Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Interpretation, Plausible Denial and racially loaded imagery (NYPost cartoon)

13468911

Posts

  • ShadowfireShadowfire Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    cherv1 wrote: »
    The discussion here seems to be concentrating on the offensiveness of the word monkey, but what about gorilla, or ape, or chimp? These in my view are even more racially offensive terms, and closer to what the actual cartoon is about.

    Really? So you've never heard a jock be called a "big dumb ape" before (or alternatively, "knuckle-dragger")? Really?

    I'm in the "cartoon is stupid, but he means a chimp could have banged this out in between fistfuls of thrown poo" camp. For those of you who say it's racially charged, and he should have known better, give me a better animal to use that has the same "what an idiot" connotation.

    steam_sig.png
    WiiU: Windrunner ; Guild Wars 2: Shadowfire.3940 ; PSN: Bradcopter
  • MKRMKR Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Shadowfire wrote: »
    cherv1 wrote: »
    The discussion here seems to be concentrating on the offensiveness of the word monkey, but what about gorilla, or ape, or chimp? These in my view are even more racially offensive terms, and closer to what the actual cartoon is about.

    Really? So you've never heard a jock be called a "big dumb ape" before (or alternatively, "knuckle-dragger")? Really?

    I'm in the "cartoon is stupid, but he means a chimp could have banged this out in between fistfuls of thrown poo" camp. For those of you who say it's racially charged, and he should have known better, give me a better animal to use that has the same "what an idiot" connotation.

    A donkey.

  • Dunadan019Dunadan019 Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    MKR wrote: »
    Shadowfire wrote: »
    cherv1 wrote: »
    The discussion here seems to be concentrating on the offensiveness of the word monkey, but what about gorilla, or ape, or chimp? These in my view are even more racially offensive terms, and closer to what the actual cartoon is about.

    Really? So you've never heard a jock be called a "big dumb ape" before (or alternatively, "knuckle-dragger")? Really?

    I'm in the "cartoon is stupid, but he means a chimp could have banged this out in between fistfuls of thrown poo" camp. For those of you who say it's racially charged, and he should have known better, give me a better animal to use that has the same "what an idiot" connotation.

    A donkey.

    in a political cartoon about the stimulus bill that would conjure images of the democratic party and not link them to stupidity.

  • wwtMaskwwtMask Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    CygnusZ wrote: »
    By talking about it you're giving him the buzz he desires. Honestly, the most healthy thing to do would be to simply ignore this kind of silly shit and stop rewarding it with attention.

    The best way to correct this guy's behavior is to sweep it under the rug and go on like everything is fine? He's not being rewarded, he's being punished in the court of public opinion. Not all attention is good attention, you know.

    Beyond that, this is a good, instructional moment for people who think there isn't still racism in the world. This guy needs and deserves to be dragged through the mud for his ignorance or intentional racism (whichever is the case) and people need to understand why so they can avoid his mistake.

    When he dies, I hope they write "Worst Affirmative Action Hire, EVER" on his grave. His corpse should be trolled.
    Twitter - @liberaltruths | Google+ - http://gplus.to/wwtMask | Occupy Tallahassee
  • OremLKOremLK Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    There are people who think there isn't still racism in the world? I mean, I know some people think it's no longer an important problem or whatever, but I thought everyone knew it still existed.

    currently playing LoL: Polymath
    a fading melody - my indie platformer for the xbox 360
  • tsmvengytsmvengy Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    moniker wrote: »
    Couscous wrote: »
    That said, I still find it offensive. Just not as someone who disdains racism (which I do) but as someone who enjoys comedy. Hey, douchebag cartoonist? You're doing it wrong.
    13409006b490b05016al4.th.jpg
    How can you not find this HI-LARIOUS!?

    Okay, now that one pisses me right the fuck off. And I don't even like the vast majority of Liebeskind's work, but he has designed some beauties. In particular his Holocaust museum. But then I guess not making a neo-classical Roman temple to avarice makes you a terrorist.


    And what the fuck is Bert doing in there?

    I know I'm dragging this up from pages ago, but WTF does he (or the right wing) have against Daniel Libeskind?

    steam_sig.png
  • bowenbowen Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    What the fuck is Bert doing there?

  • LacroixLacroix Registered User
    edited February 2009
    The only racially loaded part of the first bit is being shot by a police officer IMO in a cartoon relating to a Black President. The monkey itself isn't a racist symbol anymore, even among racists as far as I can tell, so much as a symbol of general stupidity. I believe Bush has been represented as a Monkey several times. The relevance is the Monkey/typrewriter thing as suggested by others, or something like 'a monkey could have written this crap' I would think.


    Buuuut.... then I looked at his other work. Yeah he's kind of a racist. I still don't think that Monkey=Black in the context used, but the police officers do make the image racially loaded.

  • LacroixLacroix Registered User
    edited February 2009
    The best way to correct this guy's behavior is to sweep it under the rug and go on like everything is fine? He's not being rewarded, he's being punished in the court of public opinion. Not all attention is good attention, you know.

    Beyond that, this is a good, instructional moment for people who think there isn't still racism in the world. This guy needs and deserves to be dragged through the mud for his ignorance or intentional racism (whichever is the case) and people need to understand why so they can avoid his mistake.

    Oh dear God. The Court of PUBLIC OPINION! In response to racism? No! Let him be tried by an actual court for offensive material. Dragged through the mud.... sorry, but in a thread about racially loaded terms and how black people have been stereotyped, I don't see how you can possibly justify the court of public opinion and mud draggings given how many people have been lynched by this 'court'.

    EDIT: My bile is aimed towards the concept, not you btw.

  • SpoonySpoony Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    bowen wrote: »
    What the fuck is Bert doing there?

    http://www.snopes.com/rumors/bert.asp

  • bowenbowen Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    That is glorious.

  • lazegamerlazegamer Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Spoony wrote: »
    bowen wrote: »
    What the fuck is Bert doing there?

    http://www.snopes.com/rumors/bert.asp

    I know it's early yet, but I'm pretty sure that wins as the best thing I hear all day.

    Surprise.
    - Spy
  • KageraKagera Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    For god's sake get Bert out of Sesame Street, he pals around with terrorists!

    “This is America. We’re entitled to our opinions.”
    “Wrong. This is Texas. And my opinion is the only one that counts."
  • PotatoNinjaPotatoNinja Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Let's take this cartoon as an example and use two hypotheticals:

    Situation 1: The creator of the cartoon did not intend to imply or convey any racist message with the cartoon.

    Situation 2: The creator of the cartoon did intend to imply or convey a racist message with the cartoon but will deny this accusation if it is made against him.

    How do you distinguish between these two? How do you distinguish between the countless other situations where you have a mix of intentional or unintentional racist thought, mixed messages and unclear symbols? What is the author believes "stupid stinky black son of a bitch!" isn't racist? What if the author hates every non-white man, woman, and child on the planet but hides that hatred behind buzzwords and "its just a joke" arguments?

    How far does "I didn't mean for it to be racist / offensive / stupid / demeaning / whatever!" go? Can the cartoonist create a comic of President Obama, fried chicken in one hand a young blonde woman in the other and claim he hasn't used any racist imagery? What if the cartoonist is really stupid enough to believe it?

    Point of all this being, as I said before, the artists motive is irrelevant. The artist (and it unfortunately appears I must use that term very loosely) can claim any number of meanings with anything they create. What they "actually mean" isn't something that we can prove one way or another.

    I don't really get what you're saying here. Why do we need to distinguish between the two? He's allowed to draw whatever he wants, and his editor can choose to print it or not. He can draw a comic of Obama eating fried chicken and looking like a monkey if he wants, and your question of 'can we claim that this is racist?' is irrelevant. You keep asking where we draw the line, what we can and can't allow, but I don't understand why we need to draw a line at all.

    So, wait, he can draw whatever he wants and therefore we can't criticize him for racism? I don't think that's what you're trying to say but it seems to be implied from your post. I'm not advocating that this cartoonist should be shot or arrested or banished, I'm saying he's a stupid dick and personally I'll avoid any papers in which he's published. In terms of "what we allow," I'm not advocating that his speech be legally forbidden, I mean "allow" as in "to go unchallenged or without response," not "to be permissible under the law."

    Are you under the impression that I'm advocating a legal prosecution for racism, or are you arguing that Freedom of Speech mandates that racism be allowed and ignored? It does the former but not the latter, the cartoonist is free to be as racist or kind-of-racist or evenhanded or racially sensitive as he wants, and I'm free to criticize his work as loudly or quietly as I want. I'm not trying to be a dick, I honestly am not sure what you're getting at in your post and don't really want to try and argue against a point you may or may not be making.

    Two goats enter, one car leaves
  • KageraKagera Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Seriously though if the monkey story never happened I wonder what kind of cartoon he would have drawn.

    “This is America. We’re entitled to our opinions.”
    “Wrong. This is Texas. And my opinion is the only one that counts."
  • PotatoNinjaPotatoNinja Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Kagera wrote: »
    Seriously though if the monkey story never happened I wonder what kind of cartoon he would have drawn.

    Probably a bunch of Arab terrorists chanting "O-BA-MA!" Maybe he would have changed things up and just shat on the paper to see if anyone could notice a difference.

    Two goats enter, one car leaves
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Kagera wrote: »
    Seriously though if the monkey story never happened I wonder what kind of cartoon he would have drawn.

    Probably a bunch of Arab terrorists chanting "O-BA-MA!"
    He already did that. Of course, already doing something hasn't stopped him before.

  • KageraKagera Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Couscous wrote: »
    Kagera wrote: »
    Seriously though if the monkey story never happened I wonder what kind of cartoon he would have drawn.

    Probably a bunch of Arab terrorists chanting "O-BA-MA!"
    He already did that. Of course, already doing something hasn't stopped him before.

    Not even someone else doing something stops him.

    “This is America. We’re entitled to our opinions.”
    “Wrong. This is Texas. And my opinion is the only one that counts."
  • wwtMaskwwtMask Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Lacroix wrote: »
    The best way to correct this guy's behavior is to sweep it under the rug and go on like everything is fine? He's not being rewarded, he's being punished in the court of public opinion. Not all attention is good attention, you know.

    Beyond that, this is a good, instructional moment for people who think there isn't still racism in the world. This guy needs and deserves to be dragged through the mud for his ignorance or intentional racism (whichever is the case) and people need to understand why so they can avoid his mistake.

    Oh dear God. The Court of PUBLIC OPINION! In response to racism? No! Let him be tried by an actual court for offensive material. Dragged through the mud.... sorry, but in a thread about racially loaded terms and how black people have been stereotyped, I don't see how you can possibly justify the court of public opinion and mud draggings given how many people have been lynched by this 'court'.

    EDIT: My bile is aimed towards the concept, not you btw.

    Why should he be tried in an actual court when he's exercising his constitutional right to free speech?

    The court of public opinion is the best way to go about this, especially since it's generally accepted that you loudly criticize a person who exhibits such an amazing lack of sense and racial insensitivity. He did something that could be construed as racist and is rightly being excoriated for it. What other mechanism will correct this behavior and inform others who might follow his example as to how they might also expect to be received for doing something similar?

    When he dies, I hope they write "Worst Affirmative Action Hire, EVER" on his grave. His corpse should be trolled.
    Twitter - @liberaltruths | Google+ - http://gplus.to/wwtMask | Occupy Tallahassee
  • LacroixLacroix Registered User
    edited February 2009
    I don't disagree with your sentiment or why you're annoyed. I just keep coming back to the flip side of it all - the 'we dont like the gays/blacks/whatever... lets drag them through the mud and mock them until others of their kind fall in line' - After all... 'What other mechanism will correct this behavior and inform others who might follow his example as to how they might also expect to be received for doing something similar?':|

    Yes, I believe racism is wrong. But the court of opinion is so dependent on a subjective idea of what is right, that I cant bring myself to condone it for fear of its misapplication.

  • Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Jesus, that's not racist. Unless all monkey references necessarily are racist.

    2ezikn6.jpg
  • Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    And, as far as public opinion goes, hypersensitive nutcases who cry racism at stuff like this only serve to feed the eyerollers who scoff at actual racism.

    2ezikn6.jpg
  • ShadowfireShadowfire Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    So, wait, he can draw whatever he wants and therefore we can't criticize him for racism? I don't think that's what you're trying to say but it seems to be implied from your post. I'm not advocating that this cartoonist should be shot or arrested or banished, I'm saying he's a stupid dick and personally I'll avoid any papers in which he's published. In terms of "what we allow," I'm not advocating that his speech be legally forbidden, I mean "allow" as in "to go unchallenged or without response," not "to be permissible under the law."

    Are you under the impression that I'm advocating a legal prosecution for racism, or are you arguing that Freedom of Speech mandates that racism be allowed and ignored? It does the former but not the latter, the cartoonist is free to be as racist or kind-of-racist or evenhanded or racially sensitive as he wants, and I'm free to criticize his work as loudly or quietly as I want. I'm not trying to be a dick, I honestly am not sure what you're getting at in your post and don't really want to try and argue against a point you may or may not be making.

    I will say I hate when people call racism on something that could be easily explained as something else (as in this case). Fact is, there's really no way to defend yourself against being called a racist. Further denying it tends to solidify the content in the accusers' minds...

    I mean, it could have been meant to be racist, but I highly doubt it. I really think it was "this stimulus bill is fucking stupid, so only a monkey could have written it!"

    steam_sig.png
    WiiU: Windrunner ; Guild Wars 2: Shadowfire.3940 ; PSN: Bradcopter
  • EvanderEvander Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    wwtMask wrote: »
    ...correct this guy's behavior...

    What about his behavior needs to be corrected?

    The man is either a bigot or an idiot, and probably both. Neither things are criminal, though. He has a right to be an idiotic bigot, just as you and I have a right to be more enlightened in regards to race.



    Free speech has got to be a two-way street. There has been a long hard fight against censorship and obscenity laws, and it shouldn't be thrown away just because the "wrong guy" is using our hard won freedoms.

    georgersig.jpg
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Evander wrote: »
    wwtMask wrote: »
    ...correct this guy's behavior...

    What about his behavior needs to be corrected?

    The man is either a bigot or an idiot, and probably both. Neither things are criminal, though. He has a right to be an idiotic bigot, just as you and I have a right to be more enlightened in regards to race.

    Free speech has got to be a two-way street. There has been a long hard fight against censorship and obscenity laws, and it shouldn't be thrown away just because the "wrong guy" is using our hard won freedoms.

    And we have a right to shun him or argue with him in order to get him to stop being a bigot or a idiot. Free speech isn't just a person getting to say any bullshit without consequences from the public. It just means the government can't limit your speech.

  • docturknowlesdocturknowles Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    I really think people are overthinking this. I really see no connection to race in this cartoon - a chimpanzee (NOT a monkey) went on a rampage and tore some woman's face off and its owner asked the cops to shoot it. I read that story when it first appeared. Apes, monkeys, etc. are freaking scary as hell. Everyone sees the Trunk Monkey commercials and Jay and Silent Bob and think, "Awwww, cute monkey!" NO. WRONG. A 200 pound chimp could pull both of your arms off and cram them up your ass while eating your eyes out of your skull.

    Meanwhile, back at the ranch...

    A highly controversial bill (That Senator Obama refused to work on while Senator McCain went to D.C. to try to drum up popular support by working on it - side question: holy crap is this really the same piece of legislation? If not, I'm an ass. Discount this point...) is in the process of being signed by President Obama. Not written by...signed.

    ---

    Anyone else remember the ads in the '80s where Pepsi set up a "blind taste test" with a monkey and some dude being the contestants? All for a laugh at New Coke of course. Later Coca-Cola fired back with a response wherein the setup was the same but the dude said something along the lines of, "I'll take what the monkey's having." Was that racism? Or a comment on mental ability?

    ---

    Also also - I get a kick out of you guys (Is that sexist that I didn't say guys and gals? Or should I have said males and females?) saying that the artist is racist against Arabs. Really? I see artwork depicting Muslims as savages. I don't see any Maronites or Greek Orthodox or Yemenite Jews or Armenian Catholics running around with bombs or muppets. Is that racist or racially insensitive on your part or the artist's construing all Arabs as Muslim?

  • EvanderEvander Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Shadowfire wrote: »
    I will say I hate when people call racism on something that could be easily explained as something else (as in this case). Fact is, there's really no way to defend yourself against being called a racist. Further denying it tends to solidify the content in the accusers' minds...

    I mean, it could have been meant to be racist, but I highly doubt it. I really think it was "this stimulus bill is fucking stupid, so only a monkey could have written it!"

    As I've said before, I didn't view the cartoon as being racial, initially. I only viewed it as being stupid.

    HOWEVER, the cartoonist should have been aware of the symbolism that he was using, which leaves us with three options:

    1) the guy s a complete idiot who doesn't think his cartoons through before submitting/publishing them.

    2) the guy actually IS a racist, and intended there to be some level of "Obama is a monkey" statement in the cartoon

    3) the guy did not intend the racial overtones when he first drafted/wrote the comic, but when he realized that it could be viewed in that manner, he decided that he didn't care if it was.



    Now, I really doubt 1 is the case here, just because the number of people who see a comic before it hits press, I imagine at least one of them would have noticed something, and pointed it out to him. That leaves 2 and 3. Either he IS a racist, or else he doesn't mind making racially charged statements just to get liberals riled up.

    Personally, I'm leaning towards 3. Just from general observations and gut feelings, most of these sorts of right-wing pundits and cartoonists say what their audience what to hear, rather than what they actually believe (I'm sure it happens on the left-wing as well, but I pay very little attention there.) However, even if it's option 2, and the guy is a card carrying Klansman, he has a right to say what he likes, and the Post has a right to print it.



    Everyone is yelling about whether or not this is a racist comic, but ignoring the fact that, even if it is, it is still freedom of speech/freedom of the press.

    georgersig.jpg
  • EvanderEvander Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Couscous wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    wwtMask wrote: »
    ...correct this guy's behavior...

    What about his behavior needs to be corrected?

    The man is either a bigot or an idiot, and probably both. Neither things are criminal, though. He has a right to be an idiotic bigot, just as you and I have a right to be more enlightened in regards to race.

    Free speech has got to be a two-way street. There has been a long hard fight against censorship and obscenity laws, and it shouldn't be thrown away just because the "wrong guy" is using our hard won freedoms.

    And we have a right to shun him or argue with him in order to get him to stop being a bigot or a idiot. Free speech isn't just a person getting to say any bullshit without consequences from the public. It just means the government can't limit your speech.

    I am aware of what t means.

    The thing is, how many folks who are offended by this actually cared about what this guy had to say previously?

    And how likely do you think this guy is to actually be willing to engage anyone who disagrees with him in a legitimate discussion?



    I'm not opposed to an academic debate about whether or not the themes of the comic are inherently racist, etc., but the folks who keep acting as though "something needs to be done" have zero direction to go in.

    georgersig.jpg
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    tsmvengy wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    Couscous wrote: »
    That said, I still find it offensive. Just not as someone who disdains racism (which I do) but as someone who enjoys comedy. Hey, douchebag cartoonist? You're doing it wrong.
    13409006b490b05016al4.th.jpg
    How can you not find this HI-LARIOUS!?

    Okay, now that one pisses me right the fuck off. And I don't even like the vast majority of Liebeskind's work, but he has designed some beauties. In particular his Holocaust museum. But then I guess not making a neo-classical Roman temple to avarice makes you a terrorist.


    And what the fuck is Bert doing in there?

    I know I'm dragging this up from pages ago, but WTF does he (or the right wing) have against Daniel Libeskind?

    They don't like the design for the new World Trade Center. The original was kind of cool, though not my favourite, but the bastard child between his marriage with SOM does look horrible. But then I do like some of his museums while a lot of 'conservative' people (not Republicans) are aghast at Decon in any form and want Roman ornamentation on everything. Like how Germany and Russia barred abstract art, one for being Bolshevism the other for not advancing the glory of the Party.

    Being Jewish probably doesn't help endear him to the bigot crowd either.

    tea-1.jpg
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    However, even if it's option 2, and the guy is a card carrying Klansman, he has a right to say what he likes, and the Post has a right to print it.

    Everyone is yelling about whether or not this is a racist comic, but ignoring the fact that, even if it is, it is still freedom of speech/freedom of the press.
    Freedom of the press does not work that way! It does not protect againt the market and citizens putting pressure on the press to fire people. The Post has a right to print it. However, everyboy also has the right to tell the Post publicly how horrible it is and say that they shouln't have printed it.

  • DocDoc Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited February 2009
    Lacroix wrote: »
    The only racially loaded part of the first bit is being shot by a police officer IMO in a cartoon relating to a Black President. The monkey itself isn't a racist symbol anymore, even among racists as far as I can tell, so much as a symbol of general stupidity. I believe Bush has been represented as a Monkey several times. The relevance is the Monkey/typrewriter thing as suggested by others, or something like 'a monkey could have written this crap' I would think.


    Buuuut.... then I looked at his other work. Yeah he's kind of a racist. I still don't think that Monkey=Black in the context used, but the police officers do make the image racially loaded.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bky2SGrmC8g

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QU2sQ5ukOko

  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Evander wrote: »
    Couscous wrote: »
    Evander wrote: »
    wwtMask wrote: »
    ...correct this guy's behavior...

    What about his behavior needs to be corrected?

    The man is either a bigot or an idiot, and probably both. Neither things are criminal, though. He has a right to be an idiotic bigot, just as you and I have a right to be more enlightened in regards to race.

    Free speech has got to be a two-way street. There has been a long hard fight against censorship and obscenity laws, and it shouldn't be thrown away just because the "wrong guy" is using our hard won freedoms.

    And we have a right to shun him or argue with him in order to get him to stop being a bigot or a idiot. Free speech isn't just a person getting to say any bullshit without consequences from the public. It just means the government can't limit your speech.

    I am aware of what t means.

    The thing is, how many folks who are offended by this actually cared about what this guy had to say previously?

    And how likely do you think this guy is to actually be willing to engage anyone who disagrees with him in a legitimate discussion?

    I'm not opposed to an academic debate about whether or not the themes of the comic are inherently racist, etc., but the folks who keep acting as though "something needs to be done" have zero direction to go in.
    They can request the Post to fire the guy or whatever using their freeom of speech.

    You will also have to point me to the part in the constitution where it says that freedom of speech only includes engaging in a legitimate discussion with a person.

  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Also also - I get a kick out of you guys (Is that sexist that I didn't say guys and gals? Or should I have said males and females?) saying that the artist is racist against Arabs. Really? I see artwork depicting Muslims as savages. I don't see any Maronites or Greek Orthodox or Yemenite Jews or Armenian Catholics running around with bombs or muppets. Is that racist or racially insensitive on your part or the artist's construing all Arabs as Muslim?

    ...he's construing all Arabs as terrorists not Muslims. Including kindergartners who probably don't even know what terrorism is.

    tea-1.jpg
  • EvanderEvander Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Couscous wrote: »
    However, even if it's option 2, and the guy is a card carrying Klansman, he has a right to say what he likes, and the Post has a right to print it.

    Everyone is yelling about whether or not this is a racist comic, but ignoring the fact that, even if it is, it is still freedom of speech/freedom of the press.
    Freedom of the press does not work that way! It does not protect againt the market and citizens putting pressure on the press to fire people. The Post has a right to print it. However, everyboy also has the right to tell the Post publicly how horrible it is and say that they shouln't have printed it.

    Again, I DID NOT claim that it protected anything that it didn't.

    The Post's market is made up of people who already agree with the sorts of sentiments that the post routinely publishes. Expecting the Post's consumers to pressure them to take action over something that is essentially business as usual is absurd, as is expecting that the Post would respond to pressure from groups that have zero interest in actually supporting the paper even if the Post fired the guy.

    georgersig.jpg
  • DocDoc Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited February 2009
    Evander wrote: »
    Shadowfire wrote: »
    I will say I hate when people call racism on something that could be easily explained as something else (as in this case). Fact is, there's really no way to defend yourself against being called a racist. Further denying it tends to solidify the content in the accusers' minds...

    I mean, it could have been meant to be racist, but I highly doubt it. I really think it was "this stimulus bill is fucking stupid, so only a monkey could have written it!"

    As I've said before, I didn't view the cartoon as being racial, initially. I only viewed it as being stupid.

    HOWEVER, the cartoonist should have been aware of the symbolism that he was using, which leaves us with three options:

    1) the guy s a complete idiot who doesn't think his cartoons through before submitting/publishing them.

    2) the guy actually IS a racist, and intended there to be some level of "Obama is a monkey" statement in the cartoon

    3) the guy did not intend the racial overtones when he first drafted/wrote the comic, but when he realized that it could be viewed in that manner, he decided that he didn't care if it was.



    Now, I really doubt 1 is the case here, just because the number of people who see a comic before it hits press, I imagine at least one of them would have noticed something, and pointed it out to him. That leaves 2 and 3. Either he IS a racist, or else he doesn't mind making racially charged statements just to get liberals riled up.

    Personally, I'm leaning towards 3. Just from general observations and gut feelings, most of these sorts of right-wing pundits and cartoonists say what their audience what to hear, rather than what they actually believe (I'm sure it happens on the left-wing as well, but I pay very little attention there.) However, even if it's option 2, and the guy is a card carrying Klansman, he has a right to say what he likes, and the Post has a right to print it.



    Everyone is yelling about whether or not this is a racist comic, but ignoring the fact that, even if it is, it is still freedom of speech/freedom of the press.

    Nobody thinks he should be legally censored or locked up for it, dipshit.

  • EvanderEvander Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Couscous, please stop trying to argue with the things I'm not saying long enough to actually read my posts.

    georgersig.jpg
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Evander wrote: »
    Couscous wrote: »
    However, even if it's option 2, and the guy is a card carrying Klansman, he has a right to say what he likes, and the Post has a right to print it.

    Everyone is yelling about whether or not this is a racist comic, but ignoring the fact that, even if it is, it is still freedom of speech/freedom of the press.
    Freedom of the press does not work that way! It does not protect againt the market and citizens putting pressure on the press to fire people. The Post has a right to print it. However, everyboy also has the right to tell the Post publicly how horrible it is and say that they shouln't have printed it.

    Again, I DID NOT claim that it protected anything that it didn't.

    The Post's market is made up of people who already agree with the sorts of sentiments that the post routinely publishes. Expecting the Post's consumers to pressure them to take action over something that is essentially business as usual is absurd, as is expecting that the Post would respond to pressure from groups that have zero interest in actually supporting the paper even if the Post fired the guy.
    Pressure groups tryig to get the post removed from stores, public protests in order to trying to shame the ower of the newspaper, etc. Either way, I don't see how people publicly bitching about it is even close to tryig to remove the guy's freedom of speech.

  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Evander wrote: »
    Couscous, please stop trying to argue with the things I'm not saying long enough to actually read my posts.

    The only way your posts make sense is if you think the people who think it is racist are trying to make what he is doing illegal, dumbass.

  • EvanderEvander Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Doc wrote: »
    Nobody thinks he should be legally censored or locked up for it, dipshit.

    Then considering the fact that we are talking about the NEW YORK POST here, a rag that is basically the tabloid version of Hannity or Limbaugh, how exactly do the offended parties expect consequences to come about?

    georgersig.jpg
  • DocDoc Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited February 2009
    Evander wrote: »
    Couscous, please stop trying to argue with the things I'm not saying long enough to actually read my posts.

    Pot to kettle, come in kettle!

    Nobody here has suggested that he be censored by a government agency. That would be the only way that it is a violation of freedom of speech. That's why I don't understand why you keep fucking bringing it up.

13468911
Sign In or Register to comment.