• 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
MildSteel said:
The chocolate reference usually isn't racist in my experience, although sometimes. The feces reference always is. In Nagin's case, it certainly wasn't racist.

Speaking of Nagin, that's a good example of someone shooting themselves in the foot.
Click to expand...

Well, in regards to Nagin shooting himself in the foot, he aimed about 6 foot too low.
 
Captain America said:
Well, in regards to Nagin shooting himself in the foot, he aimed about 6 foot too low.
Click to expand...

The thing I like about you is that you call em like you see em. I'm the same way! :lamo
 
faithful_servant said:
It doesn't even imply race. It implies something looks like chocolate, but is really ****. No, that's not correct, it doesn't imply it, it clearly states it. You have to associate chocolate with being black in order for there to be a racist implication and that comes from YOU, not the artist.
Click to expand...



The cartoon is named Midas Touch, the story involved turning things into gold by touch. Midas soon learned that turning everything into gold was bad. So if we go by the implied story of Midas it has zero to do with race. It comes back to assuming chocolate and **** represent a race. That is the assumption that the OP made that chocolate and **** equates a race. You would have to think that way to see racism in the cartoon. You would have to think racist thoughts to jump to that conclusion.

It would be like assuming that since there are honky tonks and the racial slur of honky, that playing country music is racist. While in the right circumstance it could be, it isnt a given that it is. Context and personal bias dictates how such things are perceived on a individual basis. Without a bias that provides the context in this cartoon then it is just chocolate and **** (the lesson of Midas touch used as a political satire). Though one could say it was dumb to use chocolate and **** because of racists and people who would jump to conclusions.
 
MildSteel said:
The thing I like about you is that you call em like you see em. I'm the same way! :lamo
Click to expand...

My claim to fame around here. Just keeping it real. You have no idea how much agony that has caused me here. LOL!
 
faithful_servant said:
It doesn't even imply race. It implies something looks like chocolate, but is really ****. No, that's not correct, it doesn't imply it, it clearly states it. You have to associate chocolate with being black in order for there to be a racist implication and that comes from YOU, not the artist.
Click to expand...

A Black man having the "chocolate touch"? The racial implications are obvious. But, it's not racist.
 
MildSteel said:
Thanks. I will try to remember to find some today.

My favorite is also a Swiss brand called Rapunzel. Also, I had some Israeli chocolate that was good. I don't remember the name but it came in a red package with a cow on it.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the tip on Rapunzel. I looked at it online and it appears I can get it on the internet. It looks good and I like that it's organic. I also found their chocolate hazelnut butter, which I'm definitely going to get.:thumbs:
 
calamity said:
A Black man having the "chocolate touch"? The racial implications are obvious. But, it's not racist.
Click to expand...

He has the "chocolate touch" because chocolate can look like ****. The only race connection being made is being made by race-baiting liberals, the rest of us (including the non-race-baiting liberals) understand that this is about chocolate looking like ****, not about Pres. Obama looking like chocolate.
 
faithful_servant said:
He has the "chocolate touch" because chocolate can look like ****. The only race connection being made is being made by race-baiting liberals, the rest of us (including the non-race-baiting liberals) understand that this is about chocolate looking like ****, not about Pres. Obama looking like chocolate.
Click to expand...

I agree with that concept of the artwork--hence, I consider it not to be racist--but I do not agree with the argument that only the "race-baiters" would see it differently.
 
Zyphlin said:
No one's really used the term "chocolate touch" before.

That's the point.

The comic isn't actually depicting Obama having the "chocolate touch", it depicts that everything he touches turns to ****. A slang notion that is hardly unheard of and hardly restricted or even associated with black people.

For example, from the Soprano's:



Or the UK show "Skins", with image and quote highlighted here

BYaq8jCCEAAaLLp.jpg


Since other's have been using "urban dictionary" as some kind of source, look here:



The suggestion isn't that he has the "Chocolate touch", it's that essentially he has the reverse midus touch as Tony Soprano's calls it...everything he touches turn to ****.

And what has a substantial history in comedy for being either mistaken for ****, or for **** being mistaken for?

Chocolate.







Another video (Because I can only insert 3)

And one more link since I'm at max videos

Which is the clear point of the cartoon. Obama is trying to put a positive spin on what he's done by suggesting it's a GOOD thing (thinking it's "chocolate") when in reality it's a bad thing ("****"). Not just that he's trying to put a good spin on it, but rather that he's completely oblivious to the fact that it's NOT a good thing but rather a bad one.

There absolutely is a long standing notion of "Everything [x person] touches turns to ****", there's absolutely a long standing notion of people mistaking chocolate for **** and vise versa in comedy, and there's absolutely context within the actual cartoon to suggest that the above is exactly what is going on. The obama character directly acknowledges he's turning things into something else by "touching" them, he's clearly mistaking it for chocolate while the others view it correctly as **** (I guess theoretically you could suggest they're the wrong ones in the cartoon and he's the one that's correct. In either case, it's clear there's confusion over what it is because chocolate/poo is easily "confused" in comedy).
Click to expand...


Thanks for one of the longest explanations I have seen to something pretty obvious, no offense. :lol:

Yeah, I get the joke. Got it right away. Still, a black man with a chocolate touch (something black) that then turns to **** (something blackish) wreaks of veiled racism to me... The joke could have been made with anything really and when the guy sniffs whatever that was and says, "that doesn't smell like vanilla/jasmine/whatever to me" it would have the same effect.

Chocolate is a term associated with blacks people too. For example:

Chocolate News - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The only thing that would have made it completely racist is if the guy used "dark molasses" instead of chocolate.
 
Zyphlin said:
No one's really used the term "chocolate touch" before.

That's the point.

The comic isn't actually depicting Obama having the "chocolate touch", it depicts that everything he touches turns to ****. A slang notion that is hardly unheard of and hardly restricted or even associated with black people.

For example, from the Soprano's:



Or the UK show "Skins", with image and quote highlighted here

BYaq8jCCEAAaLLp.jpg


Since other's have been using "urban dictionary" as some kind of source, look here:



The suggestion isn't that he has the "Chocolate touch", it's that essentially he has the reverse midus touch as Tony Soprano's calls it...everything he touches turn to ****.

And what has a substantial history in comedy for being either mistaken for ****, or for **** being mistaken for?

Chocolate.







Another video (Because I can only insert 3)

And one more link since I'm at max videos

Which is the clear point of the cartoon. Obama is trying to put a positive spin on what he's done by suggesting it's a GOOD thing (thinking it's "chocolate") when in reality it's a bad thing ("****"). Not just that he's trying to put a good spin on it, but rather that he's completely oblivious to the fact that it's NOT a good thing but rather a bad one.

There absolutely is a long standing notion of "Everything [x person] touches turns to ****", there's absolutely a long standing notion of people mistaking chocolate for **** and vise versa in comedy, and there's absolutely context within the actual cartoon to suggest that the above is exactly what is going on. The obama character directly acknowledges he's turning things into something else by "touching" them, he's clearly mistaking it for chocolate while the others view it correctly as **** (I guess theoretically you could suggest they're the wrong ones in the cartoon and he's the one that's correct. In either case, it's clear there's confusion over what it is because chocolate/poo is easily "confused" in comedy).
Click to expand...


I wish I knew your secret on how to get away with posting profanity laced pictures. I get my hand slapped everytime! LOL!
 
MildSteel said:
It could be of the subtle associations of Obama, chocolate a feces.
Click to expand...

Or it could be the fact that I really, really hate almost all political cartoons because they are mean-spirited, partisan and reek of hatefulness. :shrug:

I also despised political cartoons aimed at George W. Bush for the same reason, even though I personally had nothing but contempt for the man.

Bottom line: The cartoon in your OP is not racist because a black man and chocolate are referenced, any more than a very white Penelope Garcia calling a very black Dexter Morgan, "hot chocolate" on Criminal Minds is racist. It's just a vile, partisan hack job, like nearly every other political cartoon out there.
 
DiAnna said:
Or it could be the fact that I really, really hate almost all political cartoons because they are mean-spirited, partisan and reek of hatefulness. :shrug:

I also despised political cartoons aimed at George W. Bush for the same reason, even though I personally had nothing but contempt for the man.

Bottom line: The cartoon in your OP is not racist because a black man and chocolate are referenced, any more than a very white Penelope Garcia calling a very black Dexter Morgan, "hot chocolate" on Criminal Minds is racist. It's just a vile, partisan hack job, like nearly every other political cartoon out there.
Click to expand...

Well you would know better than me.
 
DiAnna said:
Huh? What does that even mean?
Click to expand...

It means that you would know if you felt it was racist to you better than I would. I didn't mean anything by that. Forgive me if I have done something to offend you.
 
MildSteel said:
It means that you would know if you felt it was racist to you better than I would. I didn't mean anything by that. Forgive me if I have done something to offend you.
Click to expand...

I'm not at all offended; I was just confused by the wording. It's all good.
 
DiAnna said:
I'm not at all offended; I was just confused by the wording. It's all good.
Click to expand...

Good. I was a little perturbed because it seems like I am constantly offending even people that I like unintentionally. All good tho!!!!
 
Bodhisattva said:
Yeah, I get the joke. Got it right away. Still, a black man with a chocolate touch (something black) that then turns to **** (something blackish) wreaks of veiled racism to me... The joke could have been made with anything really and when the guy sniffs whatever that was and says, "that doesn't smell like vanilla/jasmine/whatever to me" it would have the same effect.
Click to expand...

No bodi, you didn't "get the joke", given you crazily believe that somehow the joke would still work if Obama thought it was "Vanilla" instead.

No it couldn't, because that makes no visible sense why Obama would be MISTAKING it for chocolate. It didn't turn to chocolate and ]b]THEN[/b] turn to ****, and he didn't have the "chocolate touch". The "turn to ****" was the immediete thing. What he has was the ability that everything he touches goes to ****. The entire point was that he was oblivious to this, convincing himself that the **** was really chocolate.

That doesn't work with Vanilla....Vanilla has no history in comedy for being confused for ****, or vise versa, because **** isn't white in color, which typically vanilla is depicted as. Same goes for "jasmine" or anything else. The entire joke is playing up on the fact that chocolate/**** are routinely confused comedically, explaining Obama's delusional view that what he's done was create "chocolate" when the other people in the panel are meant to show the reality of things by suggesting it's ****.

It's essentially going with an "emperor's new clothes" notion, where Obama is the oblivious emperor that thinks he's in beautiful clothes and the other people there are the ones revealing the truth.

So basically, your argument is that despite NOTHING in the comic directly suggesting in any fashion that it's race based, and despite the fact that the word chocolate literally meaning "chocolate" makes COMPLETE sense from a comedic stance, and despite the fact that you could put a white president in there doing the same thing and change NOTHING ELSE and there wouldn't even be a QUESTION about what it's suggesting, the fact that chocolate can at times be used to reference black people means it's racist.

**** it. With that kind of "logic" I may as well go try to have a legitimate conversation about race with my wall, I'll have about as much success. This is about as fruitful and roughly as obnoxious as trying to have a conversation about race with a Westboro member.
 
Last edited:
Zyphlin said:
No bodi, you didn't "get the joke", given you crazily believe that somehow the joke would still work if Obama thought it was "Vanilla" instead.

No it couldn't, because that makes no visible sense why Obama would be MISTAKING it for chocolate. It didn't turn to chocolate and ]b]THEN[/b] turn to ****, and he didn't have the "chocolate touch". The "turn to ****" was the immediete thing. What he has was the ability that everything he touches goes to ****. The entire point was that he was oblivious to this, convincing himself that the **** was really chocolate.

That doesn't work with Vanilla....Vanilla has no history in comedy for being confused for ****, or vise versa, because **** isn't white in color, which typically vanilla is depicted as. Same goes for "jasmine" or anything else. The entire joke is playing up on the fact that chocolate/**** are routinely confused comedically, explaining Obama's delusional view that what he's done was create "chocolate" when the other people in the panel are meant to show the reality of things by suggesting it's ****.

It's essentially going with an "emperor's new clothes" notion, where Obama is the oblivious emperor that thinks he's in beautiful clothes and the other people there are the ones revealing the truth.

So basically, your argument is that despite NOTHING in the comic directly suggesting in any fashion that it's race based, and despite the fact that the word chocolate literally meaning "chocolate" makes COMPLETE sense from a comedic stance, and despite the fact that you could put a white president in there doing the same thing and change NOTHING ELSE and there wouldn't even be a QUESTION about what it's suggesting, the fact that chocolate can at times be used to reference black people means it's racist.

**** it. With that kind of "logic" I may as well go try to have a legitimate conversation about race with my wall, I'll have about as much success. This is about as fruitful and roughly as obnoxious as trying to have a conversation about race with a Westboro member.
Click to expand...

Thanks for telling me what I think/know and insulting my logic... makes you right, as anybody that understands that type of debating style knows...
 
ThePlayDrive said:
I don't see any racism. I actually found it quite funny even though I'm a Democrat and dislike George Will.
Click to expand...

That's interesting because I thought it was lame and not funny. Not offensive or anything and not racist, just not humorous.
 
Bodhisattva said:
Thanks for telling me what I think/know and insulting my logic... makes you right, as anybody that understands that type of debating style knows...
Click to expand...

Oh I don't know...could it be because my actual detailed response to your initial problematic claim was met with a mocking comment about it's length, a claim that what I stated was "obvious" followed by you immediately returning your previously flawed suggestion (that he had the "chocolate touch") without a single comment about the argument I made in my post.

I attempted to engage you about your claim and my disagreement with it with actual factual sourced information. You mocked it, ignored it, and continued forward with your same exact logic without. At that point you showed you had zero actual desire to discuss your assertions and the logic about it, so there was little left to do other than to highlight the absurdity of said logic.

The comic was not suggesting Obama had, or ever had, the "chocolate touch". The notion of a "chocolate touch" is practically unheard of. It was a delusion on the part of the Obama character, as demonstrated by the "observers" in the comic explaining that it really wasn't "chocolate". The comic's message clearly was suggesting that Obama had the power that everything he touch turned to ****...something that ACTUALLY has a history of being a phrase/concept.
 
Zyphlin said:
Oh I don't know...could it be because my actual detailed response to your initial problematic claim was met with a mocking comment about it's length, a claim that what I stated was "obvious" followed by you immediately returning your previously flawed suggestion (that he had the "chocolate touch") without a single comment about the argument I made in my post.

I attempted to engage you about your claim and my disagreement with it with actual factual sourced information. You mocked it, ignored it, and continued forward with your same exact logic without. At that point you showed you had zero actual desire to discuss your assertions and the logic about it, so there was little left to do other than to highlight the absurdity of said logic.
Click to expand...

I apologize if you took my comments as mocking... it was genuine friendly banter meant with a "woah bro!" kind of silliness. Maybe that will change your conclusions?
 
Bodhisattva said:
I apologize if you took my comments as mocking... it was genuine friendly banter meant with a "woah bro!" kind of silliness. Maybe that will change your conclusions?
Click to expand...

Sure, if you'd take any time to actually respond to the arguments I made.

Is there any kind of examples you can provide of a notion of a "chocolate touch" outside of this?

How exactly to you square away the idea that the comic was actually suggesting he had a "chocolate touch" as opposed to the ability that "Everything he touches turns to ****" given that the former is basically unheard of while the later has a long history as a phrase/notion? Specifically given the observers in the comic clearly suggesting the items were actually made of ****, not chocolate?

How exactly would the joke have had the "Same effect" had Obama been erroneously claiming that he had a "vanilla touch"? Do you have any examples in any form of media for vanilla being mistaken for poo, or vise versa?

If the joke would have had the "same effect" had Obama been erroneously claiming claiming that he had a "vanilla touch", would you be suggesting that the items should have been shaded in a color normally associated with vanilla (somewhere on the scale of white to yellow cream)?

If so, exactly how do you think the "sniff sniff, I don't think that's chocolate" joke would've had the "same effect" when the primary reason why the unsaid conclusion of poo is reached is because 1) the color is the same as poo 2) there's a long history in comedy of conflating the two.​

If not, then how exactly do you think the joke would've made sense that Obama was confusing his ability as the "vanilla touch" when the items in question look nothing like anything related to "vanilla"?
​

When I gave you a completely sourced post, full of examples and explanations, and you basically just shrug it off, repeat your exact same argument, and not say one word about anything I put forward....yeah, the "woah bro" kind of silliness doesn't come off as rather benign.
 
Zyphlin said:
Sure, if you'd take any time to actually respond to the arguments I made.

Is there any kind of examples you can provide of a notion of a "chocolate touch" outside of this?

How exactly to you square away the idea that the comic was actually suggesting he had a "chocolate touch" as opposed to the ability that "Everything he touches turns to ****" given that the former is basically unheard of while the later has a long history as a phrase/notion? Specifically given the observers in the comic clearly suggesting the items were actually made of ****, not chocolate?

How exactly would the joke have had the "Same effect" had Obama been erroneously claiming that he had a "vanilla touch"? Do you have any examples in any form of media for vanilla being mistaken for poo, or vise versa?

If the joke would have had the "same effect" had Obama been erroneously claiming claiming that he had a "vanilla touch", would you be suggesting that the items should have been shaded in a color normally associated with vanilla (somewhere on the scale of white to yellow cream)?

If so, exactly how do you think the "sniff sniff, I don't think that's chocolate" joke would've had the "same effect" when the primary reason why the unsaid conclusion of poo is reached is because 1) the color is the same as poo 2) there's a long history in comedy of conflating the two.​

If not, then how exactly do you think the joke would've made sense that Obama was confusing his ability as the "vanilla touch" when the items in question look nothing like anything related to "vanilla"?
​

When I gave you a completely sourced post, full of examples and explanations, and you basically just shrug it off, repeat your exact same argument, and not say one word about anything I put forward....yeah, the "woah bro" kind of silliness doesn't come off as rather benign.
Click to expand...

Because I don't want to have some full drawn out multi-paragraph debate over it... chocolate is a term that can and has been associated with black people, although not as much as fried chicken or watermelon. I see a black man turning things into dark chocolate and I see Uncle Remus and Tar Baby, or something close. Sure, that works best with **** but it is also a racist reference as there is no reference to a chocolate touch (so I am not sure why you asked me to provide examples as I do not believe there are any).

Smells of racism to me... plain and simple.
 
Bodhisattva said:
Because I don't want to have some full drawn out multi-paragraph debate over it... chocolate is a term that can and has been associated with black people, although not as much as fried chicken or watermelon. I see a black man turning things into dark chocolate and I see Uncle Remus and Tar Baby, or something close. Sure, that works best with **** but it is also a racist reference as there is no reference to a chocolate touch (so I am not sure why you asked me to provide examples as I do not believe there are any).

Smells of racism to me... plain and simple.
Click to expand...
Although my view is that the cartoon is not overtly racist--maybe better stated, there is reasonable doubt that it may not be racist-- I can appreciate the argument that it is.
 
Bodhisattva said:
Because I don't want to have some full drawn out multi-paragraph debate over it
Click to expand...

Gotcha. Then when you want to make a claim, but refuse to actually defend your claim, then you shouldn't be surprised if people then critize the logic and reasoning you use because you provide them with no reason to come to any other conclussion given the fact that you won't even defend the things they claim are flaws in your logic.

Unless you've finally been the one to discover how to have your cake and eat it too.

It's fine if you don't want to have a debate over your view point; just don't be shocked when people don't actually hold your view point in any real regard.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom