• 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
Re: A chocolate city

One thing I have learned from my experience here is that I was out of my mind to consider voting Republican last time. I hope I never ever think of doing such a thing again.
 
Re: A chocolate city

One thing I have learned from my experience here is that I was out of my mind to consider voting Republican last time. I hope I never ever think of doing such a thing again.

Right. As long as you vote for greater government coercion I suppose you will consider yourself happy.
 
Re: A chocolate city

Right. As long as you vote for greater government coercion I suppose you will consider yourself happy.

Bush took government coercion and intrusion into the private lives of citizens to the next level. The Republican party is whack, and will be that way for a while.
 
Re: A chocolate city

Bush took government coercion and intrusion into the private lives of citizens to the next level. The Republican party is whack, and will be that way for a while.

I understand that everyone must have a demon to point to in the past to excuse the demon standing before us. You will find no salvation with any democrat nor with any establishment Republican.
 
I'm not suggesting it's definitely not racist

I'm saying it's impossible to suggest it's racist based only on the actual presentation and context of the cartoon.
It's not impossible to suggest it's racist. It's impossible to know that it's racist.

I've acknowledge it could possibly be racist, though I think the chances of that given the realities of how the cartoon is crafted are extemely low as it would be Avery very ineffective dog whistle given its lack of context that reasonably points one in that direction in any real fashion, but primarily by applyin outside assumptions and contest to portions of the cartoon, of which the cartoon gives zero credence to within its actual design.
Actually, I think that the cartoon would be a very effective dog whistle specifically because it does require us to assume and apply outside context. That's how dog whistles work. They are meant to go "over the heads" of non-racist people and communicate to racist people - people who commonly make fun of Black skin color - people who regularly say things like "they say Black skin is chocolate, but it's more like feces". We don't say those things so we would never automatically make that connection. People who do say those sorts of things regularly would make the connection. That's why it's called a "dog whistle." People like us aren't supposed to "hear" it. The question is whether or not the cartoonist intended to highlight the connection. I say "no", but who knows.

Nothing in the cartoon, what so ever, gives ANY suggestion that the use of the word chocolate is meant to indicate race or that obama's effects on policies is turning them into policy equivalents of "black people". To reach a conclusion that the use of chocolate in that cartoon is to make reference to black peoples one must simply assume that's the case not because of any actual context or evidence within the cartoon, but based on the individual's personal feelings that certain people are racist and thus anything done by someome that in ANY WAY could possibly be racist must actually be racist.
This, again, is you misunderstanding what a "dog whistle" is. A "dog whistle" does not make the racist connections for you. It does not wink at you and say, "Get it? Because Obama's Black?" A "dog whistle" rests on PLAUSIBLE DENIABILITY. It rests on putting something together that DOES NOT LOOK RACIST, but that its author knows his racist audience will see in it. In other words, a "dog whistle" relies on people placing their outside context in it. That is the point. So when you want to discern if something could be a "dog whistle", you have put yourself in the mindset of a racist and find what THEY, not you, would see in it. Many racists would look at that cartoon, full of contempt for the common analogy that Black = chocolate/sweet, and see it as an argument that Black = feces (a joke that they've probably made among like-minded racists). But again, the question is whether the author intended it to reach those people or if it was just a coincidence.

My argument is not that it absolutely isn't racist. My argument is that it absolutely can't be suggested as racist without inserting outside context or assumptions that are no way actually represented within the comic itself, and that given the multitude of logical issues with claiming it as racist that I've outlined in numerous posts, I think the likelihood of it being racist is slim but at least feasible.
Again, the point of a "dog whistle" is to craft some sentence, cartoon or other form of communication that requires people to insert outside context in order to get the "hidden meaning." The only way something can even be a "dog whistle" is if it requires the audience to place their own context onto it. Otherwise, it's just blatant racism.
 
LOL!

Looking at the poll numbers I am thinking they might have linked the poll over there at Stormfront. That's skewed up!

Too funny.
 
The question is whether or not the cartoonist intended to highlight the connection. I say "no", but who knows.

That was a good post and I suppose this is the crux of the matter. I don't have a problem with your position at all. Where I have a problem is Zyphlin's contention is that there is no REALISTIC way that the cartoon could be considered to be racist. Not only that, but you don't have to be a racist to think that the cartoon is racist.
 
Re: A chocolate city

I understand that everyone must have a demon to point to in the past to excuse the demon standing before us. You will find no salvation with any democrat nor with any establishment Republican.

I'm not going to find salvation in people who, like me, are bewildered by mundane things. Salvation lies in taking shelter those who are divine in nature.

That said, I have come to the conclusion that Republicans need to be kept out of office.
 
Re: A chocolate city

I'm not going to find salvation in people who, like me, are bewildered by mundane things. Salvation lies in taking shelter those who are divine in nature.

That said, I have come to the conclusion that Republicans need to be kept out of office.

And with that everything that needs to be said has been.
 
Re: A chocolate city


By the way, just so you are no one else is confused. I said "my bad" because I misunderstood your intent, not because I thought that you had made a point by posting that Nagin speech. If fact, I made reference to it earlier in the thread. If you are trying to say the speech is racist, no I don't agree with you. And I say that because it is not racist in the sense that the motivation is to see the city be strictly one of blacks at the expense of whites. That said, I could see where someone such as you would see it as racist and although I don't agree with that position, I don't think it is unrealistic to view it in that way. And that is my problem with what has transpired in this thread. I can understand what has been forward from the other point of view. I don't think it is unrealistic. But despite me pointing out that there is indeed common usage of the symbols in the cartoon that could lead someone to conclude realistically that it is racist, my view is deemed unrealistic. So unrealistic that is has been ridiculously compared with viewing the vertical lines on a chocolate Hershey bar as representing the bars on a jail cell and thus saying it is racist because it represents blacks and prisons. That is so damn whack that it is beyond whack. And it makes me understand that I was stupid to consider voting Republican, because they are people that just don't get it. They just can't do it.
 
Last edited:
Re: A chocolate city

That is totally amazing a Hershey bar. Totally ridiculous. Didn't need a Hershey bar, could have used any piece of candy for that matter. And if someone says that's the point, that position is ridiculous as well. There is simply no comparison to that and the cartoon.
 
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.

My debating or not over this issue, or any issue, does not make my view incorrect in the slightest. Sure, you are free to think whatever you like but as this is a subjective issue your opinion is your opinion. And I did defend my claim... if you missed that we are already doomed.
 
Did you really not understand what the cartoon was trying to say?

Sure, his ideas are ****. The sniffing part makes it pretty clear. Did you really not understand that chocolate carry's a pretty specific connotation for black people?
 
Sure, his ideas are ****. The sniffing part makes it pretty clear. Did you really not understand that chocolate carry's a pretty specific connotation for black people?

No I do not understand that.

What connotation does chocolate have for black people?
 
No I do not understand that.

What connotation does chocolate have for black people?

When Cadbury released an ad promoting their Dairy Milk Bliss bars that read “Move over Naomi, there’s a new diva in town,” Naomi Campbell was outraged. The supermodel threatened to sue the company and released the following statement: “I’m shocked. It’s upsetting to be described as chocolate, not just for me, but for all black women. It is insulting and hurtful.”

Is "Chocolate" Offensive? Tika Sumpter Doesn't Think So - Clutch Magazine
 
Back
Top Bottom