• 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
If by racist, you mean pointing out that everything he touches turn to s***, then yes :p
 
Redress said:
Nearly correct. People use the term "racist" as an I win button. If they can label some one as racist, they do not have to argue their politics. It is used alot by people of both sides. The connection is poor debate skill, not ideology.
Click to expand...

I would agree with this, and only throw that this tactic is not limited to "racist" accusations, but to "sexist", "homophobic", "socialist", and no doubt others I am not thinking of.
 
cpwill said:
I would agree with this, and only throw that this tactic is not limited to "racist" accusations, but to "sexist", "homophobic", "socialist", and no doubt others I am not thinking of.
Click to expand...

Do I win something for having been called them all? My favorite though was the being called racist by both sides of the Brown shooting thing.
 
ThePlayDrive said:
Or someone who is aware that Black skin color is sometimes referred to as "chocolate" and that anti-Black racists have historically compared Black skin color to feces. While I share your perspective that the cartoon is not racist, there is certainly historical precedence for taking the opposite view.
Click to expand...

I disagree with FreedomFromAll. It's possible to see that cartoon as racist IF one was given additional context surrounding it to reasonably conclude that the message was not the most blatant and obvious one.

HOWEVER...

Sans additional context, there's absolutely ZERO ways to rationally claim that said cartoon is inherently "racist" in it's message or intent. You could claim it MIGHT be racist, but even then that'd be a rather difficult position to strongly back up given the amount of assumptions the person would have to use to justify the logical leaps needed to make it racist in nature.
 
Zyphlin said:
I disagree with FreedomFromAll. It's possible to see that cartoon as racist IF one was given additional context surrounding it to reasonably conclude that the message was not the most blatant and obvious one.

HOWEVER...

Sans additional context, there's absolutely ZERO ways to rationally claim that said cartoon is inherently "racist" in it's message or intent. You could claim it MIGHT be racist, but even then that'd be a rather difficult position to strongly back up given the amount of assumptions the person would have to use to justify the logical leaps needed to make it racist in nature.
Click to expand...
Like I told MildSteel, I don't see the cartoon as racist because of both the convenience of contrasting chocolate and feces to make a point and the fact that the cartoon's message does not rely on Obama's race could easily be used with a White politician. But like I also said to him, because modern racism relies on subtlety and plausible deniability, I understand his position. While I agree with your conclusion that the cartoon is not racist, I'm not inspired to dismiss the opposing view as passionately as you because I know how insidious and harmful the plausible deniability factor of modern racism can be.
 
birthers-forgot-racism.jpg
 
ThePlayDrive said:
Like I told MildSteel, I don't see the cartoon as racist because of both the convenience of contrasting chocolate and feces to make a point and the fact that the cartoon's message does not rely on Obama's race could easily be used with a White politician. But like I also said to him, because modern racism relies on subtlety and plausible deniability, I understand his position. While I agree with your conclusion that the cartoon is not racist, I'm not inspired to dismiss the opposing view as passionately as you because I know how insidious and harmful the plausible deniability factor of modern racism can be.
Click to expand...

And that's where I do not agree. I can't not possibly see how someone can claim it IS racist. Mildsteel is making an affirmative, definitive statement about something without any factual evidence to his statement.

The POTENTIAL for it to be racist does not inherently make it racist.

The statement "The pot calling the kettle black" is not inherently racist. It has the POTENTIAL to be stated in a racist fashion, but it would only be so with substantial surrounding context indicating it is. In and of itself, the statement is not inherently racist as it has a clear and direct meaning that has nothing to do with race. It is ONLY by adding additional assumptions and context that one could try and claim it's racist.

That particular cartoon, inherently sans any additional content, can not reasonably be stated as being racist. It has the POTENTIAL to be, at best. Sans additional context, the clear and direct meaning of that cartoon is plainly obvious and clear. It is only through additional assumptions and intent, done without ANY factual evidence suggesting they are present, that one could possibly claim that the cartoon is racist. That suggests then that the cartoon itself is not inherently racist, but rather in such a case that the individual creating it is and his intent behind the cartoon is.

It is impossible to claim that the cartoon is inherently "racist" WITHOUT piling additional assumptions on top of it, assumptions that at this point are completely baseless and unsupported by any actual connecting facts as it relates to this specific cartoon
 
Redress said:
Do I win something for having been called them all? My favorite though was the being called racist by both sides of the Brown shooting thing.
Click to expand...

Are you really racist if you hate everyone?
 
LaylaWindu said:
Of course not, where wold be the racist part?
Click to expand...

He's claiming that there is some old joke about "If black is beautiful then my poop is a masterpiece", I've never heard that joke, but his claim is that therefore any implicit reference to poop being brown is racist.
 
cpwill said:
He's claiming that there is some old joke about "If black is beautiful then my poop is a masterpiece", I've never heard that joke, but his claim is that therefore any implicit reference to poop being brown is racist.
Click to expand...

So the purpose of his poll, and all of his whiny posts throughout the rest of the thread, are because he takes offense to a joke (never heard that one, BTW) and he has decided that this cartoon is somehow a play on or related to that joke?
 
cpwill said:
He's claiming that there is some old joke about "If black is beautiful then my poop is a masterpiece", I've never heard that joke, but his claim is that therefore any implicit reference to poop being brown is racist.
Click to expand...

So basically the racism part is pure invention . . . . .

I'm mean unless the creator comes out and specifically says "yes I made it to make fun of black people and their skin color because they are all just pieces of ****" there's zero racism in the cartoon alone.

Any claim of racism is an assumption and not based on the cartoon itself.
 
tres borrachos said:
So the purpose of his poll, and all of his whiny posts throughout the rest of the thread, are because he takes offense to a joke (never heard that one, BTW) and he has decided that this cartoon is somehow a play on or related to that joke?
Click to expand...

Well he didn't lay it out at first so I'm not sure if he actually came to that conclusion when he first saw it, or if he saw the cartoon, assumed it was racist, posted it, and then had to go find a justification.
 
LaylaWindu said:
So basically the racism part is pure invention . . . . .

I'm mean unless the creator comes out and specifically says "yes I made it to make fun of black people and their skin color because they are all just pieces of ****" there's zero racism in the cartoon alone.

Any claim of racism is an assumption and not based on the cartoon itself.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but when you point that out to him, he tells you that it's "just your opinion" and to stop "pontificating" :lol:

Welcome to the forum, btw. :)
 
cpwill said:
Yeah, but when you point that out to him, he tells you that it's "just your opinion" and to stop "pontificating" :lol:

Welcome to the forum, btw. :)
Click to expand...

He can make any claim he wants but people, typically, need some type of evidence to buy into something. So it seems he is out of luck :)

Thanks!
 
Strange how Yes has 1005 votes, but only 3 names.
 
Zyphlin said:
Sans additional context, there's absolutely ZERO ways to rationally claim that said cartoon is inherently "racist" in it's message or intent. You could claim it MIGHT be racist, but even then that'd be a rather difficult position to strongly back up given the amount of assumptions the person would have to use to justify the logical leaps needed to make it racist in nature.
Click to expand...

You used the word inherently here. The thing is this, the word nigger is not inherently racist, as anyone can be a nigger. However, because of it's contextual usage in the U.S. and elsewhere, if a cartoonist made reference to Obama with the word nigger, it would generally be considered racist, despite the fact that there is nothing inherently racist about the term.

It is a fact that there is quite of bit of contextual usage of feces to refer to the skin of blacks in a derogatory fashion. Here's a reference for you in case you need one:

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/****skin

****skin

Noun

****skin (plural ****skins)

(ethnic slur, derogatory, offensive) A person with dark-coloured skin.
Click to expand...

Also chocolate has been used to refer to blacks, although not necessarily in a derogatory way. Here's a reference for you that you may be familiar with

CNN.com - Nagin apologizes for 'chocolate' city comments - Jan 17, 2006

As I have said before, the cartoon makes subtle associations between to Obama, chocolate, and feces. As such, given the contextual usage of the terms, as I have demonstrated, there is good reason to say that it is racist. I don't object to those who feel the opposite. What I object to is the insistence that it is absurd to view it in that way. And IF your contention is that there are an enormous amount of assumptions that one must make in order for it to be seen as racist, I object to that also.
 
Last edited:
cpwill said:
Yeah, but when you point that out to him, he tells you that it's "just your opinion" and to stop "pontificating"
Click to expand...

One thing about you is that you never give up.
 
AliHajiSheik said:
Strange how Yes has 1005 votes, but only 3 names.
Click to expand...

I've seen that quite a bit when the polls are lopsided and the liberal side has few votes. The numbers start shooting up without any names associated to it.

As long as "unregistered" can vote, the polls here are less than useless. I guess the whole "voter ID" thing is rejected by the admin(s) :D
 
MildSteel said:
You used the word inherently here. The thing is this, the word nigger is not inherently racist, as anyone can be a nigger. However, because of it's contextual usage in the U.S. and elsewhere, if a cartoonist made reference to Obama with the word nigger, it would generally be considered racist, despite the fact that there is nothing inherently racist about the term.

It is a fact that there is quite of bit of contextual usage of feces to refer to the skin of blacks in a derogatory fashion. Here's a reference for you in case you need one:

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/****skin



Also chocolate has been used to refer to blacks, although not necessarily in a derogatory way. Here's a reference for you that you may be familiar with

CNN.com - Nagin apologizes for 'chocolate' city comments - Jan 17, 2006

As I have said before, the cartoon makes subtle associations between to Obama, chocolate, and feces. As such, given the contextual usage of the terms, as I have demonstrated, there is good reason to say that it is racist. I don't object to those who feel the opposite. What I object to is the insistence that it is absurd to view it in that way. And IF your contention is that there are an enormous amount of assumptions that one must make in order for it to be seen as racist, I object to that also.
Click to expand...

The term that is blocked is $HIT$KIN.
 
MildSteel said:
Hey, I like that. Real deal MildSteel!!! YEAH!!!! :lamo
Click to expand...

Not for nuthin' but if I was you, I'd have gone with "high carbon steel" because it gets much sharper than mild steel. Mild steel is suitable for letter openers but will never end up being the sharpest knife in the drawer. That's from a knifemaker's perspective, of course.
 
Papa bull said:
Not for nuthin' but if I was you, I'd have gone with "high carbon steel" because it gets much sharper than mild steel. Mild steel is suitable for letter openers but will never end up being the sharpest knife in the drawer. That's from a knifemaker's perspective, of course.
Click to expand...

So you are familiar with welding? A welder told me about mild steel.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom