Where is the line in Political Cartoons?

[Gokul43201]

Argument? What's to argue?

 

[Bystander]

Er, why are you comparing hit counts of google searches to hit counts of some other type of search? And why are you copy/pasting that other search's advertisements?

Just a little demonstration that searches can produce any set of statistics the searcher desires as far as pages on a topic. What ads?

Neither of which are the phrasing in the cartoon. I fail to see your point.

See previous to Hurkyl.

As for your inclusion now of Speaker Pelosi from center field, I haven't seen anyone that offered the vaguest interpretation that Pelosi was the target of the cartoon - that she was somehow supposed to be the dead chimp.

Her excellency, madame speaker of the house, ramrod extraordinaire, Nancy Pelosi IS the democratic house of representatives.

As for playing the race card ... I think the point is that Delonas and The Post are the ones that are playing to racial stereotypes in the minds of many, and rather than 2-3 times a year, perhaps the issue is that it shouldn't be played at all?

Certainly not in defense of big league congressional bungling. Face it. The kid's got plenty of problems without having democrats on his side and covering his back --- yeah, he screwed up bigtime turning a bunch of idiots loose with the credit card to write and fill their own Christmas lists. Maybe he learns, maybe he doesn't. His fan club doesn't do him a whole lot of favors defending mistakes that can be assigned to the entire democratic party with a very tortuous misinterpretation of an editorial cartoon as blatant racism aimed directly at him.

Google gave me about 26,000,000 results for [Obama "stimulus bill"], 574,000 hits for [pelosi "stimulus bill"], 281,000 for [Reid "stimulus bill"], and 60,100 for [Obey "stimulus bill"].

Again, page counts on searches don't really mean much.

 

[LowlyPion]

My point, such as it is, would be that there is unarguably a very significant association of Obama with the idea of this stimulus bill, and it is rather disingenuous of The Post to have attempted to seek shelter behind such a skimpy fig leaf of saying they meant "congress". The tone of their nettling apology does little to address their intent, whether a genuine blind spot in their thinking or an intentional racial slight.

 

[Gokul43201]

Again, page counts on searches don't really mean much.

And they mean even less if done shoddily.

 

[Gokul43201]

His fan club doesn't do him a whole lot of favors defending mistakes that can be assigned to the entire democratic party with a very tortuous misinterpretation of an editorial cartoon as blatant racism aimed directly at him.

What does one have to do with the other? It is entirely possible for the DP to bungle at the same time that racists are being racist. Besides, I don't think the so-called fan club have said anything about the cartoon being blatantly racist. From what I'd read, they were only saying that it could easily be interpreted as being racist (and any fool ought to know that), and so would you kindly take it down asap? And things got more heated when the NYP told them to go stuff it.

Incidentally, about 60% of people polled by CNN/Opinion Research (I think a couple days ago) expressed a favorable opinion opinion of the bill. That's most dems, most indeps and almost none of the reps. I doubt the fan club would go to all this effort for the only reason of convincing the Rep populace that the DP didn't screw up.

 

[LowlyPion]

Just a little demonstration that searches can produce any set of statistics the searcher desires as far as pages on a topic.

My original point was to look at the 2 phrasings employed by The Post in the cartoon and in their alleged statement of intent from their apology. Concocting word combinations to seek some statistical defense as you've attempted is hardly valuable.

That Google finds nearly 2 orders of magnitude difference between the occurrences weighted toward the Obama association when likely 2 orders of magnitude the other direction might actually carry water for their point, I think in a general way vitiates their stance and calls into question why there would have been any delay in issuing an unreserved apology.

 

[russ_watters]

The tone of their nettling apology does little to address their intent, whether a genuine blind spot in their thinking or an intentional racial slight.

The intent was made clear in a previous statement by the editor (before the "apology"):

It broadly mocks Washington's efforts to revive the economy.

http://m.cnn.com/cnn/ne/lt_ne_all/detail/251877/full;jsessionid=C6AB86BC71E9AEFA744656F448704175.live4ib

 

[Hurkyl]

From what I'd read, they were only saying that it could easily be interpreted as being racist (and any fool ought to know that),

I think there is enough testimonial in this thread that your parenthetical is a blatant misrepresentation of reality.

 

[Proton Soup]

um, sure, use google

 

[LowlyPion]

um, sure, use google

I'd say those are really specious examples with respect to the general sense that the Stimulus Bill is associated statistically in references on the net several orders of magnitude more often with Obama than with Congress.

 

[LowlyPion]

The intent was made clear in a previous statement by the editor (before the "apology"):

Looks like you are equating their intent with their subsequent public statement of their intent.

 

[Proton Soup]

I'd say those are really specious examples with respect to the general sense that the Stimulus Bill is associated statistically in references on the net several orders of magnitude more often with Obama than with Congress.

it's a really good example that people on the internet are retarded and that using google stats is not only a reflection of this, but also a retarded argument.seriously though, do we want to condescend to/appease stupid people?

 

[Esoteric]

Are people aware that chimps resemble whites more than blacks?

Have any of you ever seen a chimp? They are hairy - the average black person is less hairier than whites(see Robin Williams). Underneath all that hair, they have light skin, they are born pale white and their faces get slightly darker due to sun exposure. They have thin lips and big ears. Blacks on average have smaller ears(see Micheal Jordan) and fuller lips. And son and so forth.

Anyway my question is, is Al Sharpton offended because the NY Post editors saw "chimp" and failed to think "black guy"?

In which case he's moron.

Or is it because he believes it would encourage violence towards the President?

In which case his concerns are baseless. Obama has secret service up the ***. If he gets assassinated, it will be an inside job. No racist redneck with a confederate flag hanging in front of his porch will ever get close to harming the president.

I don't see how anyone should be offended by this cartoon.

 

[russ_watters]

Looks like you are equating their intent with their subsequent public statement of their intent.

Yes, I am, of course, assuming they are not lying. If you want to assume people are lying, then that opens up all sorts of doors in a discussion...

 

[Gokul43201]

I think there is enough testimonial in this thread that your parenthetical is a blatant misrepresentation of reality.

Apparently the fan club doesn't read PF.

PS: The parenthetical clause is not my own opinion, if that's what you're saying - it is what I inferred from the Sharpton response.

PPS: As for whether or not people are aware of the black man = monkey slur, I stated my opinion (perhaps obliquely, I'll have to go back and look) in an earlier post. I expect the level of unawareness to be significantly greater among white people than among colored people living in the US.

Final PS: After re-reading Sharpton, I see he does go a little further than I described him as going, in that he wonders (aloud) whether the cartoon is indeed being racist.

 

[Evo]

I don't see how anyone should be offended by this cartoon.

Some non-Americans that aren't aware of the racist slur of comparing a monkey to a black person may not see it, but I don't know how any American wouldn't see it. They might not be bothered by it, but not see it? It's one thing to not be bothered by it, or even agree with it, but not even being aware of it? If you've watched tv or read a newspaper in the US in the last 40 years, you know of the racial slur.

 

[LowlyPion]

Yes, I am, of course, assuming they are not lying. If you want to assume people are lying, then that opens up all sorts of doors in a discussion...

That certainly is a mighty trusting way to treat public statements of intent or action. Blago said he wasn't selling the senate seat. You of course would believe him prima facie?

The issue of course is not in assuming that they have necessarily have lied or not lied, but merely that it would certainly advantage an agenda to paint themselves in self righteousness by choosing to publicly present a reason that is more politically correct, than to say admit that they would have erred in forwarding a portrayal that was so widely viewed as carrying stereotypical racial overtones.

 

[Gokul43201]

Some non-Americans that aren't aware of the racist slur of comparing a monkey to a black person may not see it, but I don't know how any American wouldn't see it. They might not be bothered by it, but not see it? It's one thing to not be bothered by it, or even agree with it, but not even being aware of it? If you've watched tv or read a newspaper in the US in the last 40 years, you know of the racial slur.

That's what I'd imagined back in the beginning, but after googling around a little bit, I found some "yahoo answers" types of places where a lot of people seemed to be unaware of this. All of them (when they had them) had avatars depicting young white males/females, and from the spelling, some significant number of them seemed likely to be American. Oddly, some Brits seemed to be more aware of it, and many Aussie and Indian cricket fans (there was a similar incident in a cricket match where an Aussie of aboriginal descent was called a monkey).

 

[Esoteric]

Some non-Americans that aren't aware of the racist slur of comparing a monkey to a black person may not see it, but I don't know how any American wouldn't see it. They might not be bothered by it, but not see it? It's one thing to not be bothered by it, or even agree with it, but not even being aware of it? If you've watched tv or read a newspaper in the US in the last 40 years, you know of the racial slur.

I'm aware of the slur. The point is that it's not a racist slur, it's just outdated stupidity. What is the point of being offended? Showing racial "sensitivity" to the slur, on top of it being illogical, does nothing of eradicating the racial stereotype, it keeps them alive.

Asimov(yes that Asimov) made that same point in the 70's. He dedicated at least 2 pages to the stupidity of using that particular slur and the irrationality of being offended by it in his book "Today, Tomorrow, and..."

 

[Evo]

That's what I'd imagined back in the beginning, but after googling around a little bit, I found some "yahoo answers" types of places where a lot of people seemed to be unaware of this. All of them (when they had them) had avatars depicting young white males/females, and from the spelling, some significant number of them seemed likely to be American. Some older Brits seemed to be more aware of it, and many Aussies and Indians (there was a similar incident in a cricket match where an Aussie of aboriginal descent was called a monkey).

Surprising that there could be such a lack of social awareness.

But some people really do lack social awareness. I think understanding the people you live with (in your neighborhood, state, country), and being aware of negative social stereotyping is important when there are still wounds to heal.

 

[Gokul43201]

The point is that it's not a racist slur, it's just outdated stupidity.

Not sure what you mean by this. Are you saying it is no longer used?

 

[Evo]

I'm aware of the slur. The point is that it's not a racist slur, it's just outdated stupidity. What is the point of being offended? Showing racial "sensitivity" to the slur, on top of it being illogical, does nothing of eradicating the racial stereotypes, it keeps them alive.

Asimov(yes that Asimov) made that same point in the 70's. He dedicated at least 2 pages to the stupidity of using that particular slur and the irrationality of being offended by it in his book "Today, Tomorrow, and..."

Acting like you don't understand how someone could feel hurt is not the way to move forward. Read recent history and understand that we still need to be aware and respectful until such a time that the streotyping truly becomes a thing of the past. Telling people to "get over it" certainly is not the way to help them "get over it". That is a good way to appear to act superior to them.

Being insensitive is not the way.

 

[Esoteric]

Not sure what you mean by this. Are you saying it is no longer used?

I'm saying the slur means nothing. We all know how chimps look. My guess is that back then blacks and whites weren't educated enough on the appearance of chimps.

 

[LowlyPion]

The point is that it's not a racist slur, it's just outdated stupidity.

I may not know a lot about art, but I know what I like.

Thinking it is stupid may be your enlightened frame of reference. But surely you don't expect everyone to share your enlightenment? Just because you can dismiss it as stupidity doesn't mean that others aren't offended. That others that have lived a lifetime of being characterized "stupidly" should have to accept it?

Neither does it abrogate The Post's responsibility for having said something stupid or offensive to others.

To try and shift blame to those offended for being offended is hardly a productive solution. Seems like you are trying to blame the victim and that doesn't seem to me like the smart way to go.

 

[Esoteric]

Acting like you don't understand how someone could feel hurt is not the way to move forward. Read recent history and understand that we still need to be aware and respectful until such a time that the streotyping truly becomes a thing of the past. Telling people to "get over it" certainly is not the way to help them "get over it". That is a good way to appear to act superior to them.

Being insensitive is not the way.

You're just keeping the stereotype alive by your sensitivity - and not only keeping them alive but remaining acutely conscious of them at all times. Instead of being "sensitive" maybe you should educate those using the slur, and those offended, of their irrationality.

 

[WhoWee]

Have any of you ever seen a chimp? They are hairy - the average black person is less hairier than whites(see Robin Williams). Underneath all that hair, they have light skin, they are born pale white and their faces get slightly darker due to sun exposure. They have thin lips and big ears. Blacks on average have smaller ears(see Micheal Jordan) and fuller lips. And son and so forth.

Anyway my question is, is Al Sharpton offended because the NY Post editors saw "chimp" and failed to think "black guy"?

In which case he's moron.

Or is it because he believes it would encourage violence towards the President?

In which case his concerns are baseless. Obama has secret service up the ***. If he gets assassinated, it will be an inside job. No racist redneck with a confederate flag hanging in front of his porch will ever get close to harming the president.

I don't see how anyone should be offended by this cartoon.

I don't see how everyone shouldn't be offended...it's in bad taste. I guess we should be happy they didn't make fun of the woman who nearly died.

As for the chimp controvery...if it wasn't for the timing of the event...immediatly after all of the coverage of the CT chimp attack, there would be no doubt as to the racial slant.

However, given the timing, if they claim they were saying a monkey could have done a better job of writing a bill...we should consider it as possibly being their actual intent.

I think Sharpton reacted in the expected action as did other black leaders...again, given the timing (Black History month) and growing criticism of Obama and the stimulus plan/bank nationalization and the Attorney Generals recent comments regarding racial cowardice.

I think the voters spoke clearly that color doesn't matter...let's all move on...and don't buy the Post.

 

[Esoteric]

I may not know a lot about art, but I know what I like.

Thinking it is stupid may be your enlightened frame of reference. But surely you don't expect everyone to share your enlightenment? Just because you can dismiss it as stupidity doesn't mean that others aren't offended. That others that have lived a lifetime of being characterized "stupidly" should have to accept it?

Neither does it abrogate The Post's responsibility for having said something stupid or offensive to others.

To try and shift blame to those offended for being offended is hardly a productive solution. Seems like you are trying to blame the victim and that doesn't seem to me like the smart way to go.

I'm characterizing both the user of the slur and the offended as irrational. Stupid is harsh, however, if that also means ignorant of the facts, then yes, stupid is apt.

 

[Evo]

You're just keeping the stereotype alive by your sensitivity - and not only keeping them alive but remaining acutely conscious of them at all times. Instead of being "sensitive" maybe you should educate those using the slur and those offended of their irrationality.

Refraining from using racial slurs is the way to end it. And to refrain, one has to recognize.

Those offended are not irrational. Do you know the history of abuse of black people in the US? Are you aware of White Supremacists?

 

[Evo]

As for the chimp controvery...if it wasn't for the timing of the event...immediatly after all of the coverage of the CT chimp attack, there would be no doubt as to the racial slant.

Many people hadn't even heard of the chimp attack, or would have made a connection.

I think Sharpton reacted in the expected action as did other black leaders...again, given the timing (Black History month) and growing criticism of Obama and the stimulus plan/bank nationalization and the Attorney Generals recent comments regarding racial cowardice.

Yes, and some over-react for publicity.

I think the voters spoke clearly that color doesn't matter...let's all move on...and don't buy the Post.

Good idea. If people were more sensitive as what NOT to say or do, we could put this kind of thing behind us.

 

[LowlyPion]

I'm characterizing both the user of the slur and the offended as irrational. Stupid is harsh, however, if that also means ignorant of the facts, then yes, stupid is apt.

Actually you are only characterizing them in your frame of reference. So yes that may be your opinion, but perhaps you should also be prepared in that case that others think your opinion ill informed, as maybe others don't share your enlightenment and harbor instead intolerance for their having been characterized for so many years in a manner that makes them continue to feel that they must still sit at the back of the bus?

 

[Esoteric]

Refraining from using racial slurs is the way to end it. And to refrain, one has to recognize.

Those offended are not irrational. Do you know the history of abuse of black people in the US? Are you aware of White Supremacists?

Refraining is not the way to end it. The way to end is when seeing a "chimp" we fail to think "black guy."

Making that connection and failing to see the irrationality based on the facts(chimp appearance), like you seem to be doing, is perpetuating the history of white supremacy.

 

[lisab]

Refraining is not the way to end it. The way to end is when seeing a "chimp" we fail to think "black guy."

I find it highly unlikely that the editors of The Post were unaware of that particular racial slur.

 

[Evo]

Refraining is not the way to end it. The way to end is when seeing a "chimp" we fail to think "black guy."

And how else other than refraining to set up the scenario of chimp=black person do you propose to end it?

 

[Esoteric]

Actually you are only characterizing them in your frame of reference. So yes that may be your opinion, but perhaps you should also be prepared in that case that others think your opinion ill informed, as maybe others don't share your enlightenment and harbor instead intolerance for their having been characterized for so many years in a manner that makes them continue to feel that they must still sit at the back of the bus?

I'm not ill informed. I just fail to make the "chimp" = "black man" connection based on the facts.

 

[Esoteric]

And how else other than refraining to set up the scenario of chimp=black person do you propose to end it?

You can refrain from smoking and still be an addict.

People just need to be educated to the fact that chimps don't resemble blacks any more than any other racial group. So it's irrational to use the slur or be offended by it. And If you really analyze it, just for the sake of analyzing, you find chimps resemble whites more than blacks.

Imagine now, base on those facts, I started calling whites chimps. Should white people as a whole be racially offended? I don't know of any white person that would.

It all means nothing. You think it means something because it's "those pooor blackies, oh Esoteric have pity, be sensitive to the blackies."

You don't realize how seamlessly enmesh you are into the white supremacy way of thinking.