Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
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)

1246711

Posts

  • PotatoNinjaPotatoNinja Fake Gamer Goat Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    First, do you really want to define racism as requiring intent?
    Without intent wouldn't it just be generic ignorance? Just thinking aloud here...

    "There's nothing wrong with black men, but I don't want my daughter dating no colored folk!"
    "Black people are dumber on average than white people, but better at sports, its called the Bell Curve."
    "You must like hip hop, because you're black. Black people like hip hop, right?"

    Are these intentionally racist? Are they borne of ignorance? What are stereotypes if not the lazy mind allowing ignorance to substitute questions? Can something be racist accidentally? Can we call up racist images that we've been exposed to for years without understanding what they mean or why they're racist? Does our ignorance make the image in question any less racist?

    Finally, how much credence will we grant to ignorance as a defense of racist imagery? At what point does 'I didn't know" no longer work? Do we grant any artist or author full benefit of the doubt, is all that we require that everyone state "I'm not racist!" and then we go on our merry way?

    PotatoNinja on
    Two goats enter, one car leaves
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited February 2009
    Finally, how much credence will we grant to ignorance as a defense of racist imagery? At what point does 'I didn't know" no longer work? Do we grant any artist or author full benefit of the doubt, is all that we require that everyone state "I'm not racist!" and then we go on our merry way?

    Honestly? If it's at all plausible that there's a non-racist explanation, and if the person doesn't have an established track record of racism, I think we say, "Fine, but don't let it happen again" and then we drop it.

    Because harping on it ad nauseum accomplishes nothing other creating resentment and possibly condemning someone who meant no harm as one of the worst kinds of people.

    The further we get from the civil rights era, the more progress we make, the more this sort of thing will happen. Because people honestly won't know any better. We'll see more and more innocent mistakes by people who weren't there. Crucifying them isn't going to further the cause.

    ElJeffe on
    Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."

    I make tweet.
  • iTunesIsEviliTunesIsEvil Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    "There's nothing wrong with black men, but I don't want my daughter dating no colored folk!"
    "Black people are dumber on average than white people, but better at sports, its called the Bell Curve."
    "You must like hip hop, because you're black. Black people like hip hop, right?"

    Is racism being aware of someone's skin color being different than yours and being somewhat ignorant, or does it require some form of malice or negative prejudice in addition?

    Because the first two examples I can see as being pretty racist, because there's an insinuation that there's something wrong or lesser about about blacks. The third I can, personally, write off as simple ignorance.

    Im open to having my mind changed or viewpoint challenged though.

    iTunesIsEvil on
  • PotatoNinjaPotatoNinja Fake Gamer Goat Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    First, do you really want to define racism as requiring intent? Furthermore, do you intend for "I didn't know / didn't mean it" to be a valid defense against any claim of racism? Its possible to be racist through ignorance or intent. Specifically and overtly stating "I hate black people and they are inferior to whites" is racist, of course, but is that the only thing we accept as racist?

    For certain loose definitions of intent, yes. If an alien who had never seen or heard thing one about Earth history landed at the White House, and - through striking coincidence - it turns out the alien-word for "Hello, friend" sounds just like n****r, are we going to call the alien a racist? Of course not. Clearly there has to be some cognitive reasoning going on such that the word is actually meant to be relevant to race.

    This isn't inconsistent with some guy kindly trying to help a black man because all black men are inferior don'tcha know also being considered racist. But if an action is meant to have nothing at all to do with race, calling it racist is fucking retarded. A racist action must have an intent linked to race by definition. Otherwise you can call it stupid, insensitive or ignorant, but you cannot call it racist.

    Can.

    Not.

    Period.

    CAN

    SO

    PERIOD

    IN

    PEN!

    If what you want is to parse "racial insensitivity" and "racism" to be dramatically different things, that strikes me as a foolishly semantic argument not worth pursuing. "Oh, that's not racist, its just racially insensitive!" It isn't prejudicial in regards to race, its just prejudicial in regards to race.
    Second, nobody, and I mean NOBODY so far has compared this cartoonist to the KKK. That's you and your strawman, you can beat it up if you want but that's all you.

    The cartoonist is a dumb motherfucker. He may be intentionally racist or accidentally racist by way of being a really dumb motherfucker. He's still racist in both scenarios, and still stupid in both scenarios. His intentions are irrelevant.

    No, you haven't compared it directly to the KKK. You have said it is completely irrelevant whether an action is ignorant or willfully malicious, though, which is just about as dumb.
    The cartoonist is either:

    So ignorant as to be accidentally racist, and a dumb motherfucker.
    Intentionally racist and a dumb motherfucker.

    There's no way we can determine if the artist is secretly actually racist. You can concede it is a moot point or you can invent a mind reading machine.

    PotatoNinja on
    Two goats enter, one car leaves
  • YarYar Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Finally, how much credence will we grant to ignorance as a defense of racist imagery? At what point does 'I didn't know" no longer work? Do we grant any artist or author full benefit of the doubt, is all that we require that everyone state "I'm not racist!" and then we go on our merry way?
    Well I think part of the discussion, another question you have to ask, is how far will we allow people to go in defining something as racism in order to label another as ignorant. If we do accept that ignorance is no defense of racism, there also has to be some bounds on how much imagination it takes to interpret something as racist... otherwise absolutely everything is racist and our ignorance of such racism is no defense.

    Which is what we're doing here. I don't claim to have the final answer, but I'm thinking that if there is a sensible explanation for something that does not involve the racist explanation at all, (like in this case, but not in the case of someone innocently claiming that "science says black people aren't as smart") then you've got a strong case for limiting the imagination, and the conflict-seeking behavior, of others .

    Yar on
  • OrganichuOrganichu jacobkosh Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    If what you want is to parse "racial insensitivity" and "racism" to be dramatically different things, that strikes me as a foolishly semantic argument not worth pursuing. "Oh, that's not racist, its just racially insensitive!" It isn't prejudicial in regards to race, its just prejudicial in regards to race.

    That doesn't make any sense. Racism is a particular commission of thought, revolving around worth and disposition as they relate to race... racial insensitivity is just being a jerk. You can be a jerk about anything- race, sex, difficult life events (rape, etc.) None of them guarantee the jerk possesses those beliefs.

    Organichu on
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    "There's nothing wrong with black men, but I don't want my daughter dating no colored folk!"
    "Black people are dumber on average than white people, but better at sports, its called the Bell Curve."
    "You must like hip hop, because you're black. Black people like hip hop, right?"

    Is racism being aware of someone's skin color being different than yours and being somewhat ignorant, or does it require some form of malice or negative prejudice in addition?

    Because the first two examples I can see as being pretty racist, because there's an insinuation that there's something wrong or lesser about about blacks. The third I can, personally, write off as simple ignorance.

    Im open to having my mind changed or viewpoint challenged though.

    No, racism doesn't have to have negative connotations. You can even, I suppose, be racist towards somebody in a positive way.

    Really, it just comes down to treating somebody in a different manner due to their race.


    Ironically, an argument could me made that avoiding using caricatures of Obama as a monkey when it was so common with Bush (and again, the physical resemblance is similar) because he's black is, itself, racist. Obviously in the context of the past comparisons of blacks to monkeys that's going to be swiftly dismissed, because the connotation of that imagery overrides.


    EDIT: And you CANNOT be "accidentally racist." You either considered race in making a statement or taking an action, or you did not. If you did not, then you were not racist.

    mcdermott on
  • PotatoNinjaPotatoNinja Fake Gamer Goat Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    mcdermott wrote: »

    EDIT: And you CANNOT be "accidentally racist." You either considered race in making a statement or taking an action, or you did not. If you did not, then you were not racist.

    You can use racist terms or images without understanding their meaning. The history and subtext of these words and images do not disappear merely because the author is ignorant of them.

    Aaaand I need to get to work, I'll reply to what I can assume will be a thousand more posts later.

    PotatoNinja on
    Two goats enter, one car leaves
  • iTunesIsEviliTunesIsEvil Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    mcdermott wrote: »
    No, racism doesn't have to have negative connotations. You can even, I suppose, be racist towards somebody in a positive way.

    Really, it just comes down to treating somebody in a different manner due to their race.


    Ironically, an argument could me made that avoiding using caricatures of Obama as a monkey when it was so common with Bush (and again, the physical resemblance is similar) because he's black is, itself, racist. Obviously in the context of the past comparisons of blacks to monkeys that's going to be swiftly dismissed, because the connotation of that imagery overrides.


    EDIT: And you CANNOT be "accidentally racist." You either considered race in making a statement or taking an action, or you did not. If you did not, then you were not racist.
    I guess this was me misunderstanding the term then. So, racism can be as simple as making a generalization (positive or negative) based at least partly upon race. I suppose I've just never thought of it that way; I've always been hung up on the part where there needed to be some insinuation of inferiority.

    iTunesIsEvil on
  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Okay, if this dude was some Joe Schmo off the streets, I could see giving him the benefit of the doubt.

    However, he's not. He's an editorial cartoonist for a paper with a circulation of about three-quarters of a million people. Excusing this as "not racism" is like excusing an electrician for using a penny instead of a fuse because "he didn't know any better."

    Thanatos on
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited February 2009
    If what you want is to parse "racial insensitivity" and "racism" to be dramatically different things, that strikes me as a foolishly semantic argument not worth pursuing. "Oh, that's not racist, its just racially insensitive!" It isn't prejudicial in regards to race, its just prejudicial in regards to race.

    Umm... except racism != racial insensitivity. Racism requires a sense that one race is fundamentally different, usually inferior, to another. Racial insensitivity is, in its basic form, just not giving a shit if you offend someone or not caring about race-specific hardships. The two are different things, and I think it's silly to treat them as the same. They shouldn't be addressed the same, as eradicating them are very different beasts.

    For example: AA

    One might think blacks are every bit the equal of whites, and yet not want any government programs targeted towards blacks. Is he a racist? No. Will telling him that blacks and whites are equal accomplish anything? No. Rather, he should be educated as to the plight that blacks might currently face due to institutionalized racism, or overt racism, and thus be made to support the alleviation of these things.

    Conversely, if someone just thinks blacks suck, what are you going to gain by teaching him how blacks are harmed by a lack of AA? It's what he wants, in the first place.

    Treating racism and racial insensitivity as the same is a little like treating anger and sadness the same. After all, they're both just negative emotions, and the solution is to just be happy!

    ElJeffe on
    Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."

    I make tweet.
  • Dunadan019Dunadan019 Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Okay, if this dude was some Joe Schmo off the streets, I could see giving him the benefit of the doubt.

    However, he's not. He's an editorial cartoonist for a paper with a circulation of about three-quarters of a million people. Excusing this as "not racism" is like excusing an electrician for using a penny instead of a fuse because "he didn't know any better."

    hes not exactly the deepest thinking cartoonist you've ever seen.

    his characatures of obama are far more offensive in my mind.

    not to mention the arab comics....

    Dunadan019 on
  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Dunadan019 wrote: »
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Okay, if this dude was some Joe Schmo off the streets, I could see giving him the benefit of the doubt.

    However, he's not. He's an editorial cartoonist for a paper with a circulation of about three-quarters of a million people. Excusing this as "not racism" is like excusing an electrician for using a penny instead of a fuse because "he didn't know any better."
    hes not exactly the deepest thinking cartoonist you've ever seen.

    his characatures of obama are far more offensive in my mind.

    not to mention the arab comics....
    And if Bob the electrician is using pennies instead of fuses, do we excuse that as "well, he's not exactly the best electrician...?"

    Thanatos on
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    mcdermott wrote: »

    EDIT: And you CANNOT be "accidentally racist." You either considered race in making a statement or taking an action, or you did not. If you did not, then you were not racist.

    You can use racist terms or images without understanding their meaning.

    Right. At which point you are not racist.
    The history and subtext of these words and images do not disappear merely because the author is ignorant of them.

    Simply because a term has a racist history does not mean anybody uttering it is racist. It makes the term racist, not the speaker.

    For instance, one might use the term "to call a spade a spade" around a black person (particularly an older one) without knowing that "spade" was ever used as a racial slur. I've even heard people claim the saying itself stems from the same (it apparently doesn't), and since people don't even know if racism was the origin of the phrase it would certainly be possible to (assuming for a moment it was) use the phrase unknowingly.

    Suppose somebody uses this phrase, another person takes offense and informs them why (the use of the word "spade"), then the person using the phrase is equally horrified and makes a point to no longer use the term...

    ...was this person racist for saying it in the first place? Was saying it a racist act?

    Of course not. Unless you are an idiot.

    It is not possible to be accidentally racist.

    mcdermott on
  • KageraKagera Imitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    First thing I thought of was the chimp gone nuts news story. Then I thought how Republicans are seeing/hoping this bill is a stimulus gone nuts and needing to be shot down.

    Why? Because that's what's going on in the context the cartoon was drawn.

    Is the cartoonist a moron hack? Sure. And he probably IS racist given his other cartoons. But there is no inherent racism in my mind in the cartoon in question. Maybe if he had written Obama on the monkey.

    Kagera on
    My neck, my back, my FUPA and my crack.
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    mcdermott wrote: »
    No, racism doesn't have to have negative connotations. You can even, I suppose, be racist towards somebody in a positive way.

    Really, it just comes down to treating somebody in a different manner due to their race.


    Ironically, an argument could me made that avoiding using caricatures of Obama as a monkey when it was so common with Bush (and again, the physical resemblance is similar) because he's black is, itself, racist. Obviously in the context of the past comparisons of blacks to monkeys that's going to be swiftly dismissed, because the connotation of that imagery overrides.


    EDIT: And you CANNOT be "accidentally racist." You either considered race in making a statement or taking an action, or you did not. If you did not, then you were not racist.
    I guess this was me misunderstanding the term then. So, racism can be as simple as making a generalization (positive or negative) based at least partly upon race. I suppose I've just never thought of it that way; I've always been hung up on the part where there needed to be some insinuation of inferiority.

    Blacks are good at sports like basketball (but not swimming), Asians are good at math, and your accountant should be a Jew as they're great with money are all extremely racist even if they're making 'positive' claims.

    moniker on
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited February 2009
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Dunadan019 wrote: »
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Okay, if this dude was some Joe Schmo off the streets, I could see giving him the benefit of the doubt.

    However, he's not. He's an editorial cartoonist for a paper with a circulation of about three-quarters of a million people. Excusing this as "not racism" is like excusing an electrician for using a penny instead of a fuse because "he didn't know any better."
    hes not exactly the deepest thinking cartoonist you've ever seen.

    his characatures of obama are far more offensive in my mind.

    not to mention the arab comics....
    And if Bob the electrician is using pennies instead of fuses, do we excuse that as "well, he's not exactly the best electrician...?"

    ...versus "he's racist against fuses"?

    Where are you going with this?

    ElJeffe on
    Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."

    I make tweet.
  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Dunadan019 wrote: »
    Thanatos wrote: »
    Okay, if this dude was some Joe Schmo off the streets, I could see giving him the benefit of the doubt.

    However, he's not. He's an editorial cartoonist for a paper with a circulation of about three-quarters of a million people. Excusing this as "not racism" is like excusing an electrician for using a penny instead of a fuse because "he didn't know any better."
    hes not exactly the deepest thinking cartoonist you've ever seen.

    his characatures of obama are far more offensive in my mind.

    not to mention the arab comics....
    And if Bob the electrician is using pennies instead of fuses, do we excuse that as "well, he's not exactly the best electrician...?"
    ...versus "he's racist against fuses"?

    Where are you going with this?
    I'm saying that as an editorial cartoonist, he's either a racist and needs to be fired, or so woefully incompetent that he needs to be fired.

    Thanatos on
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited February 2009
    moniker wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    No, racism doesn't have to have negative connotations. You can even, I suppose, be racist towards somebody in a positive way.

    Really, it just comes down to treating somebody in a different manner due to their race.


    Ironically, an argument could me made that avoiding using caricatures of Obama as a monkey when it was so common with Bush (and again, the physical resemblance is similar) because he's black is, itself, racist. Obviously in the context of the past comparisons of blacks to monkeys that's going to be swiftly dismissed, because the connotation of that imagery overrides.


    EDIT: And you CANNOT be "accidentally racist." You either considered race in making a statement or taking an action, or you did not. If you did not, then you were not racist.
    I guess this was me misunderstanding the term then. So, racism can be as simple as making a generalization (positive or negative) based at least partly upon race. I suppose I've just never thought of it that way; I've always been hung up on the part where there needed to be some insinuation of inferiority.

    Blacks are good at sports like basketball (but not swimming), Asians are good at math, and your accountant should be a Jew as they're great with money are all extremely racist even if they're making 'positive' claims.

    "White people drive like this", however, is simply a statement of fact.

    We really do.

    ElJeffe on
    Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."

    I make tweet.
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited February 2009
    Thanatos wrote: »
    I'm saying that as an editorial cartoonist, he's either a racist and needs to be fired, or so woefully incompetent that he needs to be fired.

    Except he's a cartoonist for the NYP. Being racist-and-or-stupid is probably a contractual requirement.

    ElJeffe on
    Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."

    I make tweet.
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    ...versus "he's racist against fuses"?

    Where are you going with this?

    That a professional political cartoonist should know, and almost certainly does know, the connotation of the imagery he chooses. He's not some visiting Scotsman unfamiliar with past racial tensions in the U.S. Taking issue with the whole "benefit of the doubt" argument regarding this specific cartoon, because that's akin to giving an electrician the benefit of the doubt on a subject he's expected to be knowledgeable about.

    mcdermott on
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    I'm saying that as an editorial cartoonist, he's either a racist and needs to be fired, or so woefully incompetent that he needs to be fired.

    But he's an editorial cartoonist for the NY Post, so he's either a racist and needs to be promoted, or he's so woefully incompetent that he needs to be promoted.

    EDIT: Beat like a...damn, I can't come up with anything that wouldn't make me a horrible racist.

    mcdermott on
  • OrganichuOrganichu jacobkosh Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    We so do. 10 and 2, 10 and 2, from the moment the key's in the ignition.

    Organichu on
  • Dunadan019Dunadan019 Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Thanatos wrote: »
    I'm saying that as an editorial cartoonist, he's either a racist and needs to be fired, or so woefully incompetent that he needs to be fired.

    Except he's a cartoonist for the NYP. Being racist-and-or-stupid is probably a contractual requirement.

    hes obviously racis and most likely a complete idiot. my guess is he was too stupid to realize the implication in this comic.

    Dunadan019 on
  • iTunesIsEviliTunesIsEvil Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    moniker wrote: »
    Blacks are good at sports like basketball (but not swimming), Asians are good at math, and your accountant should be a Jew as they're great with money are all extremely racist even if they're making 'positive' claims.
    Ok, fair enough, I can easily accept that. I was, again, just stupidly hung up on the belief in the target of the racism being lesser in some way.

    iTunesIsEvil on
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Dunadan019 wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Thanatos wrote: »
    I'm saying that as an editorial cartoonist, he's either a racist and needs to be fired, or so woefully incompetent that he needs to be fired.

    Except he's a cartoonist for the NYP. Being racist-and-or-stupid is probably a contractual requirement.

    hes obviously racis and most likely a complete idiot. my guess is he was too stupid to realize the implication in this comic.

    Well, we know he's racist against Arabs. And Deconstructivism. Are there any blatantly 'black people mirite' comics in his archive like there are with Middle Easterners?

    moniker on
  • Dunadan019Dunadan019 Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    moniker wrote: »
    Dunadan019 wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Thanatos wrote: »
    I'm saying that as an editorial cartoonist, he's either a racist and needs to be fired, or so woefully incompetent that he needs to be fired.

    Except he's a cartoonist for the NYP. Being racist-and-or-stupid is probably a contractual requirement.

    hes obviously racis and most likely a complete idiot. my guess is he was too stupid to realize the implication in this comic.

    Well, we know he's racist against Arabs. And Deconstructivism. Are there any blatantly 'black people mirite' comics in his archive like there are with Middle Easterners?

    i only looked back 3 months. i would imagine if you went back to the date for hurricane katrina thats exactly what you would find.

    Dunadan019 on
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited February 2009
    Dunadan019 wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    Dunadan019 wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Thanatos wrote: »
    I'm saying that as an editorial cartoonist, he's either a racist and needs to be fired, or so woefully incompetent that he needs to be fired.

    Except he's a cartoonist for the NYP. Being racist-and-or-stupid is probably a contractual requirement.

    hes obviously racis and most likely a complete idiot. my guess is he was too stupid to realize the implication in this comic.

    Well, we know he's racist against Arabs. And Deconstructivism. Are there any blatantly 'black people mirite' comics in his archive like there are with Middle Easterners?

    i only looked back 3 months. i would imagine if you went back to the date for hurricane katrina thats exactly what you would find.

    "See, black corpses float like this, white corpses float like this."
    I'm a terrible human being.

    ElJeffe on
    Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."

    I make tweet.
  • PantsBPantsB Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    This was the opposite page to the cartoon via Gawker
    custom_1234995251396_NYP_2.18b.jpg

    PantsB on
    11793-1.png
    day9gosu.png
    QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
  • No-QuarterNo-Quarter Nothing to Fear But Fear ItselfRegistered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Given that it's the NYP, which is basically the tabloid version of the Rush Limbaugh show, I wouldn't be too surprised if there was some winking and nudging aimed toward their "core" leadership. (Wingnuts)

    EDIT: You know, the kind of people who would find overtly racist and exaggerated pictures of Arabs depicted as tur'rsts funny. Oh, and don't forget shitty cheapshots at Rosie O'Donnell, those are pretty damn popular among the Limbaugh crowd.

    No-Quarter on
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    I'm kind of surprised this hasn't been posted yet.

    20090218.jpg

    moniker on
  • KageraKagera Imitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    PantsB wrote: »
    This was the opposite page to the cartoon via Gawker
    custom_1234995251396_NYP_2.18b.jpg

    'Signs'

    SIGNS!!!

    Jesus PantsB, of all the arguments I've read so far yours seems the weakest.

    "See he's connecting him to the stimulus bill meaning he's obviously implying he authored it meaning Obama is CLEARLY the monkey."

    No PantsB, NO.

    Kagera on
    My neck, my back, my FUPA and my crack.
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Going through the archives, the guy likes to make shitty fat jokes, jokes involving people kissing asses with nothing else to make it remotely funny, and prison rape jokes.

    Couscous on
  • Lord YodLord Yod Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    When I think of No Child Left Behind, a law written by two representatives and two senators, I think of the author and architect of the bill as George W. Bush. Was he literally the guy who wrote the thing? No, I'm pretty sure he wasn't. If it wasn't for him, would it have happened? No. To my mind, and I imagine most peoples' minds, NCLB = Bush.

    Now in that same sort of manner, when I think of the stimulus bill, something Obama has been talking about for months, something that was one of his stated goals upon entering office, when I think about who the author and architect of the bill is, I don't think of the members of congress who actually wrote it, I think of the big guy in charge who engineered the entire process so it actually happened. You know, Obama.

    Are you guys telling me when you think of 'guy who wrote the stimulus bill' you don't think of the guy who engineered the entire thing happening? I find that a little hard to believe.

    To me, the statement 'find someone else to write the stimulus' seems obviously intended to draw the comparison between Obama and the monkey. That one is a black man and the other is a historical racial epithet only reinforces this view in my mind. The cartoonist may not have thought he was being racist, but that only gets you as far as the guy who thinks 'arabs = terrorist' isn't racist. (That is to say, not at all)
    Couscous wrote: »
    Going through the archives, the guy likes to make shitty fat jokes, jokes involving people kissing asses with nothing else to make it remotely funny, and prison rape jokes.

    Like I said on page 2, it's the New York Post and it's nothing worth getting excited about.

    Lord Yod on
    steam_sig.png
  • Dunadan019Dunadan019 Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Lord Yod wrote: »
    When I think of No Child Left Behind, a law written by two representatives and two senators, I think of the author and architect of the bill as George W. Bush. Was he literally the guy who wrote the thing? No, I'm pretty sure he wasn't. If it wasn't for him, would it have happened? No. To my mind, and I imagine most peoples' minds, NCLB = Bush.

    Now in that same sort of manner, when I think of the stimulus bill, something Obama has been talking about for months, something that was one of his stated goals upon entering office, when I think about who the author and architect of the bill is, I don't think of the members of congress who actually wrote it, I think of the big guy in charge who engineered the entire process so it actually happened. You know, Obama.

    Are you guys telling me when you think of 'guy who wrote the stimulus bill' you don't think of the guy who engineered the entire thing happening? I find that a little hard to believe.

    To me, the statement 'find someone else to write the stimulus' seems obviously intended to draw the comparison between Obama and the monkey. That one is a black man and the other is a historical racial epithet only reinforces this view in my mind. The cartoonist may not have thought he was being racist, but that only gets you as far as the guy who thinks 'arabs = terrorist' isn't racist. (That is to say, not at all)
    Couscous wrote: »
    Going through the archives, the guy likes to make shitty fat jokes, jokes involving people kissing asses with nothing else to make it remotely funny, and prison rape jokes.

    Like I said on page 2, it's the New York Post and it's nothing worth getting excited about.

    i think he was trying to say that a monkey wrote the bill ala 'group of monkeys pounding on typewriters' but thats the thing about political cartoons, you can take whatever you want from them.

    hes still racist and pretty stupid btw.

    Dunadan019 on
  • OremLKOremLK Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    I don't really care whether the intent was racist, but it does look racist, enough that somebody in the paper should have known better and pulled the comic.

    Is putting something out there that you know will be interpreted by many as racist any better than knowingly putting something out there that is racist?

    OremLK on
  • Dunadan019Dunadan019 Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    OremLK wrote: »
    I don't really care whether the intent was racist, but it does look racist, enough that somebody in the paper should have known better and pulled the comic.

    Is putting something out there that you know will be interpreted by many as racist any better than knowingly putting something out there that is racist?

    freedom of the press!

    Dunadan019 on
  • OremLKOremLK Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    They're free to say whatever they want. (I hope nobody is suggesting this should be illegal.) And we're free to call them a bunch of fucking idiots and never buy one of their papers again.

    Although I guess we were already doing that, given that this is the New York Post we're talking about.

    OremLK on
  • wwtMaskwwtMask Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Dunadan019 wrote: »
    OremLK wrote: »
    I don't really care whether the intent was racist, but it does look racist, enough that somebody in the paper should have known better and pulled the comic.

    Is putting something out there that you know will be interpreted by many as racist any better than knowingly putting something out there that is racist?

    freedom of the press!

    This isn't against you (I know that's sarcasm there), but it gets annoying when people misunderstand the "freedom of"s. Freedom of speech/press just means you can say and publish what you want (within a certain boundary), not that you are also free from the consequences of saying or publishing something. There is no freedom from criticism in the constitution.

    wwtMask on
    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
  • Dunadan019Dunadan019 Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    wwtMask wrote: »
    Dunadan019 wrote: »
    OremLK wrote: »
    I don't really care whether the intent was racist, but it does look racist, enough that somebody in the paper should have known better and pulled the comic.

    Is putting something out there that you know will be interpreted by many as racist any better than knowingly putting something out there that is racist?

    freedom of the press!

    This isn't against you (I know that's sarcasm there), but it gets annoying when people misunderstand the "freedom of"s. Freedom of speech/press just means you can say and publish what you want (within a certain boundary), not that you are also free from the consequences of saying or publishing something. There is no freedom from criticism in the constitution.

    well as to why they didn't censor this, there are a few possibilities

    1) they don't censor political cartoons as a course of habbit

    2) i think it was originally mentioned as a political editorial comic?

    3) they aren't that bright.

    Dunadan019 on
Sign In or Register to comment.