• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is this cartoon racist?

Is this cartoon racist?


  • Total voters
    69
3 pages in this thread so far and the OP is the only one to find the cartoon racist. Speaks volumes about the OP.

Not only that, but stating that only those with certain (perceived) leanings can be racist is rather bigoted, is it not?
 
Those who identify themselves by the color of their skin and not by character, may find it racist.

That is a typical reverse racism response to charges of racism.

But ok, here's your chance to shine, why is it that a person whose ego is centered on the color of their skin would find that racist, whereas a person whose ego is centered on their character would not?

Over and above that, you do realize that it is very very rare to find a person who is free of self identification with their body, right? For such a person, there is no such thing as racism because it simply exists, as with character based on relative concepts of what is good and what is bad, in the mind. You realize that right?
 
Not only that, but stating that only those with certain (perceived) leanings can be racist is rather bigoted, is it not?

You did not hear me say that. Could it be that your perception is distorted? Honestly, I don't believe that at all.
 
3 pages in this thread so far and the OP is the only one to find the cartoon racist. Speaks volumes about the OP.

Perhaps. But then again, the truth isn't dependent on a popularity contest.
 
I love white chocolate!!!
 
That is a typical reverse racism response to charges of racism.

No such thing as reverse racism. Just racism. :)

But ok, here's your chance to shine, why is it that a person whose ego is centered on the color of their skin would find that racist, whereas a person whose ego is centered on their character would not?

Because someone whose ego is centered on the color of their skin would project that onto others, and assume that others critiques or support of the President was also based on the color of his and their skin, respectively.
 
I guess it depends on the cartoonist's intention. Did he mean it as just a joke or is there any deeper meaning. I'm not really familiar with the guy so I can't really say but I do know white chocolate sucks. Just way too sweet, I prefer milk chocolate.
 
I guess it depends on the cartoonist's intention. Did he mean it as just a joke or is there any deeper meaning. I'm not really familiar with the guy so I can't really say but I do know white chocolate sucks. Just way too sweet, I prefer milk chocolate.

Everything Obama touches turns to shyte and Obama claims it's really chocolate, instead. That's your deeper meaning.
 
No such thing as reverse racism. Just racism. :)

Because someone whose ego is centered on the color of their skin would project that onto others, and assume that others critiques or support of the President was also based on the color of his and their skin, respectively.

That was a good response. Thanks for that.

Here's the flaw with what he said, he appears to think that there is a such thing as self identification that is based on character that is free from bodily identification. That is not the case. Character is based on relative concepts of what is right and what is wrong that are indeed rooted in the bodily concepts of what is tasteful and distasteful. Therefore character is ultimately tied to the body can therefore be related to the color of one's skin.

Having said that, there is a such thing as absolute character, but that is on the transcendental platform and is another discussion, beyond politics and racism.

But good response!
 

The cartoon. Look. Read. See what it says. Drink a cup of coffee or two. Take it all in and apply some thought. You'll see it for yourself if you do that.
 
Some time ago this cartoon appeared with a George Will column. Is this cartoon racist?

View attachment 67180002

It would be racist if it portrayed Obama as a different race. It would not be funny if it didn't infer that feces and chocolate were the same color.
 
That was a good response. Thanks for that.

Here's the flaw with what he said, he appears to think that there is a such thing as self identification that is based on character that is free from bodily identification. That is not the case.

Hm. Well I would say that my self visualization probably includes "fat", because I stopped running after the Marine Corps, and enjoyed not PT'ing for basically a year, but other than that, I can't really think of anything about my body that I throw up there. Other items (father, husband, friend, Christian, my employment) are what I self-define with.

I think you are projecting (as I described) your own focus on the color of your skin on to others.

Character is based on relative concepts of what is right and what is wrong that are indeed rooted in the bodily concepts of what is tasteful and distasteful. Therefore character is ultimately tied to the body can therefore be related to the color of one's skin.

This is incorrect for multiple reasons, not least of which is the idea that right and wrong are inherently rooted in bodily concepts of tasteful/distasteful (some can be). For example, I think it is immoral to cheat at games. Whether I am sitting across from you and you can see me, or if it's on a forum and you cannot is immaterial to that.

Having said that, there is a such thing as absolute character, but that is on the transcendental platform and is another discussion, beyond politics and racism.

Well there is an Absolute Morality.
 
It would be racist if it portrayed Obama as a different race. It would not be funny if it didn't infer that feces and chocolate were the same color.

That's the joke. No matter how great the perceived failure (from the conservative perspective), Obama has tried to sell it as a great victory. It comes out shyte but he tells you it's really just lovely chocolate.

Of course, liberals will try to make it about racism. It's a Pavlovian response.
 
I guess it depends on the cartoonist's intention. Did he mean it as just a joke or is there any deeper meaning. I'm not really familiar with the guy so I can't really say but I do know white chocolate sucks. Just way too sweet, I prefer milk chocolate.

There is an old joke that says if black is beautiful that my feces is a masterpiece.

The cartoon can be viewed as racist because it subtly plays on the notions of Obama's skin color, chocolate and feces.
 
There is an old joke that says if black is beautiful that my feces is a masterpiece.

The cartoon can be viewed as racist because it subtly plays on the notions of Obama's skin color, chocolate and feces.

It can be viewed as racist (by stupid people) because it subtly plays on the notions of Obama's skin color (for stupid people), choloate and feces.

For those that AREN'T stupid, it would be clear that the whole point of the "joke" had nothing at all to do with skin color but to do with reality vs. perception and spin.
 
The cartoon. Look. Read. See what it says. Drink a cup of coffee or two. Take it all in and apply some thought. You'll see it for yourself if you do that.

:lamo okay. I guess you can read minds and know that's the simple answer. I wouldn't expect more anyway but talk about applying some thought then taking everything at face value. :lol:
 
There is an old joke that says if black is beautiful that my feces is a masterpiece.

The cartoon can be viewed as racist because it subtly plays on the notions of Obama's skin color, chocolate and feces.

It's very subtle that will fly over some peoples heads while they tell you to apply some thought to it. :lol:
 
Hm. Well I would say that my self visualization probably includes "fat", because I stopped running after the Marine Corps, and enjoyed not PT'ing for basically a year, but other than that, I can't really think of anything about my body that I throw up there. Other items (father, husband, friend, Christian, my employment) are what I self-define with.

All of those things, father, husband, etc. are based on the bodily concept of life.

This is incorrect for multiple reasons, not least of which is the idea that right and wrong are inherently rooted in bodily concepts of tasteful/distasteful (some can be). For example, I think it is immoral to cheat at games. Whether I am sitting across from you and you can see me, or if it's on a forum and you cannot is immaterial to that.

They are rooted in the bodily concept of life. Because the sentient being is occupying a body, when the sentient being plays a game it is doing so with it's physical body in conjunction with the activities of it's mind.

Well there is an Absolute Morality.

Agreed. But that is different from the mundane, relative concepts of what is right and what is wrong.
 
:lamo okay. I guess you can read minds and know that's the simple answer. I wouldn't expect more anyway but talk about applying some thought then taking everything at face value. :lol:

Oh, no, it's really important to assume that the use of any word that we associate with a dark colored object or substance - and includes the word "Obama" must be racist if there is an implied criticism of "The One".

Liberals have become the boy who cried "racism".

boy%20who%20cried%20wolf%201_1360709858.jpg
 
It's very subtle that will fly over some peoples heads while they tell you to apply some thought to it. :lol:

That is right, and it may be why some do not get it. But they are entitled to their opinion and I respect that.
 
It's very subtle that will fly over some peoples heads while they tell you to apply some thought to it. :lol:

Explain the negative connotation about race that's so subtle. Or is it soooooo subtle that you can't explain the pejorative connotation?
 
Back
Top Bottom