. If no inference is drawn, perhaps there would be one less fight over racism and one more flash point could be extinguished. If we can extinguish enough flash points, then racism becomes mostly just an interesting footnote in history.


Actually, my argument was the cartoon was racist because of a long and well-known history of depicting blacks as monkeys and apes in America. To you, that's 'because you say it is.'

One starts to wonder if you're actually reading the posts.

As for the second part, gosh darn it! If people would just stop getting offended when people do things to try and denigrate them, why, racism would be a thing of the past! If people would just stop complaining about racism, why, there would be no racism!

Right?

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
old europe
 
  3  
Reply Mon 23 Feb, 2009 09:25 pm
@Foxfyre,
Oh, please.

You essentially called people who disagree with you "sanctimonious, self-righteous, self-important numbnuts who use unkind ad hominem" while implying that all you were doing was trying to have a "calm, civil, and reasoned conversation".

Which struck me as really funny.

But hey, if that was unintentional: even funnier!
Ticomaya
 
  0  
Reply Mon 23 Feb, 2009 09:34 pm
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:
This is typical of you . . . god help anyone who retains you as a lawyer.

And that ... is so typical of you.

Quote:
In fact, i cast no slurs on you based on your appearance. And, as it happens, there have been no photos of me posted here which would warrant a description of me being "beady eyed," if for no other reason than that none posted here had sufficient resolution.

You started the personal insults ("Mr. Brain Dead Poster Boy"). Not being content with that, you next called me "dishonest" for not believing the cartoon is racist. So in response I called you a "beady-eyed ... buffoon" ... which is a pretty apt description of you, regardless of what you look like.

The Free Dictionary wrote:
beady-eyed
adj. 1. having eyes that gleam with malice.

LINK

Did you think I was attempting to describe your physical appearance? Are you really this thick?

Quote:
You show your true rhetorical skill when you make the comments about me that you've posted here. You really have no argument, so you fling vitriol. It's part and parcel with what passes for your character here, and it's part and parcel of the low brow behavior we can expect from the right.

The stench of the hypocrisy is overwhelming .....

Quote:
Once again, you sink deeper into name calling--and, as i pointed out, i made no slurs against you based on appearance. I just noted that you don't match your avatar picture (i'm not buying your song and dance). Of course, you may so avidly wish to look like the Governator that you consider it an insult to be told that you don't.

My descent into name calling came about as a result of you dragging me down there.

You have on prior occasion referred to this photo which you believe to depict my true appearance, and you certainly did attempt to slur me based on what you incorrectly believe to be my appearance. Anyone with intelligence can tell you intended to slur me based on my appearance in your post in this thread, whether you specifically did so or not ... based on your history and prior dealings.

You don't buy my "song and dance," huh? The Amazing Setanta is able to read minds? You're able to read my mind, just like you can read the mind of the cartoonist?

You truly are a beady-eyed, roadkill-smelly Sasquatch.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  0  
Reply Mon 23 Feb, 2009 09:34 pm
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:
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 . . .

I picture you drooling over your keyboard when you type out your posts, one peck at a time.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 23 Feb, 2009 09:47 pm
@old europe,
old europe wrote:

Oh, please.

You essentially called people who disagree with you "sanctimonious, self-righteous, self-important numbnuts who use unkind ad hominem" while implying that all you were doing was trying to have a "calm, civil, and reasoned conversation".

Which struck me as really funny.

But hey, if that was unintentional: even funnier!


No, I only call those people sanctimonious, self-righteous, self-important numbnuts who presume to stand in judgment of me and/or who presume to tell me what I think, what I intended, or what I meant in a santimonious, self-righteous, self-important, numb-nutty manner.

Those with sufficient honor and intelligence to actually express a reasoned argument in opposition to my point of view merit and get a great deal of respect and regard. I've never asked nor required anyone to agree with me in order for me to appreciate him or her.



0 Replies
 
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Feb, 2009 03:59 am
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:

The short answer: it's racist because you say it is. My argument: it will always be racist as long as some insist on it being racist.

Which has been my whole point in this entire debate.

Fox, your own point works against you too. It will NEVER be racist as long as someone insists on it NOT being racist too. This is not a because I (or anyone else) says so kind of thing.

As I said before, I don't see what you stand to gain from this argument. I find your confidence on this matter insincere; the notion that you just cant see it... and that others that see it are having to take some sort of stretch.
Foxfyre wrote:

There is nothing racist in the cartoon. It is the inference of racism drawn by its critics that causes the conflict.If no inference is drawn, perhaps there would be one less fight over racism and one more flash point could be extinguished. If we can extinguish enough flash points, then racism becomes mostly just an interesting footnote in history.

In summary, there was no problem until people got offended and it's their fault they were offended.

This notion of what extinguishes racism is appealing but ultimately misguided. It's not as if minorities are going to gain social equality by NOT fighting back in the face of defamation. What will make racism a footnote in history is when we stop condoning the defamation. Apathy is the wrong course. It does not extinguish the flash points but instead burns the kitchen down.

T
K
O
Wilso
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Feb, 2009 04:07 am
Am I looking at a different cartoon? The one I see has got Heath Ledger sitting between two guys with halos. I'm guessing supposed to be Jesus and God.
0 Replies
 
Wilso
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Feb, 2009 04:09 am
@Foxfyre,
Foxfyre wrote:

No I do get it Cyclop. I get it from those two most of the time if there is any interaction at all and from you often enough to make it impossible not to get it. But it's okay. I'm used to it from people who have absolutely no other ammunition to use to debate but who desperately want to have something to say. I guess everybody needs a hobby.

You didn't answer my question though. Why is Barack Obama portrayed as a chimp racist after eight years of portraying George W. Bush as a chimp? Please explain that to me.


Not that I really want to get into this part of the debate, but the shrub was portrayed as a chimp because he actually LOOKS LIKE ONE. Had nothing to do with racism, though I guess it could also be indicative of the dribbling halfwit's intelligence.
snood
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Feb, 2009 04:40 am
@Diest TKO,
TKO:
Quote:
This notion of what extinguishes racism is appealing but ultimately misguided. It's not as if minorities are going to gain social equality by NOT fighting back in the face of defamation. What will make racism a footnote in history is when we stop condoning the defamation. Apathy is the wrong course. It does not extinguish the flash points but instead burns the kitchen down.


I'm glad that the majority of people here are clearheaded enough to understand this, TKO. Its the same numbnuts argument I keep getting slapped with by genius social scientists like Maporsche - "It's people like YOU who are the problem, running around seeing racism in EVERYTHING!!!". I shudder to think what kind of place the world would be if people like him (her?) and Foxfyre had their way - and race was simply never mentioned again - under the theory that this would eradicate racism.

Thank You.
 

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 0.04 seconds on 01/17/2022 at 04:07:56