• 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
BTW, I am thinking about buying this real cool knife that is made from Damascus steel.
 
So you are familiar with welding? A welder told me about mild steel.

Mild steel is great for welding. You don't have to worry about blowing the heat treat and temper so much with mild steel when you're welding it. Mild steel is soft and malleable. If you want something sharp, though, you need high carbon steel (with a good heat treatment) instead of mild steel (that doesn't get much benefit from heat treatment since there's not enough carbon to convert to martensite (or bainite)
 
Mild steel is great for welding. You don't have to worry about blowing the heat treat and temper so much with mild steel when you're welding it. Mild steel is soft and malleable. If you want something sharp, though, you need high carbon steel (with a good heat treatment) instead of mild steel (that doesn't get much benefit from heat treatment since there's not enough carbon to convert to martensite (or bainite)

Like I said, I am considering buying this really cool knife made from Damascus steel. The guy also has a cool sword too.
 
BTW, I am thinking about buying this real cool knife that is made from Damascus steel.

Buyer beware. That's all I can tell you about that. Do your research.
 
Buyer beware. That's all I can tell you about that. Do your research.

Thanks! I'll keep that in mind.

This is not the one the guy has, but I think they are so cool!!!

2153916_120810232726_rod005_2_99.jpg
 
Mother****ing proxy errors killing my ****ing posts

GWAAAAH.

20 minutes down the drain.

Will respond in a bit after I get over being extremely annoyed
 
Thanks! I'll keep that in mind.

This is not the one the guy has, but I think they are so cool!!!

View attachment 67180014

Lots of people think Damascus is very cool and as long as you don't mind spending twice as much for a blade that's not better than homogenous steel in any way but the external decoration, it's probably worth it. Just beware of steels that aren't even pattern welded steels but just electrochemically etched with a "damascus pattern". You get the look and in many cases even the high price tag without getting pattern welded steel at all. So it's worth studying a bit before buying.
 
????????????

How did 1005 people vote on this poll?
 
Okay, let's try this again.

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.

If one is shown the word "nigger", without any other context, it's absolutely reasonable to suggest it's racist. The word's meaning is one that's inherently racist. The word's creation was one of pure racism. It's primary usage in this country's history has been racist in nature. Its only non-racist typical usage, in anything other than using it to simply reference the word, is as a slang term used primarily by a subset of black people.

Sans any other context, looking at the word and asking "is it racist", it's reasonable to say "yes".

Does that mean it can't be used in a non-racist manner? No. It has the potential to be used in a non-racial fashion, just as that cartoon could potentially be feasibly used in a racist fashion, but in both cases it would need additional context to make it so.

A cartoon indicating that Obama is said word, save for probably a few specific exceptions, would be reasonable to call racist as there would be few clear ways of taking the cartoon...sans any additional context...that wasn't racist in nature.

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:

There is also FAR more examples of contextual usage of feces to refer to BAD THINGS. From "that's ****ty", to "it's gone to ****", to "they **** on" something, and more...it's routinely and FAR more regularly used as a reference to something bad.

And considering in this cartoon, with the little bit of context we were given (it was put on a conservatives site), is referring to policies that conservatives generally find "bad" there's contextual reasoning in the cartoon to suggest that the reference to "****" is to refer to those things as bad. There is no contextual basis within the article to suggest that those things are being called "black", or that Barack Obama is being referenced as "****", or that they're bad and thus **** because he's black.

To use your faulty logic...that making giant assumptive leaps sans any significant contextual evidence supporting them, despite a far more compelling and simple explanation clearly there, to declare something is racist is okay as long as you can pull things from the situation/item that have been tied in some way shape or form to racism in the past....then it must also be clear to you that this is racist:

13wmt-articleLarge-v3.jpg


This is a Hersey's Chocolate Bar.

As you've stated, at times "Chocolate" is used to refer to black people.

As you'll also likely know, racists have long used statistics regarding the amount of blacks in prison as a means of attacking black people.

People in prisons are kept behind what? Bars. And what's the layout of the Hershey Bars resemble? Prison bars.

Using the logic you put forward in order to declare that this comic IS (not may) be racist, it is clear then that Hershey's Chocolate Bars are racist as it's association black people with prison.
 
Last edited:
as I have demonstrated, there is good reason to say that it is racist.

You've demonstrated no such thing.

You've demonstrated that at some point in time people have used the word "chocolate" to refer to black people.

You've demonstrated that at some point in time people have used the word "****" in reference to black people.

What you haven't demonstrated, what so ever, is how this cartoon in any way, shape, or form gives ANY contextual evidence that it's usage of "chocolate" or reference to "****" is in any way related to those instances.

There's no indication what so ever in the cartoon suggesting that those particular policies are "black" policies. There's no indication what so ever in the cartoon that those polices are made of the same thing as Barack Obama or that they are a part of him (indeed, even the color used to shade the various items in the room is a distinctly different hue than the President). There's absolutely no indication what so ever in the cartoon suggesting that Obama's race plays ANY role what so ever.

Nothing. You've not "demonstrated" anything as relating to that. You've demonstrated that other people have used those words in racist ways before, but that is not the same as demonstrating any evidence that they're being used in that fashion in this cartoon.

You're making ASSUMPTIONS. You are GUESSING. And you are guessing in a completely baseless fashion, as you've not been able to point to or articulate a single thing within the cartoon that gives ANY indication what so ever that race has anything to do with it. Nothing. You've not provided a single shred of logic that indicates how it's racist.

The only thing you've done is say Obama is in the picture....and that other people have used chocolate and **** as means of describing black people....and somehow you think that alone somehow "demonstrates" that it's racist. That's not logic. That's not reasonable. That's not something anyone should simply "accept".

I have no problem with people acknowledging that some people attempt to be racist in sublte ways; but to make such a suggestion in an actual absolute, as you do by saying this IS racist, requires one to actually have some kind of legitimate basis for making the case other than the fact that it's just feasible that it might be the case.

I have no problem with something saying they think it might be racist, or that it could be racist, or that they wouldn't be surprised if it was meant in a racist fashion. I'd disagree with them and question their argument for why they think that, but based on what you HAVE actually demonstrated there's enough there to at least think there's a possability, however minute, that the artists intent and message was to attempt to as subtly as possible be racist. But to declare it in such an affirmative manner, without any actual additional context from outside of the picture or without being able to highlight any actual legitimate context within the picture suggesting such a connection, is laughably absurd.
 
Last edited:
I think the cartoon can be considered tacky, distasteful and rude. But racist? Not in the least.

I am blown away that 97+% of you people think it's racist.
 
That's a reach.

Really??? Maybe it's just me, but the idea that that cartoon was racist would have never even crossed my mind. I would have never made ANY connection between chocolate and being black. But the OP made that connection with ease from what I could see. There's something ingrained in some people's minds that makes those kind of associations and it called "racism".
 
Really??? Maybe it's just me, but the idea that that cartoon was racist would have never even crossed my mind. I would have never made ANY connection between chocolate and being black. But the OP made that connection with ease from what I could see. There's something ingrained in some people's minds that makes those kind of associations and it called "racism".

Chocolate, though not a common racist term, is often associated with black people.

Urban Dictionary: chocolate face
 
????????????

How did 1005 people vote on this poll?
Only 42 members did.

3 for yes and 39 for no.

Someone has been stuffing the yes box.
 
I think the cartoon can be considered tacky, distasteful and rude. But racist? Not in the least.

I am blown away that 97+% of you people think it's racist.

42 members voted on the poll, 3 yes and 39 no.

The rest of the yes option is guests...and I suspect someone is stuffing the yes box.
 
Oh.

And I don't think this cartoon is racist at all.

It's a joke about something that appears fine actually being ****, and **** is the same color as chocolate, so...here we are.
 
I sense some veiled racism there... who ever heard of a person with a chocolate touch? The golden touch? Yes. The Chocolate touch? No, and then to have it be from a black man?
 
Oh.

And I don't think this cartoon is racist at all.

It's a joke about something that appears fine actually being ****, and **** is the same color as chocolate, so...here we are.

I guess I can see that too...
 
I sense some veiled racism there... who ever heard of a person with a chocolate touch? The golden touch? Yes. The Chocolate touch? No, and then to have it be from a black man?
It is somewhat uncomfortably concidential that chocolate and **** are the same color as Obama's skin...

But what other analogy for "this is a piece of ****, but we're calling it something that is the same color, only nice" are you going to use?

You could go with urine, and something about lemonade, I suppose. But you can't form lemonade or urine into shapes without freezing it...or adding jello?

No, feces and chocolate work best, I think.

Holy **** I just killed the joke entirely by analyzing it too much.
 
It is somewhat uncomfortably concidential that chocolate and **** are the same color as Obama's skin...

But what other analogy for "this is a piece of ****, but we're calling it something that is the same color, only nice" are you going to use?

You could go with urine, and something about lemonade, I suppose. But you can't form lemonade or urine into shapes without freezing it...or adding jello?

No, feces and chocolate work best, I think.

Holy **** I just killed the joke entirely by analyzing it too much.

uh, what?

...and you sent me on a dreamy moment of unfocused blankness.
 
If one is shown the word "nigger", without any other context, it's absolutely reasonable to suggest it's racist. The word's meaning is one that's inherently racist.
The flaw here is that you want to put forward the notion that words have inherent meaning. Words are just sound, physical and mental, that humans associate with concepts. When the usage of words become common, those who have been exposed to the environment in which they are used experience conditioning associated with such usage and as a result comprehension takes place. That is to say, worlds have no inherent meaning. Rather words are given meaning through usage and conditioning. To see this, only need consider that no one understands any words until they are taught them in some fashion. As a result, for example, I don't understand Spanish at all, and when people speak it it sounds like gibberish to me. If the words had inherent meaning, I would be able to comprehend what they are saying.

The word's creation was one of pure racism. It's primary usage in this country's history has been racist in nature. Its only non-racist typical usage, in anything other than using it to simply reference the word, is as a slang term used primarily by a subset of black people.

That the word can be used another way demonstrates my point that words have no inherent meaning. Rather, meaning is assigned through usage and conditioning. Furthermore the word has also been used historically to refer to persons outside of a racial context.

From wiki
During the fur trade of the early 1800s to the late 1840s in the Western United States, the word was spelled "niggur", and is often recorded in literature of the time. George Fredrick Ruxton often included the word as part of the "mountain man" lexicon, and did not indicate that the word was pejorative at the time. "Niggur" was evidently similar to the modern use of dude, or guy. This passage from Ruxton's Life in the Far West illustrates a common use of the word in spoken form—the speaker here referring to himself: "Travler, marm, this niggur's no travler; I ar' a trapper, marm, a mountain-man, wagh!" It was not used as a term exclusively for blacks among mountain men during this period, as Indians, Mexicans, and Frenchmen and Anglos alike could be a "niggur"

Sans any other context, looking at the word and asking "is it racist", it's reasonable to say "yes".

Not necessarily. For example if the sentence "The nigger scored a touchdown" is presented with no other context, one cannot tell if it was uttered by a black guy referring to his friend, or a racist white guy who is mad at a black player from the opposing team.

Does that mean it can't be used in a non-racist manner? No. It has the potential to be used in a non-racial fashion, just as that cartoon could potentially be feasibly used in a racist fashion, but in both cases it would need additional context to make it so.

Context comes from the perception of an observer whose conditioning associates symbols such as words with concepts. For example one person here has said he has never heard the "black is beautiful feces" racist joke that I referred to earlier. However for me being black and coming up in the South, I have heard that many times. So of course, because of such conditioning, I am more likely to make the association than he would, assuming of course that he is telling the truth.

A cartoon indicating that Obama is said word, save for probably a few specific exceptions, would be reasonable to call racist as there would be few clear ways of taking the cartoon...sans any additional context...that wasn't racist in nature.

Although that is true, you have also admitted that it is possible to use the word in a non racist context. As such, technically, one could say that we should not preclude such non racist usage either without any additional context if we were to apply your logic consistently.

There is also FAR more examples of contextual usage of feces to refer to BAD THINGS. From "that's ****ty", to "it's gone to ****", to "they **** on" something, and more...it's routinely and FAR more regularly used as a reference to something bad.

That may be true, however I have demonstrated that it is indeed used as a derogatory term with reference to the skin color of blacks. Therefore in a cartoon where Obama and his polices are painted brown, along with a reference to feces, one could reasonably conclude that an intentional association was made by the cartoon creator between feces and Obama personally. As such, a racist intent can be reasonably inferred.
 
I sense some veiled racism there... who ever heard of a person with a chocolate touch? The golden touch? Yes. The Chocolate touch? No, and then to have it be from a black man?

On that level it does indeed leave the door open for a racist interpretation. So, it's either a coincidence or intentional. If intentional, then it is definitely a veiled attempt at subtle racism. If not, then it sure is a strange coincidence.
 
And considering in this cartoon, with the little bit of context we were given (it was put on a conservatives site), is referring to policies that conservatives generally find "bad" there's contextual reasoning in the cartoon to suggest that the reference to "****" is to refer to those things as bad. There is no contextual basis within the article to suggest that those things are being called "black", or that Barack Obama is being referenced as "****", or that they're bad and thus **** because he's black.

Wrong. There is a clear reference to feces and an implied association is made between feces and chocolate which is brown. The policy is colored brown which is associated with feces. Obama is also colored brown, which because of the policy association with the feces, one could reasonably assume that the cartoon creator intentionally means to associate Obama with feces, and thus the racist meaning can be inferred.

To use your faulty logic...that making giant assumptive leaps sans any significant contextual evidence supporting them, despite a far more compelling and simple explanation clearly there, to declare something is racist is okay as long as you can pull things from the situation/item that have been tied in some way shape or form to racism in the past....then it must also be clear to you that this is racist:

13wmt-articleLarge-v3.jpg

No that is incorrect because in your picture there is only candy, there is no reference to feces by which one can infer an association to the chocolate, or no black person to make the association as well. Now if there was a statement saying that does not smell like chocolate along with Obama eating it AND it appeared on one of Obama''s political opponents website, then we could indeed infer a racist intent. But since there is no such statement or Obama, none can be reasonably inferred so your claim is bogus.

This is a Hersey's Chocolate Bar.

As you've stated, at times "Chocolate" is used to refer to black people.

As you'll also likely know, racists have long used statistics regarding the amount of blacks in prison as a means of attacking black people.

People in prisons are kept behind what? Bars. And what's the layout of the Hershey Bars resemble? Prison bars.

Using the logic you put forward in order to declare that this comic IS (not may) be racist, it is clear then that Hershey's Chocolate Bars are racist as it's association black people with prison.

No, the flaw here is that there is no reference to prisons and reference to black prisoners. In the cartoon there are clear, direct references to chocolate, Obama, and feces whereby one can make the association. In your image there is merely candy, no prisons bars, no black prisoners, no feces, no nothing except candy. Therefore again, you have made a bogus claim.
 
No, it's not.
 
Back
Top Bottom