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)
Posts
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.
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.
a fading melody - my indie platformer for the xbox 360
I know I'm dragging this up from pages ago, but WTF does he (or the right wing) have against Daniel Libeskind?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Not even someone else doing something stops him.
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?
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.
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!"
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.
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?
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.
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 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.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bky2SGrmC8g
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QU2sQ5ukOko
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.
...he's construing all Arabs as terrorists not Muslims. Including kindergartners who probably don't even know what terrorism is.
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.
Nobody thinks he should be legally censored or locked up for it, dipshit.
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.
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?
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.