As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

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

1567810

Posts

  • Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Bama wrote: »
    I was willing to give the guy the benefit of the doubt until I saw those other comics someone posted in the thread.

    Even if a skinhead tells an off-color joke, he's not necessarily being racist. Just because a regressive troglodyte makes fun of something you're politically in favor of doesn't mean he's being racist.

    The guy is obviously a shitheel.

    Why the fuck are people picking up on this because of one of his most innocuous cartoons to date? Jesus. Are primates like dog whistles for the easily offended or something? Frankly, even though I think the NY Post is a terrible sleazy right-wing-bordering-on-fascist sensationalist tabloid, they're fully justified in this instance of taking umbrage. Of all the things to get offended over that they or their comic people have done, this is the one that does it?

    What the fuck?

    Loren Michael on
    a7iea7nzewtq.jpg
  • Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    wwtMask wrote: »
    Opinions vary. For instance, I think your opinion on this issue is ignorant.

    I've made my opinion pretty clear, I think. I even gave examples.

    Here, I'll get a second opinion:
    http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2009/02/18/sometimes-a-monkey-is-just-a-monkey.aspx

    But, look, obviously the point is that the stimulus bill could have been written by a monkey. The monkey doesn't look like Obama and is in no way suposed to represent him. And it incorporated violence because the monkey in the news story was, in fact, shot -- and the punchline depends on the monkey being dead and thus unavailable to write further legislation. Again, while it's a mediocre joke at best, Obama supporters shouldn't be looking for racial slights around every corner. So far there have been very few of them.

    --Jonathan Chait

    Loren Michael on
    a7iea7nzewtq.jpg
  • Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Leitner wrote: »
    Bama wrote: »
    I was willing to give the guy the benefit of the doubt until I saw those other comics someone posted in the thread.

    Yeah, same here. At first sight it was possibly questionable, but looking at other work the guys done? Guys a straight up cartoon caricature of a bigot. There's no question what his intention was.

    No, there isn't. He was comparing the Democrats in control of congress to a rabid monkey, and that's pretty fucking obvious.

    Loren Michael on
    a7iea7nzewtq.jpg
  • BamaBama Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Bama wrote: »
    I was willing to give the guy the benefit of the doubt until I saw those other comics someone posted in the thread.

    Even if a skinhead tells an off-color joke, he's not necessarily being racist.
    Of course. He doesn't get the benefit of the doubt, however.

    Bama on
  • wwtMaskwwtMask Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    wwtMask wrote: »
    Opinions vary. For instance, I think your opinion on this issue is ignorant.

    I've made my opinion pretty clear, I think. I even gave examples.

    Here, I'll get a second opinion:
    http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2009/02/18/sometimes-a-monkey-is-just-a-monkey.aspx

    But, look, obviously the point is that the stimulus bill could have been written by a monkey. The monkey doesn't look like Obama and is in no way suposed to represent him. And it incorporated violence because the monkey in the news story was, in fact, shot -- and the punchline depends on the monkey being dead and thus unavailable to write further legislation. Again, while it's a mediocre joke at best, Obama supporters shouldn't be looking for racial slights around every corner. So far there have been very few of them.

    --Jonathan Chait

    The intent must not be very clear if other normal and rational people can intuit a racist (or, at the least, a racially insensitive) message out of it.

    The problem is that it's not so obvious what he was trying to get at. He didn't put a name tag with Congress on the chimp. And the stimulus is closely tied to Obama. It's not unreasonable to make a connection between the two. It is, however, unreasonable to say that the only people who are seeing racism are the ones always looking for it.

    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
  • Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Bama wrote: »
    Bama wrote: »
    I was willing to give the guy the benefit of the doubt until I saw those other comics someone posted in the thread.

    Even if a skinhead tells an off-color joke, he's not necessarily being racist.
    Of course. He doesn't get the benefit of the doubt, however.

    Am I giving him the benefit of the doubt? No.

    What I'm doing is being lazy. I'm not willing to do a naked back flip through a flaming hoop to magic a cartoon into something it's not.

    Loren Michael on
    a7iea7nzewtq.jpg
  • PantsBPantsB Fake Thomas Jefferson Registered User regular
    edited February 2009

    What I'm doing is being lazy. I'm not willing to do a naked back flip through a flaming hoop to magic a cartoon into something it's not.

    No I'm pretty sure that's exactly what you're doing

    PantsB on
    11793-1.png
    day9gosu.png
    QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
  • Wonder_HippieWonder_Hippie __BANNED USERS regular
    edited February 2009
    Bama wrote: »
    I was willing to give the guy the benefit of the doubt until I saw those other comics someone posted in the thread.

    Even if a skinhead tells an off-color joke, he's not necessarily being racist. Just because a regressive troglodyte makes fun of something you're politically in favor of doesn't mean he's being racist.

    The guy is obviously a shitheel.

    Why the fuck are people picking up on this because of one of his most innocuous cartoons to date? Jesus. Are primates like dog whistles for the easily offended or something? Frankly, even though I think the NY Post is a terrible sleazy right-wing-bordering-on-fascist sensationalist tabloid, they're fully justified in this instance of taking umbrage. Of all the things to get offended over that they or their comic people have done, this is the one that does it?

    What the fuck?

    Regardless of his intentions, I have no problem with people calling him a racist bigot. There is no way, absolutely no fucking way, he didn't know exactly what that image was going to elicit. He's a cartoonist, probably an educated individual. He deals in imagery for a living. I wouldn't doubt that he deliberately did this specifically to drum up some controversy.

    Wonder_Hippie on
  • wwtMaskwwtMask Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Also, the notion that there is only one correct interpretation for this cartoon is crazy.

    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
  • Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    wwtMask wrote: »
    wwtMask wrote: »
    Opinions vary. For instance, I think your opinion on this issue is ignorant.

    I've made my opinion pretty clear, I think. I even gave examples.

    Here, I'll get a second opinion:
    http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2009/02/18/sometimes-a-monkey-is-just-a-monkey.aspx

    But, look, obviously the point is that the stimulus bill could have been written by a monkey. The monkey doesn't look like Obama and is in no way suposed to represent him. And it incorporated violence because the monkey in the news story was, in fact, shot -- and the punchline depends on the monkey being dead and thus unavailable to write further legislation. Again, while it's a mediocre joke at best, Obama supporters shouldn't be looking for racial slights around every corner. So far there have been very few of them.

    --Jonathan Chait

    The intent must not be very clear if other normal and rational people can intuit a racist (or, at the least, a racially insensitive) message out of it.

    The problem is that it's not so obvious what he was trying to get at. He didn't put a name tag with Congress on the chimp. And the stimulus is closely tied to Obama. It's not unreasonable to make a connection between the two. It is, however, unreasonable to say that the only people who are seeing racism are the ones always looking for it.

    The people that are intuiting racism from this aren't so far removed from people seeing Jesus in a grilled cheese, and I have no doubt that they're gonna call themselves normal and rational. The guy has a history. It's been posted in this thread. Newsflash: He's not a real subtle guy. If he wanted to make a connection to Obama, it would have been pretty fucking obvious, nametag-style. He's not making a connection to Obama. He's making a connection to a shot-dead rabid monkey that was in the news.

    I also don't see how this is racially insensitive. Again, are primates dog-whistles for racial insensitivity? What does racially insensitive even mean in this context? That hyperintuitive types are going to get offended at references to primates?

    Loren Michael on
    a7iea7nzewtq.jpg
  • Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    PantsB wrote: »

    What I'm doing is being lazy. I'm not willing to do a naked back flip through a flaming hoop to magic a cartoon into something it's not.

    No I'm pretty sure that's exactly what you're doing

    I'm taking it at face value. It's not so hard. I think a lot of people are seeing this upside down and backwards through a double-secret racism filter though.

    Loren Michael on
    a7iea7nzewtq.jpg
  • Dunadan019Dunadan019 Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    wwtMask wrote: »
    Also, the notion that there is only one correct interpretation for this cartoon is crazy.

    but the notion that there is a 'most correct' interpretation is not. of course the most correct interpretation is the one that the author intended... and then we argue about what the author intended.

    Dunadan019 on
  • BamaBama Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Listen, all I'm saying is that this guy clearly spent the last four months training that monkey to assault civilians and then unleashed him in order to create a credible cover for his direct attack on Obama's race.

    Is that really so hard to see?

    Bama on
  • wwtMaskwwtMask Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    wwtMask wrote: »
    wwtMask wrote: »
    Opinions vary. For instance, I think your opinion on this issue is ignorant.

    I've made my opinion pretty clear, I think. I even gave examples.

    Here, I'll get a second opinion:
    http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2009/02/18/sometimes-a-monkey-is-just-a-monkey.aspx

    But, look, obviously the point is that the stimulus bill could have been written by a monkey. The monkey doesn't look like Obama and is in no way suposed to represent him. And it incorporated violence because the monkey in the news story was, in fact, shot -- and the punchline depends on the monkey being dead and thus unavailable to write further legislation. Again, while it's a mediocre joke at best, Obama supporters shouldn't be looking for racial slights around every corner. So far there have been very few of them.

    --Jonathan Chait

    The intent must not be very clear if other normal and rational people can intuit a racist (or, at the least, a racially insensitive) message out of it.

    The problem is that it's not so obvious what he was trying to get at. He didn't put a name tag with Congress on the chimp. And the stimulus is closely tied to Obama. It's not unreasonable to make a connection between the two. It is, however, unreasonable to say that the only people who are seeing racism are the ones always looking for it.

    The people that are intuiting racism from this aren't so far removed from people seeing Jesus in a grilled cheese, and I have no doubt that they're gonna call themselves normal and rational. The guy has a history. It's been posted in this thread. Newsflash: He's not a real subtle guy. If he wanted to make a connection to Obama, it would have been pretty fucking obvious, nametag-style. He's not making a connection to Obama. He's making a connection to a shot-dead rabid monkey that was in the news.

    I also don't see how this is racially insensitive. Again, are primates dog-whistles for racial insensitivity? What does racially insensitive even mean in this context? That hyperintuitive types are going to get offended at references to primates?

    You're making the mistake of assuming that the only message that can be taken from a work of art is that of the artist's original intent. Additionally, you make the mistake of assuming you know the artist's intentions. All you actually do know is your personal take on the work. Saying that others are being unreasonable by not coming to the conclusion you did regarding racist aspects of the work is not a commentary on the work but on your interpretation.

    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
  • Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Regardless of his intentions, I have no problem with people calling him a racist bigot.

    Sure. I think that's pretty obvious from his history.
    There is no way, absolutely no fucking way, he didn't know exactly what that image was going to elicit. He's a cartoonist, probably an educated individual. He deals in imagery for a living. I wouldn't doubt that he deliberately did this specifically to drum up some controversy.

    I disagree with this. Particularly if he's racially insensitive.

    Loren Michael on
    a7iea7nzewtq.jpg
  • Dunadan019Dunadan019 Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    PantsB wrote: »

    What I'm doing is being lazy. I'm not willing to do a naked back flip through a flaming hoop to magic a cartoon into something it's not.

    No I'm pretty sure that's exactly what you're doing

    I'm taking it at face value. It's not so hard. I think a lot of people are seeing this upside down and backwards through a double-secret racism filter though.

    peoples idea of what face value 'is' differs.

    Dunadan019 on
  • lazegamerlazegamer The magnanimous cyberspaceRegistered User regular
    edited February 2009
    I also don't see how this is racially insensitive. Again, are primates dog-whistles for racial insensitivity? What does racially insensitive even mean in this context? That hyperintuitive types are going to get offended at references to primates?

    It's insensitive because there is a possibility that he is drawing Obama as a monkey (or ape ... don't do this).

    Drawing Obama as an ape for doing something stupid is not exactly the same as drawing Bush as an ape for doing something stupid. It doesn't mean you're a racist, but if you're aware of the context and you do it anyway then it shows that you don't really care if some people see it that way, hence you're insensitive to the racial history of the imagery.

    In short, yes I think that primates are dog whistles for racial insensitivity.

    lazegamer on
    I would download a car.
  • wwtMaskwwtMask Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Dunadan019 wrote: »
    wwtMask wrote: »
    Also, the notion that there is only one correct interpretation for this cartoon is crazy.

    but the notion that there is a 'most correct' interpretation is not. of course the most correct interpretation is the one that the author intended... and then we argue about what the author intended.

    Most correct is also misleading. It's possible for an artist to unintentionally introduce themes into their work. Honestly, it comes down to each individual's take on the work. I'm not going to say that any one particular take is right.

    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: »
    wwtMask wrote: »
    Also, the notion that there is only one correct interpretation for this cartoon is crazy.

    but the notion that there is a 'most correct' interpretation is not. of course the most correct interpretation is the one that the author intended... and then we argue about what the author intended.

    Most correct is also misleading. It's possible for an artist to unintentionally introduce themes into their work. Honestly, it comes down to each individual's take on the work. I'm not going to say that any one particular take is right.

    how about most accurate? does that work? i hate trying to find words to describe phrases.

    it means different things to different people is fine, but thats different from saying "the artist intended for me to interpret it the way i did" that has more to do with accuracy...

    of course without actually being the artist, well never know what his true intention really was. we can guess though.

    Dunadan019 on
  • Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    wwtMask wrote: »
    You're making the mistake of assuming that the only message that can be taken from a work of art is that of the artist's original intent. Additionally, you make the mistake of assuming you know the artist's intentions. All you actually do know is your personal take on the work. Saying that others are being unreasonable by not coming to the conclusion you did regarding racist aspects of the work is not a commentary on the work but on your interpretation.

    Gosh, I guess I'm not willing to take the plunge into actively seeking the metaphore in absolutely everything. Yes, sometimes a primate is a reference to the idea that black people aren't so evolved. Sometimes they're just what they are.

    You're suggesting that if Georgia O'Keefe had painted a big, juicy watermelon, it could conceivably be taken as racist because watermelons are code for a regressive view of blacks. That's retarded. If something is racist, intent is of paramount fucking importance.

    I've asserted my personal take. I'm suggesting that sometimes there isn't so much code to be found in a cartoon that's as obvious as this one. I noted that the artist in question isn't subtle like a knife and that if he were being racist we wouldn't have to be listening for dog whistles. I'm asserting that my personal take makes sense, and that the "he's racist because monkeys are code for blacks-aren't-evolved" takes a lot of hoop jumping that doesn't make any sense.

    Loren Michael on
    a7iea7nzewtq.jpg
  • JamesKeenanJamesKeenan Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    "It means what you want it to mean" is just a little bit of bullshit.

    Sure, you can imagine it has a personal meaning to you, but there are very small degrees where this is allowable.

    If I said Robert Frost's poems were only ever about what it was like to have sex with his mom, I would not be "free to have my opinions." I would be an idiot.

    JamesKeenan on
  • Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Dunadan019 wrote: »
    PantsB wrote: »

    What I'm doing is being lazy. I'm not willing to do a naked back flip through a flaming hoop to magic a cartoon into something it's not.

    No I'm pretty sure that's exactly what you're doing

    I'm taking it at face value. It's not so hard. I think a lot of people are seeing this upside down and backwards through a double-secret racism filter though.

    peoples idea of what face value 'is' differs.

    Oh, I'm sorry, was that a picture of Obama in that cartoon?

    Loren Michael on
    a7iea7nzewtq.jpg
  • Dunadan019Dunadan019 Registered User regular
    edited February 2009

    Oh, I'm sorry, was that a picture of Obama in that cartoon?

    im not sure what it is, because chimpanzees look like this and they do not look exactly the same.
    600px-Chimpanzee-Head.jpg

    i am also unsure what those creatures on the left are as they clearly don't have correct human proportions and yet are speaking english.

    Dunadan019 on
  • wwtMaskwwtMask Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    wwtMask wrote: »
    You're making the mistake of assuming that the only message that can be taken from a work of art is that of the artist's original intent. Additionally, you make the mistake of assuming you know the artist's intentions. All you actually do know is your personal take on the work. Saying that others are being unreasonable by not coming to the conclusion you did regarding racist aspects of the work is not a commentary on the work but on your interpretation.

    Gosh, I guess I'm not willing to take the plunge into actively seeking the metaphore in absolutely everything. Yes, sometimes a primate is a reference to the idea that black people aren't so evolved. Sometimes they're just what they are.

    You're suggesting that if Georgia O'Keefe had painted a big, juicy watermelon, it could conceivably be taken as racist because watermelons are code for a regressive view of blacks. That's retarded. If something is racist, intent is of paramount fucking importance.

    I've asserted my personal take. I'm suggesting that sometimes there isn't so much code to be found in a cartoon that's as obvious as this one. I noted that the artist in question isn't subtle like a knife and that if he were being racist we wouldn't have to be listening for dog whistles. I'm asserting that my personal take makes sense, and that the "he's racist because monkeys are code for blacks-aren't-evolved" takes a lot of hoop jumping that doesn't make any sense.

    Your example isn't similar to this one. I mean, a watermelon by itself is meaningless. But if she painted a slice of watermelon in black hands, it would be reasonable if someone took exception to it.

    And the thing is, it isn't so much that this cartoon by itself is indicative of racism, it's that this is one in a line of work that can be interpreted as bigoted. Given that and the context of the cartoon, I think you're being unreasonable in insisting that intuiting bigotry from this cartoon is "hoop-jumping". What you call "hoop-jumping" I see as a reasonable conclusion that could be drawn form the information provided by the cartoon.

    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
  • Fuzzy Cumulonimbus CloudFuzzy Cumulonimbus Cloud Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    "It means what you want it to mean" is just a little bit of bullshit.

    Sure, you can imagine it has a personal meaning to you, but there are very small degrees where this is allowable.

    If I said Robert Frost's poems were only ever about what it was like to have sex with his mom, I would not be "free to have my opinions." I would be an idiot.
    Well, the road not taken was your mom's va-
    Something about desire and fire I think.
    I initially thought that he was trying to say a monkey wrote the stimulus bill, but it became pretty clear that there were some racial undertones.

    Fuzzy Cumulonimbus Cloud on
  • Dunadan019Dunadan019 Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    wwtMask wrote: »

    Your example isn't similar to this one. I mean, a watermelon by itself is meaningless. But if she painted a slice of watermelon in black hands, it would be reasonable if someone took exception to it.

    And the thing is, it isn't so much that this cartoon by itself is indicative of racism, it's that this is one in a line of work that can be interpreted as bigoted. Given that and the context of the cartoon, I think you're being unreasonable in insisting that intuiting bigotry from this cartoon is "hoop-jumping". What you call "hoop-jumping" I see as a reasonable conclusion that could be drawn form the information provided by the cartoon.

    personally i think his characature of obama is more offensive than the [strike]monkey[/strike] ape was....

    Dunadan019 on
  • wwtMaskwwtMask Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    "It means what you want it to mean" is just a little bit of bullshit.

    Sure, you can imagine it has a personal meaning to you, but there are very small degrees where this is allowable.

    If I said Robert Frost's poems were only ever about what it was like to have sex with his mom, I would not be "free to have my opinions." I would be an idiot.

    Again, this is mistake in assuming that other meanings can't be drawn from a work of art. I mean, do we really think that the architect behind the Washington Monument was also secretly thinking that it was a great phallic symbol? Whether or not he did, that's another meaning that an observer may take away from the monument.

    EDIT: Also, there's nothing wrong with having a debate about different interpretations, but dismissing them out of hand because they don't correspond to yours is wrong. I just don't like the idea of shutting down that debate by saying that people who think it might be racist are intentionally looking for racism or are unreasonable.

    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
  • tsmvengytsmvengy Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Dunadan019 wrote: »
    wwtMask wrote: »

    Your example isn't similar to this one. I mean, a watermelon by itself is meaningless. But if she painted a slice of watermelon in black hands, it would be reasonable if someone took exception to it.

    And the thing is, it isn't so much that this cartoon by itself is indicative of racism, it's that this is one in a line of work that can be interpreted as bigoted. Given that and the context of the cartoon, I think you're being unreasonable in insisting that intuiting bigotry from this cartoon is "hoop-jumping". What you call "hoop-jumping" I see as a reasonable conclusion that could be drawn form the information provided by the cartoon.

    personally i think his characature of obama is more offensive than the [strike]monkey[/strike] ape was....

    I thought this as well, as it draws from a bunch of racist caricature.

    tsmvengy on
    steam_sig.png
  • PantsBPantsB Fake Thomas Jefferson Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    The guy was GLAAD's gay defamer (or something like that) for the year because of his ability to put so much anti-gay imagery in a single frame. In this one
    post_marriage_2_lg.jpg

    he managed to get
    1. a hamster
    2. a disco picture
    3. an umbrella drink
    4. his trademark foot up in the air for gays
    5. limp wrists
    6. a hankey
    7. flowered wallpaper
    8. an AIDs ribbon
    9. and last but not least a teddy bear with what might be a dildo
    in a single anti-gay cartoon. He's managed to get a sheep in most of his anti-gay cartoons including this one
    post_marriage_lg.jpg
    The idea that hewouldn't understand the imagery after jamming this much bigotry into his other works is far fetched

    PantsB on
    11793-1.png
    day9gosu.png
    QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
  • KageraKagera Imitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    I haven't seen him turn people into animals in any of his comics so far....

    Kagera on
    My neck, my back, my FUPA and my crack.
  • Speed RacerSpeed Racer Scritch scratch scritch scratch scritch scratch scritch scratch scritch scratch scritch scratch scritch scratch scritch scratch scritch scratch scritch scratch scritch scratch scritch scratchRegistered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Actually I'm pretty sure that's a sheep or similar animal in the bed.

    Speed Racer on
  • JamesKeenanJamesKeenan Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    wwtMask wrote: »
    "It means what you want it to mean" is just a little bit of bullshit.

    Sure, you can imagine it has a personal meaning to you, but there are very small degrees where this is allowable.

    If I said Robert Frost's poems were only ever about what it was like to have sex with his mom, I would not be "free to have my opinions." I would be an idiot.

    Again, this is mistake in assuming that other meanings can't be drawn from a work of art. I mean, do we really think that the architect behind the Washington Monument was also secretly thinking that it was a great phallic symbol? Whether or not he did, that's another meaning that an observer may take away from the monument.

    EDIT: Also, there's nothing wrong with having a debate about different interpretations, but dismissing them out of hand because they don't correspond to yours is wrong. I just don't like the idea of shutting down that debate by saying that people who think it might be racist are intentionally looking for racism or are unreasonable.

    I'm not trying to shut down a debate, nor am I at all times saying my own interpretation is the right one.

    But I absolutely think that in many, if not most, cases, there is a clear most correct interpretation. It's usually pretty clear what the artist/director/designer/writer/etc was trying to say, and anything too far from that is, plainly, wrong.

    You can like it to mean something else, or even think it might work better under this other light. But it doesn't make it more meaningful or more correct than what was clearly the artist's original meaning.

    JamesKeenan on
  • wwtMaskwwtMask Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    PantsB wrote: »
    The guy was GLAAD's gay defamer (or something like that) for the year because of his ability to put so much anti-gay imagery in a single frame. In this one
    post_marriage_2_lg.jpg

    he managed to get
    1. a hamster
    2. a disco picture
    3. an umbrella drink
    4. his trademark foot up in the air for gays
    5. limp wrists
    6. a hankey
    7. flowered wallpaper
    8. an AIDs ribbon
    9. and last but not least a teddy bear with what might be a dildo
    in a single anti-gay cartoon. He's managed to get a sheep in most of his anti-gay cartoons including this one
    post_marriage_lg.jpg
    The idea that hewouldn't understand the imagery after jamming this much bigotry into his other works is far fetched
    You forgot:

    10. the lisp

    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
  • PantsBPantsB Fake Thomas Jefferson Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Kagera wrote: »
    I haven't seen him turn people into animals in any of his comics so far....
    02082009.jpg
    01232009.jpg
    02052009.jpg
    But you know that's just the last month.

    PantsB on
    11793-1.png
    day9gosu.png
    QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    I don't know my gay stereotypes, but why is there an aquarium behind them?

    Couscous on
  • PantsBPantsB Fake Thomas Jefferson Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Couscous wrote: »
    I don't know my gay stereotypes, but why is there an aquarium behind them?

    You can just see the hamster wheel. He's from the gay = bestiality/pedophile school

    PantsB on
    11793-1.png
    day9gosu.png
    QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
  • wwtMaskwwtMask Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    wwtMask wrote: »
    "It means what you want it to mean" is just a little bit of bullshit.

    Sure, you can imagine it has a personal meaning to you, but there are very small degrees where this is allowable.

    If I said Robert Frost's poems were only ever about what it was like to have sex with his mom, I would not be "free to have my opinions." I would be an idiot.

    Again, this is mistake in assuming that other meanings can't be drawn from a work of art. I mean, do we really think that the architect behind the Washington Monument was also secretly thinking that it was a great phallic symbol? Whether or not he did, that's another meaning that an observer may take away from the monument.

    EDIT: Also, there's nothing wrong with having a debate about different interpretations, but dismissing them out of hand because they don't correspond to yours is wrong. I just don't like the idea of shutting down that debate by saying that people who think it might be racist are intentionally looking for racism or are unreasonable.

    I'm not trying to shut down a debate, nor am I at all times saying my own interpretation is the right one.

    But I absolutely think that in many, if not most, cases, there is a clear most correct interpretation. It's usually pretty clear what the artist/director/designer/writer/etc was trying to say, and anything too far from that is, plainly, wrong.

    You can like it to mean something else, or even think it might work better under this other light. But it doesn't make it more meaningful or more correct than what was clearly the artist's original meaning.

    Right, so the question is, given the information presented, what's a reasonable interpretation. It's reasonable to see racism in the strip, otherwise such a large number of people wouldn't be making that same assessment.

    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
  • KageraKagera Imitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    PantsB wrote: »
    Kagera wrote: »
    I haven't seen him turn people into animals in any of his comics so far....
    02082009.jpg
    01232009.jpg
    02052009.jpg
    But you know that's just the last month.

    So if Obama is the creator of the stimulus bill would that make the pregnant ass in that last comic Michelle?

    This and more in Mysteries from the Other Dominion.

    Kagera on
    My neck, my back, my FUPA and my crack.
  • YarYar Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Really, making that monkey be Obama makes the cartoon make no sense. Is Obama someone "they found" to write a stimulus bill? The obvious implication is that the monkey that was shot IRL might have been the figurative one that Dems in Congress must have gone and found to write their stimulus bill, and now they'll have to find someone else to write the next one.

    The idea that the monkey is Obama (and not, you know, the actual monkey that was shot), makes no sense. Why would they then have to go find someone else to write the next stimulus? I mean, wouldn't Biden be President then? There wouldn't be any "finding" to do, and regardless, who writes the stimulus would not even be a relevant or sensible question at all if Obama was shot.

    The only thing that makes sense is that the "joke" is that Dems went and found a monkey to write the stimulus, but now the cops shot the monkey attacking someone, so they have to go find someone else to write it.

    I get the racist interpretation... but if that's what you saw first then your brain has been hacked. Think harder.

    EDIT: I see all the other examples of him being less than politically correct. He loads up a comic about Foley with little trappings of homosexual stereotypes. He draws offensively exaggerated charicatures of arab terrorists. He travels the well-trodden slippery slope of homosexuality and bestiality. But none of that compares to what you are suggesting now. None of that is double-meaning, none of it meant to be hidden or amiguous or confusing, none of it requires a highly questionable alternate interpretation of the comic, and none of it nearly so egregious as calling Obama a monkey. So no, you aren't really making much of a case with any of that, either.

    Yar on
  • ElkiElki get busy Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited February 2009
    PantsB wrote: »
    The guy was GLAAD's gay defamer (or something like that) for the year because of his ability to put so much anti-gay imagery in a single frame. In this one
    post_marriage_2_lg.jpg

    he managed to get
    1. a hamster
    2. a disco picture
    3. an umbrella drink
    4. his trademark foot up in the air for gays
    5. limp wrists
    6. a hankey
    7. flowered wallpaper
    8. an AIDs ribbon
    9. and last but not least a teddy bear with what might be a dildo
    in a single anti-gay cartoon. He's managed to get a sheep in most of his anti-gay cartoons including this one
    post_marriage_lg.jpg
    The idea that hewouldn't understand the imagery after jamming this much bigotry into his other works is far fetched

    Holy crap, that's amazing.

    Elki on
    smCQ5WE.jpg
Sign In or Register to comment.