'Racist' cartoon causes stir

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

Princess Marzipan
Posts: 7717
Joined: Sun May 27, 2007 5:28 am UTC
Location: neither a road, nor an island

Re: 'Racist' cartoon causes stir

Postby Princess Marzipan » Fri Mar 06, 2009 3:14 pm UTC

More people saw it through the lens of also being informed that such a thing is racist and not okay. That does not in any way mean people protesting this are spreading racism.
"It's Saturday night. I've got no date, a two-liter of Shasta, and my all-Rush mixtape. Let's rock!"
"I am just about to be brilliant!"
General_Norris, on feminism, wrote:If you lose your six Pokémon, you lost.

User avatar
Bakemaster
pretty nice future dick
Posts: 8915
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 2:33 pm UTC
Location: One of those hot places

Re: 'Racist' cartoon causes stir

Postby Bakemaster » Fri Mar 06, 2009 3:36 pm UTC

Soralin wrote:But if no one else ever knew of the person actions, then they wouldn't be racist?

"If a tree falls in the forest and nobody is around to hear it, does it make a sound?" There's a reason that question is rhetorical. Your version of the same question has no bearing on this conversation because the hypothetical example of a man on a desert island is completely meaningless in the context we're dealing with here. Whether X can be racist in a vacuum or not only matters in a vacuum.
Image
c0 = 2.13085531 × 1014 smoots per fortnight
"Apparently you can't summon an alternate timeline clone of your inner demon, guys! Remember that." —Noc

User avatar
(╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻
As the Arbiter of Everything, Everything Sucks
Posts: 8314
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2007 6:17 pm UTC
Location: I FUCKING MOVED TO THE WOODS

Re: 'Racist' cartoon causes stir

Postby (╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻ » Fri Mar 06, 2009 3:47 pm UTC

the analogy of someone on a deserted island is absurd. If someone is scrawling racist ideas on a rock nobody is ever going to see, yes it's still a racist action, even if it is the least effective act of racism ever. But this idea in no way helps to better explain the concept of racism as it is being hashed out in this thread. The cartoon is racist even if it had been drawn on toilet paper and used only to wipe the artist's butt. What he does with it doesn't affect the potential it has to enforce a racist culture. When exposed to other humans, it does so, and then we fight about it. OK?
But hold on a moment, I think I've got it...

If we dig up an ancient culture and we find their cave drawings show a bunch of black-haired people with red skin* oppressing** all the white-skinned people with red hair, we're going to know say, "my my, these things enforced a racist culture." And then, if modern-day black haired red skinned people use those cave drawings as 'proof' that 'this is the way it should be because this is the way it used to be' and continue or restart said oppression of white-skinned red-haired people, then it's reinforcing a racist culture, yeah.
Even if nobody but Creepy Caver Jim of the Crazy Red People ever saw them before. Cause they reinforce Jim's own ideas of superiority and his own ideas about race.
Right?


*I'm just trying to work with an opposing color scheme, not make a statement. See the difference?
**through segregation, slavery, separate rules and castes, etc.
Heyyy baby wanna kill all humans?

User avatar
segmentation fault
Posts: 1770
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2007 4:10 pm UTC
Location: Nu Jersey
Contact:

Re: 'Racist' cartoon causes stir

Postby segmentation fault » Fri Mar 06, 2009 3:51 pm UTC

if the monkey is supposed to represent Obama (which it probably does) then i believe shooting the president is a bigger issue than racism here.
people are like LDL cholesterol for the internet

User avatar
Gunfingers
Posts: 2401
Joined: Wed May 30, 2007 7:15 pm UTC

Re: 'Racist' cartoon causes stir

Postby Gunfingers » Fri Mar 06, 2009 3:52 pm UTC

You don't think very highly of Jim if you think his concept of human equality is built on ancient cave drawings. But then if Jim were right in the head we probably wouldn't call him Creepy Caver Jim. I...uh...may have pushed this metaphor too far.

Heisenberg
Posts: 3789
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 8:48 pm UTC
Location: Uncertain

Re: 'Racist' cartoon causes stir

Postby Heisenberg » Fri Mar 06, 2009 4:00 pm UTC

Bakemaster wrote:"If a tree falls in the forest and nobody is around to hear it, does it make a sound?"

The factual answer to that question is 'yes.' When asked the question 'did this cartoon represent a communication of racist ideas from the artist to the reader?' the factual answer is 'no.'

Attempts to eviscerate this cartoonist because someone, somewhere may have had his idiotic stereotypes reinforced are similar to the the argument that the tree does not make a sound.

User avatar
Ixtellor
There are like 4 posters on XKCD that no more about ...
Posts: 3100
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2008 3:31 pm UTC

Re: 'Racist' cartoon causes stir

Postby Ixtellor » Fri Mar 06, 2009 4:03 pm UTC

Xanthir wrote:
Heisenberg wrote:H: "Hey dude, want some watermelon?"
D: "I take offense at your implication."
H: "Sucks to be you, more delicious watermelon for me."

This may make me rude, but it hardly makes my actions racist.

It most certainly does. The dude thought your actions were racist. Thus, your actions were racist, at least to him. It's up to you whether you feel that's important.


Nah.

I recall Ed Bradley, the former contributer to 60 mins (he is black), recalling his first trip to Vietnam.
He got there and went and met up with his vietmanese escorts for the trip. They immeditaly offered him watermelon. Initially he said he thought they were making a stereotype about black people, but then he realized that they just really really like watermelon and Vietnam and they were all going to eat it regardless of his presence, at which point he came to the obvious conclusion "He had no reason to be offended and they were not being racist, even though his initial reaction was that it was slightly racist to assume he liked watermelon, which he claimed he loved".

Ixtellor
The Revolution will not be Twitterized.

User avatar
Ixtellor
There are like 4 posters on XKCD that no more about ...
Posts: 3100
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2008 3:31 pm UTC

Re: 'Racist' cartoon causes stir

Postby Ixtellor » Fri Mar 06, 2009 4:06 pm UTC

segmentation fault wrote:if the monkey is supposed to represent Obama (which it probably does) then i believe shooting the president is a bigger issue than racism here.


The monkey clearly represents the author of the stimulus package. Since Congress is the author, the only logical conclusion is that the monkey represents congress.

Being that he does political satire for a living, it is safe to assume he knows how a bill becomes a law, even if the vast majority of Americans are clueless.

Ixtellor
The Revolution will not be Twitterized.

Heisenberg
Posts: 3789
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 8:48 pm UTC
Location: Uncertain

Re: 'Racist' cartoon causes stir

Postby Heisenberg » Fri Mar 06, 2009 4:13 pm UTC

Actually, the monkey represents a chimpanzee from CT who was shot by police. The joke (political cartoons often contain jokes) was that Congress had used monkeys to write the 800 page stimulus bill.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 6834
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: 'Racist' cartoon causes stir

Postby The Great Hippo » Fri Mar 06, 2009 4:15 pm UTC

If you draw racist caricatures of black people and never show anyone them, you are being racist, but on an individual level. It's a different type of racism and we really don't give much of a fuck about that (if you keep your racism to yourself - well, eventually, you'll die). The premise that pointing out that well-meaning people can create media that reinforces racism, therefore are guilty of a racist action, in no way invalidates the notion that the David Dukes of the world are special sorts of douches that deserves their own special designation of racist shitfuckers.

It's not complicated. Racism comes in different flavors, is what we're saying. One flavor is a type we're all guilty of. And that's reinforcing racist tropes.
Ixtellor wrote:The monkey clearly represents the author of the stimulus package. Since Congress is the author, the only logical conclusion is that the monkey represents congress.
Right, that's the parallel the audience of the cartoonist's work would draw. Except, you know. We've all ready demonstrated that the cartoonist's work is aimed at people who would assume he was talking about Obama.

The audience you're aiming your art at kind of matters.
Last edited by The Great Hippo on Fri Mar 06, 2009 4:37 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

Heisenberg
Posts: 3789
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 8:48 pm UTC
Location: Uncertain

Re: 'Racist' cartoon causes stir

Postby Heisenberg » Fri Mar 06, 2009 4:24 pm UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:We've all ready demonstrated that the cartoonist's work is aimed at people who would assume he was talking about Obama.

We have? I thought we demonstrated that people who normally read political cartoons have a basic understanding of the definitions of "President," "Congress," and "write."
The Great Hippo wrote:pointing out that well-meaning people can create media that reinforces racism, therefore are guilty of a racist action

If these two were equivalent in real life, I would agree that this guy should apologize. Punching a guy because he's black is a racist action. Punching a guy who also happens to be black is not a racist action. Under your liberal definition of "racist action," the second case "could reinforce racism" and is therefore a "racist action."

User avatar
Gunfingers
Posts: 2401
Joined: Wed May 30, 2007 7:15 pm UTC

Re: 'Racist' cartoon causes stir

Postby Gunfingers » Fri Mar 06, 2009 4:26 pm UTC

Strictly speaking you should apologize to anyone that you punch. It's just plain not nice.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 6834
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: 'Racist' cartoon causes stir

Postby The Great Hippo » Fri Mar 06, 2009 4:31 pm UTC

Yeah, no, this is not a political cartoon aimed at people who make those separations. Looking at his previous work demonstrates that his favored readers are not the sort who would understand the statement 'Obama is not the author of the stimulus bill'. They don't even understand the statement 'Rosie O'Donnell is not very overweight'.
Heisenberg wrote:If these two were equivalent in real life, I would agree that this guy should apologize. Punching a guy because he's black is a racist action. Punching a guy who also happens to be black is not a racist action. Under your liberal definition of "racist action," the second case "could reinforce racism" and is therefore a "racist action."
You're (probably) attaching negative ideas to racist actions, again. Detach the two and you might understand what I've been saying for sixteen pages now.

A white guy punching a black guy for reasons other than their race can be a racist action if it supports and reinforces a racist society; i.e., a white cop punching a black guy because he really hated that guy (I'd claim race has something to do with it, but as we've all ready pointed out, subconscious motivations are hard as fuck to ferret out). But a straight fist-fight? How would that reinforce a racist society?

By the way, we're not talking about things that 'could' reinforce racism. We are talking about things that do reinforce racism. I am completely uninterested in magical concepts like 'potential racism'.

Osha
Posts: 727
Joined: Wed Dec 03, 2008 3:24 am UTC
Location: Boise, Idaho, USA

Re: 'Racist' cartoon causes stir

Postby Osha » Fri Mar 06, 2009 4:42 pm UTC

Since my main point was ninja'd *grr*
Heisenberg wrote:
The Great Hippo wrote:We've all ready demonstrated that the cartoonist's work is aimed at people who would assume he was talking about Obama.

We have? I thought we demonstrated that people who normally read political cartoons have a basic understanding of the definitions of "President," "Congress," and "write."
Has this other cartoon by his been linked in this thread yet? 'Cause it pretty cleary associates Obama as the main person behind the stimulus bill.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 6834
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: 'Racist' cartoon causes stir

Postby The Great Hippo » Fri Mar 06, 2009 4:45 pm UTC

Osha wrote:Has this other cartoon by his been linked in this thread yet? 'Cause it pretty cleary associates Obama as the main person behind the stimulus bill.
That's the first time I've seen it; yeah, it goes a good ways to deconstructing the whole "BUT OBAMA WASN'T THE AUTHOR OF THE STIMULUS BILL SO THIS CARTOON ISN'T ABOUT HIM!" nonsense.

Random832
Posts: 2525
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2007 4:38 pm UTC

Re: 'Racist' cartoon causes stir

Postby Random832 » Fri Mar 06, 2009 4:49 pm UTC

Gunfingers wrote:You don't think very highly of Jim if you think his concept of human equality is built on ancient cave drawings.


I got the impression "Jim" was supposed to be the ancient cave artist who drew the paintings.

Heisenberg
Posts: 3789
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 8:48 pm UTC
Location: Uncertain

Re: 'Racist' cartoon causes stir

Postby Heisenberg » Fri Mar 06, 2009 8:58 pm UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:By the way, we're not talking about things that 'could' reinforce racism. We are talking about things that do reinforce racism. I am completely uninterested in magical concepts like 'potential racism'.

You've been talking about that magical concept for 17 pages, now. If you'd like to provide evidence that this actually has reinforced racism in an individual, feel free. No one has actually done that, yet.

As far as the cartoonist and his audience, it's clear he uses exaggeration, and has questionable taste. It's totally ridiculous to assume that a picture of a monkey being shot by police, next to a story about a monkey being shot by police, is in anyway representative of the President of the United States.

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30448
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 'Racist' cartoon causes stir

Postby Belial » Fri Mar 06, 2009 9:07 pm UTC

It's totally ridiculous to assume that a picture of a monkey being shot by police, next to a story about a monkey being shot by police, is in anyway representative of the President of the United States.


Your failure to understand how.....every form of comedic and literary device works is disappointing
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

Random832
Posts: 2525
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2007 4:38 pm UTC

Re: 'Racist' cartoon causes stir

Postby Random832 » Fri Mar 06, 2009 10:23 pm UTC

Heisenberg wrote:As far as the cartoonist and his audience, it's clear he uses exaggeration, and has questionable taste. It's totally ridiculous to assume that a picture of a monkey being shot by police, next to a story about a monkey being shot by police, is in anyway representative of the President of the United States.


Are you trying to suggest that it's representative of the [literal/real] monkey in the story? I don't think anyone's argued that. So then what about the speech balloon?

crzftx
Posts: 371
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2008 4:49 am UTC
Location: Rockford, IL

Re: 'Racist' cartoon causes stir

Postby crzftx » Sat Mar 07, 2009 1:22 am UTC

I'm sure it is fairly obvious to everyone in this thread that they're not converting anyone (exaggeration, as some people probably have changed their minds). I think it is reasonable to assume an insignificant number of people have looked at this thread and suddenly changed their viewpoints. That said, everyone must be either trying, regardless of odds, or simply arguing for the fun of it: like any game, simply trying to win.

I don't think it is possible to win an argument of this sort, as that would require everyone of opposing views to either give up, admit defeat, or have no useful counter-argument. Due to the rules of "useful" not being determined as they would in a scientific or mathematical study, I don't think any of those will happen.

So I'll throw my opinions into the fun for just that:
# The comic did equate the writer of the bill to a monkey (or primate, of sorts)
# The monkey is symbolic to a dumbass (see comics of previous President Bush)
# The comic can be interpreted multiple ways: the writer of the bill is Congress, the President, or simply just Washington
# I see it the third way; the bill was written by a bunch of dumbasses in office. I don't care if they are black, white, or blue dumbasses. The ethnicity of the writers does not affect the joke, as I see it..
# Ignorant people can look at the comic and see that (monkey) ~ (a specific black man) must mean (black people, in general) < (white people, in general)
# I can see how other people see it that way, but it is a poor way of seeing it
# I would not apologize for people looking at my writings in a dumb fashion. For example, I don't like grape soda. If I found a situation in which some animal died due to grape soda, and made a joke about it (not that I would joke about dead animals, but the author of this comic did), I would not apologize to anyone telling me I'm racist against black people. I can see how they might see that, but it is their problem for trying to find underlying anti-racist messages that are not only not intended, but shouldn't reasonably be found.
If you're curious, I looked up stereotypes to write that. Apparently grape soda and black people are stereotypically related.
# Racism is a bad thing. Distinguishing between races doesn't need to be bad. It's because people choose to get offended by it that is the problem. Black people are the same as white people, except for skin color. If someone started making stereotypes such as "blue-eyed people like apples" and "brown-eyed people prefer green to red", I can't see any problems. If jokes came about which involved brown-eyed people and the color green, they could be funny, but I couldn't be offended. This set of words is not about the comic, just in general.
# If someone were to say "all black people are like monkeys" that is racist. That statement is harmful, since monkeys are considered lesser. If someone said "all black people like watermelon", that is insensitive, but shouldn't really be offensive. It is not harmful (unless something lesser is related to watermelon), and only a problem to those chosen to be offended by it. I love watermelon, and I see no reason why being associated with liking something amazing could be a bad thing.

If you feel like pointing out that something I said is not a fact, go for it. You'll look really stupid to those that read the bold text, but go for it. If you can prove something I said wrong, that is different. There is no such thing as a wrong opinion, and I will admit to my mistake and fix it.
Last edited by crzftx on Sat Mar 07, 2009 8:40 am UTC, edited 4 times in total.

User avatar
roc314
Is dead, and you have killed him
Posts: 1356
Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2008 12:48 am UTC
Location: A bunker, here behind my wall
Contact:

Re: 'Racist' cartoon causes stir

Postby roc314 » Sat Mar 07, 2009 1:41 am UTC

crzftx wrote:I can see how other people see it that way, but it is an incorrect way of seeing it
Hey, look! It's someone else who doesn't understand that interpretation is subjective!
Anti-racism is a bad thing. Racism doesn't need to be bad. It's because people choose to get offended by it that is the problem.
...

...

O.O

...

The fuck? Fighting against discrimination is bad because said discrimination isn't necessarily bad and the only problem is that people don't like being discriminated against? I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that you are a terrible person. Actively and consciously saying that you think it's good to oppress others based upon race? I can't think of any other way to describe it.
Hippo: roc is the good little communist that lurks in us all
Richard Stallman: Geeks like to think that they can ignore politics, you can leave politics alone, but politics won't leave you alone.
suffer-cait: roc's a pretty cool dude

Princess Marzipan
Posts: 7717
Joined: Sun May 27, 2007 5:28 am UTC
Location: neither a road, nor an island

Re: 'Racist' cartoon causes stir

Postby Princess Marzipan » Sat Mar 07, 2009 3:07 am UTC

crzftx wrote:Ignorant people can look at the comic and see that (monkey) ~ (a specific black man) must mean (black people, in general) < (white people, in general)
I can see how other people see it that way, but it is an incorrect way of seeing it.

Wait, but then later...
crzftx wrote:There is no such thing as a wrong opinion, and I will admit to my mistake and fix it.


DOES NOT COMPUTE
"It's Saturday night. I've got no date, a two-liter of Shasta, and my all-Rush mixtape. Let's rock!"
"I am just about to be brilliant!"
General_Norris, on feminism, wrote:If you lose your six Pokémon, you lost.

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30448
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 'Racist' cartoon causes stir

Postby Belial » Sat Mar 07, 2009 4:05 am UTC

None of it computes. He somehow managed to be both incoherent *and* an asshole. Maybe if we ignore him, he'll choke on a hot dog.
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

User avatar
Dream
WINNING
Posts: 4338
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 7:20 pm UTC
Location: The Hollow Scene Epic

Re: 'Racist' cartoon causes stir

Postby Dream » Sat Mar 07, 2009 4:30 am UTC

crzftx wrote:I'm sure it is fairly obvious to everyone in this thread that they're not actually converting anyone. I think it is reasonable to assume a insignificant number of people have looked at this thread and suddenly changed their viewpoints. That said, everyone must be either ignorantly trying to promote some agenda, or simply arguing for the fun of it. Like any game, simply trying to win.


Hmmn. Many of the people in this thread could tell you about specific instances of argument that have swayed them to thinking in a new and different way. The reason for this is that they are capable of openly examining their beliefs and adjusting them to fit new experiences and evidence. The fact that you flat out deny the possibility of this is strong evidence of prejudice on your part.

Since you're really not worth any effort to answer, I'll let everyone else paraphrase Baldrick and Blackadder discussing the beginning of the First World War without going to the trouble of having me wite it all out.
I knew a woman once, but she died soon after.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 6834
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: 'Racist' cartoon causes stir

Postby The Great Hippo » Sat Mar 07, 2009 4:34 am UTC

Heisenberg wrote:You've been talking about that magical concept for 17 pages, now. If you'd like to provide evidence that this actually has reinforced racism in an individual, feel free. No one has actually done that, yet.
It's anecdotal, but it's certainly reinforced the views of an asshole I know. I'm not sure how to provide empirical evidence of this, of course; it seems to follow pretty reasonably, though. Idea #1: Obama is the author of the stimulus plan; Idea #2: The author of the stimulus plan is a monkey that the police shot and killed. Conclusion: Obama is a monkey the police shot and killed. Assholes: "Oh hahahaha, that's hilarious! And yeah, as has been demonstrated pretty clearly, Obama is the author of the stimulus plan in the cartoonist's narrative (thanks again, Osha).
Heisenberg wrote:It's totally ridiculous to assume that a picture of a monkey being shot by police, next to a story about a monkey being shot by police, is in anyway representative of the President of the United States.
You don't understand how something can be one thing and simultaneously represent something else? Were you sick the day they taught symbolism and metaphor in your sixth grade English class?
crzftx wrote:Anti-racism is a bad thing. Racism doesn't need to be bad. It's because people choose to get offended by it that is the problem. Black people are the same as white people, except for skin color. If I started making stereotypes such as "blue-eyed people like apples" and "brown-eyed people prefer green to red", I can't see any problems. If jokes came about which involved brown-eyed people and the color green, they could be funny, but they could not be offensive. This set of words is not about the comic, just in general.
...are you Satan?

I'm just asking, what with you violently trying to make my head explode with words, here.

User avatar
Gelsamel
Lame and emo
Posts: 8237
Joined: Thu Oct 05, 2006 10:49 am UTC
Location: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

Re: 'Racist' cartoon causes stir

Postby Gelsamel » Sat Mar 07, 2009 4:58 am UTC

I think he is using 'anti-racist' to mean 'a negative bias against a race'. :-/
"Give up here?"
- > No
"Do you accept defeat?"
- > No
"Do you think games are silly little things?"
- > No
"Is it all pointless?"
- > No
"Do you admit there is no meaning to this world?"
- > No

crzftx
Posts: 371
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2008 4:49 am UTC
Location: Rockford, IL

Re: 'Racist' cartoon causes stir

Postby crzftx » Sat Mar 07, 2009 5:29 am UTC

Gelsamel wrote:I think he is using 'anti-racist' to mean 'a negative bias against a race'. :-/

Exactly. Racism, to me, is simply noticing a difference between races. To note that person A is black and person B is white is being racist, in the sense that I have now called them different due to their skin color.
Anti-racism, to me, is to be harmful towards another on the basis of racism.
Maybe I should have given my definitions first? Apparently these are far from standard...
EDIT: actually, they were just plain wrong. I'll see about fixing that...

Dream wrote:
crzftx wrote:I'm sure it is fairly obvious to everyone in this thread that they're not actually converting anyone. I think it is reasonable to assume a insignificant number of people have looked at this thread and suddenly changed their viewpoints. That said, everyone must be either ignorantly trying to promote some agenda, or simply arguing for the fun of it. Like any game, simply trying to win.


Hmmm. Many of the people in this thread could tell you about specific instances of argument that have swayed them to thinking in a new and different way. The reason for this is that they are capable of openly examining their beliefs and adjusting them to fit new experiences and evidence. The fact that you flat out deny the possibility of this is strong evidence of prejudice on your part.

I do not deny that people are capable of changing their views, in specific instances (as you said). In extremely controversial subjects such as racism, I think very few people significantly alter their viewpoint. Some likely do, but I'm saying a [probably] insignificant portion. Certainly, it could be argued that making even a tiny portion of people less racist is a good thing.

Belial wrote:None of it computes. He somehow managed to be both incoherent *and* an asshole. Maybe if we ignore him, he'll choke on a hot dog.

Ahh, a very clever addition to the discussion. I can see how some might take me as being an asshole, but I don't see the incoherency.

Princess Marzipan wrote:
crzftx wrote:Ignorant people can look at the comic and see that (monkey) ~ (a specific black man) must mean (black people, in general) < (white people, in general)
I can see how other people see it that way, but it is an incorrect way of seeing it.

Wait, but then later...
crzftx wrote:There is no such thing as a wrong opinion, and I will admit to my mistake and fix it.


DOES NOT COMPUTE

I agree. Those do not agree very well. I used poor wording. If it is just that person's opinion that "(monkey) ~ (a specific black man) must mean (black people, in general) < (white people, in general)", than they are not wrong. To me, if it is an opinion, the person who thinks (the opinion) knows (the opinion) is not fact and that (the opinion) can be looked at correctly from multiple viewpoints.
Some "opinions" are just wrong. It's like if I though it were my opinion that 2 + 2 = 7, which it just can't be.
Other opinions just suck. If I look at a wall and say it is anti-religious... well, that is my opinion, but it's a crappy one.

roc314 wrote:
crzftx wrote:I can see how other people see it that way, but it is an incorrect way of seeing it
Hey, look! It's someone else who doesn't understand that interpretation is subjective!

You're right. I used "incorrect" poorly. The opinion cannot be wrong, but it can still be a poor opinion. Similarly, people can make poor interpretations. If you interpret the Happy Birthday song as sexist, it's a poor interpretation. I understand that opinion is subjective. I can just as subjectively decide how good I think the opinion is.
Last edited by crzftx on Sat Mar 07, 2009 8:15 am UTC, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Sindayven
Posts: 42
Joined: Sat Nov 01, 2008 8:17 am UTC
Location: Canada

Re: 'Racist' cartoon causes stir

Postby Sindayven » Sat Mar 07, 2009 6:13 am UTC

Random832 wrote:Are you trying to suggest that it's representative of the [literal/real] monkey in the story? I don't think anyone's argued that. So then what about the speech balloon?


That's what I've been arguing.

User avatar
Dream
WINNING
Posts: 4338
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 7:20 pm UTC
Location: The Hollow Scene Epic

Re: 'Racist' cartoon causes stir

Postby Dream » Sat Mar 07, 2009 7:13 am UTC

crzftx wrote:I don't see the incoherency.
crzftx wrote:I agree. Those do not agree very well.

Spoiler:
DOES NOT COMPUTE!


crzftx wrote:In extremely controversial subjects such as racism, I think very few people significantly alter their viewpoint. Some likely do, but I'm saying a [probably] insignificant portion

The very people you are talking to have changed their views on controversial subjects in the past. They will likely change again in future. Also, "ah, people don't change anyway" is a cop out reason that you just gave to justify your glib tone in your first post in this thread, but now you're sticking to it like a fool. It really isn't worth arguing with you.
I knew a woman once, but she died soon after.

crzftx
Posts: 371
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2008 4:49 am UTC
Location: Rockford, IL

Re: 'Racist' cartoon causes stir

Postby crzftx » Sat Mar 07, 2009 7:56 am UTC

Dream wrote:
crzftx wrote:I don't see the incoherency.
crzftx wrote:I agree. Those do not agree very well.

DOES NOT COMPUTE!
That looks nice out of context like that.
Two things I said simply didn't agree very well. The coherency of the post was unchanged. I said opinions cannot be wrong, but called another opinion wrong. That isn't incoherent, that is hypocritical. It's like if someone makes a rule, and then breaks that same rule. I think the only real problems people were having with understanding me is my use of "racism" and "anti-racism" out of expected definitions.

Dream wrote:
crzftx wrote:In extremely controversial subjects such as racism, I think very few people significantly alter their viewpoint. Some likely do, but I'm saying a [probably] insignificant portion
The very people you are talking to have changed their views on controversial subjects in the past. They will likely change again in future.
Yes, everyone has or probably will change their views on controversial subjects. I'm not going to give (the chance of a person changing his views) a percent, but it'd be low. Just because "it has and will" happen, doesn't mean it's likely to happen in regards to this thread. People will surely change their view on the comic in question, but I doubt about racism, in general.

Dream wrote:Also, "ah, people don't change anyway" is a cop out reason that you just gave to justify your glib tone in your first post in this thread
It seems pretty glib to tell me what I did to justify my own tone. Your reason cannot be how I justify my tone, as I would have to first know the tone I'll be giving before trying to justify it. In the case of the internet, I often edit and change what I'm writing after I've written it, and there is no consistent flow of tone. My tone is for you to interpret on your own, and not something I'd justify before I know how you'll interpret it.

You've labled my tone as "glib", which isn't used where I'm from. "Having a ready flow of words but lacking accuracy or understanding; superficial; shallow; Smooth or slippery"
I don't see how my tone lacked accuracy nor how it was superficial. The (factual) concepts are also too simplistic to lack understanding. Could you explain how my post(s) lacked accuracy or understanding?

Dream wrote:but now you're sticking to it like a fool.
You've labeled my tone as foolish; I would expect that I would do something else you find foolish.

Dream wrote:It really isn't worth arguing with you.
Sounds like a bit of a "cop out reason", to me.
Last edited by crzftx on Sat Mar 07, 2009 8:39 am UTC, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
TheAmazingRando
Posts: 2308
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 9:58 am UTC
Location: San Diego, CA

Re: 'Racist' cartoon causes stir

Postby TheAmazingRando » Sat Mar 07, 2009 8:22 am UTC

crzftx:
If you had asked me two, three years ago if this cartoon was racist, I would have said "hell no" and probably argued about how it wasn't intended to be racist, people are just looking too hard, they want to be offended, etc.

The difference between then and now? Conversations and arguments I've had (or read, without direct involvement) on message boards that have convinced me otherwise.

Is it likely to happen in this thread? I don't know. I doubt anyone who's disagreed with me in this thread will, at this point, change their mind. The odds of changing someone's opinion by directly engaging them, especially in a thread this long, are low, and get lower as the thread gets longer. But it isn't about them, it's about other people who may be reading.

What changed my mind on issues was reading threads, disagreeing with a poster, seeing them argue with someone else, wanting to jump in but realizing that I couldn't refute their points. I gave up, many times, but over I got to the point where I realized that maybe, just maybe, the reason I couldn't refute their points was because they weren't wrong to begin with, no matter how strongly I felt that they were. It was a point of self-examination that took a lot of repetition before kicking in, because it meant exhausting my knee-jerk reactions.

I figure, as long as there's a possibility that what I'm saying might contribute to that same sort of epiphany that I had, it's worth it.

User avatar
roc314
Is dead, and you have killed him
Posts: 1356
Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2008 12:48 am UTC
Location: A bunker, here behind my wall
Contact:

Re: 'Racist' cartoon causes stir

Postby roc314 » Sat Mar 07, 2009 8:32 am UTC

Also, the lack of any kind of refutation can be seen as a capitulation. If we didn't respond to those claims that the cartoon is not racist, then anyone reading the thread could get the impression that there are no arguments for how/why the cartoon spreads and supports racist memes.
Hippo: roc is the good little communist that lurks in us all
Richard Stallman: Geeks like to think that they can ignore politics, you can leave politics alone, but politics won't leave you alone.
suffer-cait: roc's a pretty cool dude

crzftx
Posts: 371
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2008 4:49 am UTC
Location: Rockford, IL

Re: 'Racist' cartoon causes stir

Postby crzftx » Sat Mar 07, 2009 8:34 am UTC

TheAmazingRando wrote:...
Without sarcasm, very good post. You are the first response to give a useful counter-argument. No insulting clauses like all the other posters, too.

I doubt anyone who's disagreed with me in this thread will, at this point, change their mind. The odds of changing someone's opinion by directly engaging them, especially in a thread this long, are low, and get lower as the thread gets longer.
This is what I've been saying, or at least attempting to say. I would not have said that "no one will change their mind" at the beginning of this thread, because that would not be true. It is now page 17 (I think). To disagree this long means the disagreement probably won't stop.

What changed my mind on issues was reading threads, disagreeing with a poster, seeing them argue with someone else, wanting to jump in but realizing that I couldn't refute their points. I gave up, many times, but over I got to the point where I realized that maybe, just maybe, the reason I couldn't refute their points was because they weren't wrong to begin with, no matter how strongly I felt that they were. It was a point of self-examination that took a lot of repetition before kicking in, because it meant exhausting my knee-jerk reactions.
Yes, but I argued, and nobody has thoughtfully disagreed. You are the first to bring up a real point. I edited in "Certainly, it could be argued that making even a tiny portion of people less racist is a good thing." just before reading your post, which is kinda what you're saying. I cannot argue what you say, as I agree.

roc314 wrote:Also, the lack of any kind of refutation can be seen as a capitulation. If we didn't respond to those claims that the cartoon is not racist, then anyone reading the thread could get the impression that there are no arguments for how/why the cartoon spreads and supports racist memes.
Ahh, another good reply while I typed. Yes, that is a good third reason to be arguing.

User avatar
Outchanter
Posts: 668
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2007 8:40 am UTC
Location: South African in Americaland

Re: 'Racist' cartoon causes stir

Postby Outchanter » Sat Mar 07, 2009 10:37 am UTC

Ixtellor wrote:I recall Ed Bradley, the former contributer to 60 mins (he is black), recalling his first trip to Vietnam.
He got there and went and met up with his vietmanese escorts for the trip. They immeditaly offered him watermelon. Initially he said he thought they were making a stereotype about black people, but then he realized that they just really really like watermelon and Vietnam and they were all going to eat it regardless of his presence, at which point he came to the obvious conclusion "He had no reason to be offended and they were not being racist, even though his initial reaction was that it was slightly racist to assume he liked watermelon, which he claimed he loved".

This is probably just me being an ignorant foreigner here, but can anyone explain how this watermelon stereotype evolved? Do white Americans not like watermelons? I thought everyone liked watermelons. They're like nature's version of ice cream (or more accurately sorbet).
~ You will eat a tasty fortune cookie. Oh look, it came true already! ~

luketheduke
Sour Kraut
Posts: 1105
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 1:56 pm UTC
Location: Where the Kraut's at

Re: 'Racist' cartoon causes stir

Postby luketheduke » Sat Mar 07, 2009 11:49 am UTC

yeah, apparently there is a stereotype that black people like watermelons and chicken. this has been covered a few pages back when we briefly hijacked the thread to discuss a different cartoon. I thiink the explanaton was that racists are just stupid idiots (come on, who really dislikes chicken or watermelon?)
As long as I know how to love / I know I'll stay alive /
'cause I've got all my life to live / and I've got all my love to give / and I'll survive /
I will survive

User avatar
TheGrammarBolshevik
Posts: 4878
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 2:12 am UTC
Location: Going to and fro in the earth, and walking up and down in it.

Re: 'Racist' cartoon causes stir

Postby TheGrammarBolshevik » Sat Mar 07, 2009 3:30 pm UTC

The explanation was that black people are seen as too uncivilized and unintelligent (you know, like monkeys) to use utensils, thus requiring them to eat foods like fried chicken and watermelon that do not require any.
Nothing rhymes with orange,
Not even sporange.

User avatar
william
Not a Raptor. Honest.
Posts: 2418
Joined: Sat Oct 14, 2006 5:02 pm UTC
Location: Chapel Hill, NC
Contact:

Re: 'Racist' cartoon causes stir

Postby william » Sat Mar 07, 2009 11:38 pm UTC

I don't like watermelon. Fried chicken, on the other hand, is delicious.
SecondTalon wrote:A pile of shit can call itself a delicious pie, but that doesn't make it true.

crzftx
Posts: 371
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2008 4:49 am UTC
Location: Rockford, IL

Re: 'Racist' cartoon causes stir

Postby crzftx » Sun Mar 08, 2009 2:30 am UTC

I prefer watermelon, by far, to fried chicken.
Does anyone know where\how the grape soda and waffles stereotypes came about?
I actually just heard of these two very recently.

Random832
Posts: 2525
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2007 4:38 pm UTC

Re: 'Racist' cartoon causes stir

Postby Random832 » Sun Mar 08, 2009 3:57 am UTC

crzftx wrote:I prefer watermelon, by far, to fried chicken.
Does anyone know where\how the grape soda and waffles stereotypes came about?
I actually just heard of these two very recently.


I don't know how (some stuff i found online - a metafilter thread about it for instance, has some speculation that it has economic origins, and that orange soda etc was also included at one point). I do know it's pre-Chappelle's Show - in searching to confirm this one way or the other I found some instances of a usenet troll using it in 1998.

If one metafilter commenter is to be believed, it's a northern stereotype, and in the south it (like also various types of food) is simply considered 'southern' rather than 'black'.

User avatar
william
Not a Raptor. Honest.
Posts: 2418
Joined: Sat Oct 14, 2006 5:02 pm UTC
Location: Chapel Hill, NC
Contact:

Re: 'Racist' cartoon causes stir

Postby william » Sun Mar 08, 2009 4:30 am UTC

I thought orange soda was just Kel. But I do know that grape and orange soda are often considered to be childish.
SecondTalon wrote:A pile of shit can call itself a delicious pie, but that doesn't make it true.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: orthogon and 23 guests