NationStates Jolt Archive

Gosh, I wonder if either of these are racist.

http://i87.photobucket.com/albums/k144/jocabia/hangmans-noose-BUSH.jpg

The rational leap here is that I'm referring to Bush as a war criminal. There are long and known rants about Bush as a war criminal.

http://i87.photobucket.com/albums/k144/jocabia/hangmans-noose-OBAMA.jpg

The rational leap here is that Obama, a black man, belongs in a noose. There are no known other reasons to put Obama to the noose and I ddin't offer any.

I posted the wrong one, by accident. Try it now.

Regardless, I think the point is made. You'll notice that guy has avoided responded to the more reasonable posts and spent a page bitching about shortening his name.

I posted the wrong one, by accident. Try it now.

Still not working, says 'this page moved' etc.,

Regardless, I think the point is made. You'll notice that guy has avoided responded to the more reasonable posts and spent a page bitching about shortening his name.

And you spent a page refusing to fix your quote brackets... takes two to tango.

The difference is painfully obvious to anyone with the slightest intelligence or understanding of race relations in this country.

Still not working, says 'this page moved' etc.,



And you spent a page refusing to fix your quote brackets... takes two to tango.

I'll tell you what. Find an argument that addresses whether it's racist, not whether it's a hate crime or offensive or eight other things that I didn't address. I'm happy to reply to all of the arguments. You're avoiding them. I don't have a problem with your silly nonsense if you'd at least debate while you're doing it.

And on a mildly related note, isn't burning crosses only illegal if done to intimidate someone?

And on a mildly related note, isn't burning crosses only illegal if done to intimidate someone?

That was the intent of my question. To make us recognize the intent. If my intent is to intimidate my neighbor because I don't like their skin color, then what I'm doing should be wrong and illegal.

If the intent of the T-shirt is to make sure someone has less votes than before, then I don't see how it's racist. It's crude and rude and offensive, and way beyond good tastes, but I don't see how it's racists per se. Perhaps if we could know that the only reason the author is against Obama is because of Obama's skin color, then perhaps it's racist and not political, but otherwise, I have to assume it's political satire I think.

That was the intent of my question. To make us recognize the intent. If my intent is to intimidate my neighbor because I don't like their skin color, then what I'm doing should be wrong and illegal.

If the intent of the T-shirt is to make sure someone has less votes than before, then I don't see how it's racist. It's crude and rude and offensive, and way beyond good tastes, but I don't see how it's racists per se. Perhaps if we could know that the only reason the author is against Obama is because of Obama's skin color, then perhaps it's racist and not political, but otherwise, I have to assume it's political satire I think.

Oh, hey, he continues to avoid the specific arguments in order to reply to anything but. What did I misspell this time? What other thing can you talk about?

Or, hey, here's a thought. How about we talk about whether it's racist or not. They can use racist arguments to lower votes or nonracist arguments to lower votes. Whether it's a "hate crime", "hate speech", "offensive", "stupid", "funny", "hate speech", "done to bush" or whatever different thing you want to talk about DOES NOT address whether or not it's racist. The FACT is that in the article you cited about these shirts, the person selling them acknowledged the connotation. He's never claimed it was an attempt to lower votes. He's never claimed ANY of the things you've attributed to the shirt. He has a history of racist and mysogynist signs and, yet, he, unlike you, acknowledges the overtones.

They exist. You refuse, as of yet in this thread, to acknowledge that there are racist underpinnings. Twist and squirm all you like, but you can't win an debate by avoiding the substance, and rhetoric, no matter how much you want it to, just gets laughed at on this forum.

That was the intent of my question. To make us recognize the intent. If my intent is to intimidate my neighbor because I don't like their skin color, then what I'm doing should be wrong and illegal.

If the intent of the T-shirt is to make sure someone has less votes than before, then I don't see how it's racist. It's crude and rude and offensive, and way beyond good tastes, but I don't see how it's racists per se. Perhaps if we could know that the only reason the author is against Obama is because of Obama's skin color, then perhaps it's racist and not political, but otherwise, I have to assume it's political satire I think.

You do realize that, by your logic, a guy selling a T-shirt that applied a racial slur against Obama wouldn't be being racist as long as he also sold one applying that same slur against Bush?

Twist and squirm all you like, but you can't win an debate by avoiding the substance, and rhetoric, no matter how much you want it to, just gets laughed at on this forum.

Hey, Jocabia, should I use one of my moves? :D

You do realize that, by your logic, a guy selling a T-shirt that applied a racial slur against Obama wouldn't be being racist as long as he also sold one applying that same slur against Bush?

Provided it was used against another President personage BEFORE Obama came into the picture, then yes, that's what I'm saying.

Hey, Jocabia, should I use one of my moves? :D

Not if it involves misspelling his name. Because he'll talk about that for pages but will not actually address your arguments. Go back and look. You'll find half a dozen avoided posts and as many avoided different ways of avoiding the point.

What I most enjoy is that he has tried to make it about everything other than what he put in the OP which asked us why one is considered racist and the other isn't. Then it was about intent. Or about whether it was stupid, the argument no one ever protested. Or it was about hate crimes. Or hate speech. Or how I spell his name.

I want to speak to the point. He doesn't. It's no wonder why. Because when you get on point, it's pretty clear whether it's racist or not and why.

Provided it was used against another President personage BEFORE Obama came into the picture, then yes, that's what I'm saying.

Seriously, how does that change the social context of a term? Suddenly everyone just forgets the context because some idiots used the same comments in the past. The person using this symbol admitted to the racist tones and has a history of racism AND mysogyny. But hey, what's context?

Skip context. Avoid debate. Avoid reason. Just assert things and create rules for context that don't exist.

Not if it involves misspelling his name.

Puh-leeze. You know I'm so much better than that.

I'll give him a small sample.

***Seven points, same start, final conclusion. Go.***

***7th Flush***

Balderdash71964, context determines that you can't go in an AA meeting with a bottle of vodka and offer it to them, but you can offer coffee.

Balderdash71964, context determines that you can't hit on a woman if you're in a job interview with her, but you can if you're in a bar.

Balderdash71964, context determines that you can't go to a costume party that's been thrown by the mother of a victim of the Unabomber in an Unabomber costume, but you can if the party's been thrown by Courtney Love.

Balderdash71964, context determines that you can ask a man if he "owns this bitch" if he's walking a female dog, but not if he's strolling with his wife.

Balderdash71964, context determines that you can make lewd jokes to close male friends, but not to nuns.

Balderdash71964, context determines that you can say "get the fuck out of here" to a friend in your house in jest, but not to a minister in a church.

Balderdash71964, context determines that the meaning of a word changes according to who speaks it, who it's spoken to and to whom it refers.

Context is what makes the Omaba "monkey" t-shirt racist, and a Bush "monkey" comparison not.

Simple as that.

Your move, sir?

That was the intent of my question. To make us recognize the intent. If my intent is to intimidate my neighbor because I don't like their skin color, then what I'm doing should be wrong and illegal.

If the intent of the T-shirt is to make sure someone has less votes than before, then I don't see how it's racist. It's crude and rude and offensive, and way beyond good tastes, but I don't see how it's racists per se. Perhaps if we could know that the only reason the author is against Obama is because of Obama's skin color, then perhaps it's racist and not political, but otherwise, I have to assume it's political satire I think.

it is political satire. racist political satire. You don't seem to get that.

it doesn't need to be illegal to be racist. it can be both racist and political, in fact it can be politically racist.

that's actually exactly what it is, an attempt to make a political argument based on racism.

being a politician does not erase the context of black history from Obama. neither does being a presidential candidate. He will always carry that context into anything he does.

Now if this man had actually not intended any racist undertones (though, note, they still would exist) we would be cautioning him about conveying things he did not intend to. But he did exactly as he intended, we know his motives, and so we can judge his character based on them.

art does not exist in a vacuum. Well, until we start sculpting the surface of the moon, at least.

P.S. it looks like 20% of white voters in West Virginia voted against Obama because of "race", so don't imagine that there is not racism in politics, that harms certain politicians' chances. This sort of shit is what encourages and mobilizes these people.

That was the intent of my question. To make us recognize the intent. If my intent is to intimidate my neighbor because I don't like their skin color, then what I'm doing should be wrong and illegal.

If the intent of the T-shirt is to make sure someone has less votes than before, then I don't see how it's racist. It's crude and rude and offensive, and way beyond good tastes, but I don't see how it's racists per se. Perhaps if we could know that the only reason the author is against Obama is because of Obama's skin color, then perhaps it's racist and not political, but otherwise, I have to assume it's political satire I think.Maybe you're just blind. I could swear I've read explanations as to why over half a dozen times in this thread.

What is the difference? Why is one funny and the other offensive? Perhaps both are funny or both are offensive? What say you?

The Obama '08 monkey can be somewhat offensive (not racist anyway) because there isn't the comparation between "funny" facial features, like in the GWB monkeys.

Anyway, I claim both to be sexist because there isn't a Hillary monkey!

*chanting*
What do we want? HILLARY MONKEY!
When do we want it? NOW!

...
Balderdash71964, context determines that you can't go in an AA meeting with a bottle of vodka and offer it to them, but you can offer coffee.

This one is true but I don't see how it's an analogy for this situation...
...
Balderdash71964, context determines that you can't hit on a woman if you're in a job interview with her, but you can if you're in a bar.

This one is incorrect. The analogy works more like, you can't hit on a woman if you're in a job interview with her, but you can hit her if you're in a boxing ring and she put herself in your weight class ...

...Balderdash71964, context determines that you can't go to a costume party that's been thrown by the mother of a victim of the Unabomber in an Unabomber costume, but you can if the party's been thrown by Courtney Love.

I don't see the analogy in this one either, but I think you can wear the unabomber outfit to either party but you shouldn't expect to stay the whole time before being asked to leave and you likely won't get an invitation the following year either. ;)

...Balderdash71964, context determines that you can ask a man if he "owns this bitch" if he's walking a female dog, but not if he's strolling with his wife.
I agree

...

...Context is what makes the Omaba "monkey" t-shirt racist, and a Bush "monkey" comparison not.

Simple as that.

Your move, sir?

The context of this scenario is that ALL presidential candidates open themselves to being called 'monkey' when they throw their hats in the ring, and thus Obama is being called a monkey because presidents are called monkeys by the sides that don't like them. In a different context, say of calling a civilian Obama a monkey, that would be racist... But if all presidents are caricaturized by the other side then that creates a fair game scenario for what comes around, goes around and Obama doesn't get an exemption because of his skin tone.

Context DOES make a difference, that's what I've been saying all along.

The Obama '08 monkey can be somewhat offensive (not racist anyway) because there isn't the comparation between "funny" facial features, like in the GWB monkeys.

Anyway, I claim both to be sexist because there isn't a Hillary monkey!

*chanting*
What do we want? HILLARY MONKEY!
When do we want it? NOW!

Actually, you have a point. You've convinced me.

Maybe you're just blind. I could swear I've read explanations as to why over half a dozen times in this thread.

I'm not blind, I'm disagreeing.

...
P.S. it looks like 20% of white voters in West Virginia voted against Obama because of "race", so don't imagine that there is not racism in politics, that harms certain politicians' chances. This sort of shit is what encourages and mobilizes these people.

That's an entirely different topic, doesn't belong in this thread or else it'll get merged with one of the political threads. We'll end up comparing how many African Americans are voting for Obama because he's black, how many women are going to vote for Hillary because she's a woman, and how many senior citizens are going to vote for McCain because he's one of them :p...

This one is true but I don't see how it's an analogy for this situation...


This one is incorrect. The analogy works more like, you can't hit on a woman if you're in a job interview with her, but you can hit her if you're in a boxing ring and she put herself in your weight class ...



I don't see the analogy in this one either, but I think you can wear the unabomber outfit to either party but you shouldn't expect to stay the whole time before being asked to leave and you likely won't get an invitation the following year either. ;)


I agree

...



The context of this scenario is that ALL presidential candidates open themselves to being called 'monkey' when they throw their hats in the ring, and thus Obama is being called a monkey because presidents are called monkeys by the sides that don't like them. In a different context, say of calling a civilian Obama a monkey, that would be racist... But if all presidents are caricaturized by the other side then that creates a fair game scenario for what comes around, goes around and Obama doesn't get an exemption because of his skin tone.

Context DOES make a difference, that's what I've been saying all along.

Are you this fatuous in real life too?

This one is incorrect. The analogy works more like, you can't hit on a woman if you're in a job interview with her, but you can hit her if you're in a boxing ring and she put herself in your weight class ...

Ok, you are aware that "to hit on" means "to flirt," right? Cause somethings tellin me that went right over your head....



The context of this scenario is that ALL presidential candidates open themselves to being called 'monkey' when they throw their hats in the ring, and thus Obama is being called a monkey because presidents are called monkeys by the sides that don't like them. In a different context, say of calling a civilian Obama a monkey, that would be racist... But if all presidents are caricaturized by the other side then that creates a fair game scenario for what comes around, goes around and Obama doesn't get an exemption because of his skin tone.

Context DOES make a difference, that's what I've been saying all along.

But, so far, we've only seen two. GWB and Obama. Bush Because he physically looks like a monkey . BUT CONTEXT MATTERS. Just because it is OK to say to one person does not make it Ok to say to another, due to the other's entirely diffrent baggage. It'd be like me making jokes about Indians to other people, and then to Indians. Both are racist, although probably playfully. But you have to be aware of certain things.

Ok, you are aware that "to hit on" means "to flirt," right? Cause somethings tellin me that went right over your head....

That's why it was a bad analogy. We are talking about when it is okay to 'attack' someone and when it's not and how you attack them is dependent on the scenario of the event. In a boxing ring (like a political campaign) you can hit people in ways that you wouldn't normally be able to do outside of the ring.



But, so far, we've only seen two. GWB and Obama. Bush Because he physically looks like a monkey . BUT CONTEXT MATTERS. Just because it is OK to say to one person does not make it Ok to say to another, due to the other's entirely diffrent baggage. It'd be like me making jokes about Indians to other people, and then to Indians. Both are racist, although probably playfully. But you have to be aware of certain things.

Monkeys and caricatures of presidents go hand in hand. Running for president means you will be caricaturized and insulted and attacked unfairly, it's the nature of the beast.

"Hey George Bush, you're a big old ******. That's right, you're a black monkey ign'ant ******, and I hate you because you're black."

"Hey Barack Obama, you're a big old ******. That's right, you're a black monkey ign'ant ******, and I hate you because you're black."

From everything the OP has said in this thread (and yes, I read every painfully ignorant page of this tripe), there's no criteria that can distinguish one of these as racist and the other as benign.

Monkeys and caricatures of presidents go hand in hand. Running for president means you will be caricaturized and insulted and attacked unfairly, it's the nature of the beast.

Jesus Christ.

You asked whether it was racist, not whether it was "the nature of the beast." Why are you refusing to address your own questions?

That's why it was a bad analogy. We are talking about when it is okay to 'attack' someone and when it's not and how you attack them is dependent on the scenario of the event. In a boxing ring (like a political campaign) you can hit people in ways that you wouldn't normally be able to do outside of the ring.


Sweet tap dancing Jesus Christ almighty on a stick. This is pathetic. Heik wasnt saying "hit on" as in jack her in he jaw. He was saying "hit on" as in "Hey baby, whats up? Can I buy you a drink? Whats say we go back to your place?"

God all mighty. That is the second time this has been explained to you. Your boxing analogy doesnt work because no one is talking about knocking a woman out.


lll try again. Its ok to come onto a woman in a bar, but not in a job interview.

Better?

"Hey George Bush, you're a big old ******. That's right, you're a black monkey ign'ant ******, and I hate you because you're black."

"Hey Barack Obama, you're a big old ******. That's right, you're a black monkey ign'ant ******, and I hate you because you're black."

From everything the OP has said in this thread (and yes, I read every painfully ignorant page of this tripe), there's no criteria that can distinguish one of these as racist and the other as benign.

Psh. Whatever. In politics, thats ok, because there is no racism in politics, and as long as you call a white person a filthy ****** and then linch him, its ok to do it to black people.

Sweet tap dancing Jesus Christ almighty on a stick. This is pathetic. Heik wasnt saying "hit on" as in jack her in he jaw. He was saying "hit on" as in "Hey baby, whats up? Can I buy you a drink? Whats say we go back to your place?"

God all mighty. That is the second time this has been explained to you. Your boxing analogy doesnt work because no one is talking about knocking a woman out.


lll try again. Its ok to come onto a woman in a bar, but not in a job interview.

Better?

Actually, I think he understood what Heik meant the first time. He's just saying that a good analogy needs to involve an attack of some sort.

Actually, I think he understood what Heik meant the first time. He's just saying that a good analogy needs to involve an attack of some sort.

But then hes taking an apple and trying to turn it into a fucking bannana. We're talking about context. He was given an example of context. He didnt like it so he tried to change the rules.


Much like what hes been doing this whole "debate".

If the first thing you think of when you see the Obama monkey is "Racist!", I dare say you are racist yourself. It appears to me to be an amusing commentary on Obama's rather naive views. I saw no connection between the monkey and Obama's skin color until people complained about racism. You who complain of racism seem to be using Obama's skin as a shield against a taste of your own medicine - and a mild taste at that.

Psh. Whatever. In politics, thats ok, because there is no racism in politics, and as long as you call a white person a filthy ****** and then linch him, its ok to do it to black people.

Given that tack, I wonder if he would find the old election slogan:

"Vote Labour if you want a ****** as a neighbour"

racist. Because, hey, in politics, you can hit people in ways you normally couldn't.

If the first thing you think of when you see the Obama monkey is "Racist!", I dare say you are racist yourself.

That is just silly, cliched and fatuous*


*god that word's going to get good mileage in this thread

If the first thing you think of when you see the Obama monkey is "Racist!", I dare say you are racist yourself. It appears to me to be an amusing commentary on Obama's rather naive views. I saw no connection between the monkey and Obama's skin color until people complained about racism. You who complain of racism seem to be using Obama's skin as a shield against a taste of your own medicine - and a mild taste at that.

While Im not shocked that you would say this, I have to say, are you really that out of touch with history that your first thought wasnt "Wow, he's calling him a monke because he's black!"


Notice how there are some conservatives and anti-Obama people saying "Hmmm, this is a little over the line..."


For example, look up TBC's posting history. Then read his comments on this thread. Thats called being rational and in touch with history.

The context of this scenario is that ALL presidential candidates open themselves to being called 'monkey' when they throw their hats in the ring, and thus Obama is being called a monkey because presidents are called monkeys by the sides that don't like them. In a different context, say of calling a civilian Obama a monkey, that would be racist... But if all presidents are caricaturized by the other side then that creates a fair game scenario for what comes around, goes around and Obama doesn't get an exemption because of his skin tone.

Context DOES make a difference, that's what I've been saying all along.

Oh gods.

So you're claiming that it's okay to be racist towards him because he's a candidate?

Actually, I think he understood what Heik meant the first time. He's just saying that a good analogy needs to involve an attack of some sort.

Exactly right. Thank you.

Oh gods.

So you're claiming that it's okay to be racist towards him because he's a candidate?

Hey, lets go burn a cross in his yard. And then if that ******* doesnt drop out of the race, I say we linch him. Hes a candidate. Its not racist.



*- Again, its ok. Because he's running for politics.

Exactly right. Thank you.

Again, youre trying to turn an apple into a fucking bannana.

Given that tack, I wonder if he would find the old election slogan:

"Vote Labour if you want a ****** as a neighbour"

racist. Because, hey, in politics, you can hit people in ways you normally couldn't.

That looks racist to me because it attacks your neighbor's skin color and ethnic group, not the candidate directly.

Ok, you are aware that "to hit on" means "to flirt," right? Cause somethings tellin me that went right over your head....

This.

Just to drive a point home, I do not endorse hitting women under any situation. Please, ops, do not ban me. I did use the right preposition. :p

That looks racist to me because it attacks your neighbor's skin color and ethnic group, not the candidate directly.

But that's politics for you...

You are allowed to fight dirty don'cha'know

That looks racist to me because it attacks your neighbor's skin color and ethnic group, not the candidate directly.

So again, youre saying that we can be racist to a candidate because he is running for politics. There is nothing morally or socially wrong with racism if the guy is running for president. Is that what you are saying?


Just admit it. Your upset that all these years your poor boy Dubya has been called a monkey, and now your looking for payback and double standards.

Oh gods.

So you're claiming that it's okay to be racist towards him because he's a candidate?

I'm saying it's okay to caricaturise him as an animal because he's a candidate, I don't like it, I don't do it, I don't agree with it, but it's well within the long established norms for political campaigning (for and against).

I'm saying it's okay to caricaturise him as an animal because he's a candidate, I don't like it, I don't do it, I don't agree with it, but it's well within the long established norms for political campaigning (for and against).

So...its ok to be racist if hes a candidate?

So...its ok to be racist if hes a candidate?

I'm saying, calling a candidate an animal is stupid, rude and obnoxious, but there is a long history of it and in the context of politics that makes it not racist. If it wasn't common to caricturize candidates as animals and then to attack one candidate in that way would be racist, but it is common and the norm to attack a candidate that way. I did not just now and never did say that it is okay to be racist because he's a candidate.

I'm saying, calling a candidate an animal is stupid, rude and obnoxious, but there is a long history of it and in the context of politics that makes it not racist. If it wasn't common to caricturize candidates as animals and then to attack one candidate in that way would be racist, but it is common and the norm to attack a candidate that way. I did not just now and never did say that it is okay to be racist because he's a candidate.


So pick an animal that isnt racist.

If you choose to make him a monkey, you are being racist.

I'm saying, calling a candidate an animal is stupid, rude and obnoxious, but there is a long history of it and in the context of politics that makes it not racist. If it wasn't common to caricturize candidates as animals and then to attack one candidate in that way would be racist, but it is common and the norm to attack a candidate that way. I did not just now and never did say that it is okay to be racist because he's a candidate.

So where does this quaint idea that it is only Obama who is being insulted on that t-shirt come from?

The context of this scenario is that ALL presidential candidates open themselves to being called 'monkey' when they throw their hats in the ring, and thus Obama is being called a monkey because presidents are called monkeys by the sides that don't like them. In a different context, say of calling a civilian Obama a monkey, that would be racist... But if all presidents are caricaturized by the other side then that creates a fair game scenario for what comes around, goes around and Obama doesn't get an exemption because of his skin tone.

Context DOES make a difference, that's what I've been saying all along.

No, it isn't. You are missing the context.

You've named two presidents who were compared to or grouped with apes - both for different reasons. Reagan's movies were the reason for his association with Bonzo. Bush's facial expressions and the fact that at least one picture of him bore great similarity to a picture of a chimp was the reason for his.

The two are only similar in that they both happened to be presidents. The reason for the comparison was different.

In this case, the reason for the comparison is also different. And, in this case, the comparison is racist.

I'm saying, calling a candidate an animal is stupid, rude and obnoxious, but there is a long history of it and in the context of politics that makes it not racist. If it wasn't common to caricturize candidates as animals and then to attack one candidate in that way would be racist, but it is common and the norm to attack a candidate that way. I did not just now and never did say that it is okay to be racist because he's a candidate.So, if a bunch of regional soccer league fans make monkey noises whenever the black player on the team gets the ball, it's not racist, because he's being caricatured as an animal?

That's why it was a bad analogy. We are talking about when it is okay to 'attack' someone and when it's not and how you attack them is dependent on the scenario of the event. In a boxing ring (like a political campaign) you can hit people in ways that you wouldn't normally be able to do outside of the ring.

But racism is always inappropriate.


If the first thing you think of when you see the Obama monkey is "Racist!", I dare say you are racist yourself. It appears to me to be an amusing commentary on Obama's rather naive views. I saw no connection between the monkey and Obama's skin color until people complained about racism. You who complain of racism seem to be using Obama's skin as a shield against a taste of your own medicine - and a mild taste at that.

If the first thing you think of if you see a cartoon of Obama being hung from a tree is "Racist!", I dare say you are racist yourself. Clearly, lynching has nothing to do with racism and would just be political commentary on how other candidates want to take him out...


I'm saying it's okay to caricaturise him as an animal because he's a candidate, I don't like it, I don't do it, I don't agree with it, but it's well within the long established norms for political campaigning (for and against).

No one has argued otherwise.

But you are specifically arguing that it is ok to carcaturize him as an animal in a racist manner. That is what we are disagreeing with.

So, if a bunch of regional soccer league fans make monkey noises whenever the black player on the team gets the ball, it's not racist, because he's being caricatured as an animal?

As long as they make some sort of animal noises at some other players, this would clearly not be racist.

Right?

That looks racist to me because it attacks your neighbor's skin color and ethnic group, not the candidate directly.

Being a presidential candidate does not wash the context of being a black person away from him.

Being a presidential candidate does not wash the context of being a black person away from him.

But it's ok to attack a presidential candidate for his skin color and ethnic group, so long as you've used a similar attack on another president for different reasons.

...
But you are specifically arguing that it is ok to carcaturize him as an animal in a racist manner. That is what we are disagreeing with.

No, I'm am not arguing that it is okay to do it in a racist manner. We are disagreeing on whether this is a racist manner or not, I'm not saying it's okay to be racist in the campaign tactics. I'm arguing that this monkey shirt isn't any more 'racist' than drawings of GWB as a chimp and Chaney as an organ player. I'm arguing that it is not a racist attack to associate a president as a monkey on a t-shirt in the manner provided in the picture, is not inherently racist, it is political satire (and rude and obnoxious).


As you'll notice, this picture was from 2004, long before Obama could have influenced it...
http://i235.photobucket.com/albums/ee218/Balderdash71964/BushChimp.jpg


Chimps and Presidents go hand in hand... Even Curious George specifically, as shown earlier. And several people have commented that the Curious George cartoon does remind them visually of Obama specifically, not just his race...

Jesus Christ.

You asked whether it was racist, not whether it was "the nature of the beast." Why are you refusing to address your own questions?

Bang, right there.

That guy is avoiding the point. If I call a man an idiot. I'm a jerk for doing it. If that guy is President it might be socially acceptable but it doesn't change whether or not I'm a jerk. A certain statement may be "the nature of the beast", but it doesn't change the meaning of it. Sometimes the inclusion of more people (it should just be all people, but, hey, our country has a bit of a checkered past) means we have to be more sensitive.

Take military combat units, for example. It was common for one Marine to tell another Marine to "come over here and suck my cock". I wonder if they're allowed to say this to the women who are now a part of that unit?

See the job it was directed at hasn't changed. However, the person in that job and the context of what those comments would be taken to mean changes.

No, I'm am not arguing that it is okay to do it in a racist manner. We are disagreeing on whether this is a racist manner or not, I'm not saying it's okay to be racist in the campaign tactics. I'm arguing that this monkey shirt isn't any more 'racist' than drawings of GWB as a chimp and Chaney as an organ player. I'm arguing that it is not a racist attack to associate a president as a monkey on a t-shirt in the manner provided in the picture, is not inherently racist, it is political satire (and rude and obnoxious).


As you'll notice, this picture was from 2004, long before Obama could have influenced it...
http://i235.photobucket.com/albums/ee218/Balderdash71964/BushChimp.jpg


Chimps and Presidents go hand in hand... Even Curious George specifically, as shown earlier. And several people have commented that the Curious George cartoon does remind them visually of Obama specifically, not just his race...


Ok, guys, let's get to calling Bush a whore. If we say it enough, we can all call the first female nominee a whore all day long.

GEORGE BUSH IS A SKANKY WHORE!!!

No, I'm am not arguing that it is okay to do it in a racist manner. We are disagreeing on whether this is a racist manner or not, I'm not saying it's okay to be racist in the campaign tactics. I'm arguing that this monkey shirt isn't any more 'racist' than drawings of GWB as a chimp and Chaney as an organ player. I'm arguing that it is not a racist attack to associate a president as a monkey on a t-shirt in the manner provided in the picture, is not inherently racist, it is political satire (and rude and obnoxious).


As you'll notice, this picture was from 2004, long before Obama could have influenced it...


Chimps and Presidents go hand in hand... Even Curious George specifically, as shown earlier. And several people have commented that the Curious George cartoon does remind them visually of Obama specifically, not just his race...

I'm sure...
This is why people say you are blind. You loudly claim ignorance of that which is sickeningly obvious to the rest of us, The guy who made the shirt has no delusions about his motives.

No, I'm am not arguing that it is okay to do it in a racist manner. We are disagreeing on whether this is a racist manner or not, I'm not saying it's okay to be racist in the campaign tactics. I'm arguing that this monkey shirt isn't any more 'racist' than drawings of GWB as a chimp and Chaney as an organ player.

And to make that argument, you have to ignore decades of history, the person making the shirt, and the lack of context provided (where context was provided to begin making the comparisons with Bush).

And to make that argument, you have to ignore decades of history, the person making the shirt, and the lack of context provided (where context was provided to begin making the comparisons with Bush).

In the article HE quoted, the person selling the shirts admitted there is an obvious connotation that brings up Jim Crow era issues. The proprietor admits it. You not only have to ignore historical and social context, but the actually intentions of the person selling these shirts.

We are disagreeing on whether this is a racist manner or not, ...Exactly. You seem to be convinced that portraying an African-American politician as a monkey has absolutely nothing to do with African-Americans being portrayed as monkeys by racists. This is not true, but you seem complacent with ignoring it.
I'm arguing that this monkey shirt isn't any more 'racist' than drawings of GWB as a chimp and Chaney as an organ player. I'm arguing that it is not a racist attack to associate a president as a monkey on a t-shirt in the manner provided in the picture, is not inherently racist, it is political satire (and rude and obnoxious).There is long tradition of portraying African-Americans as monkeys, just as there is a long tradition of portraying politicians as unfavorable animals. The two are not mutually exclusive; if you portray Obama as a monkey, you're upholding both. If you were to portray him as some other animal not typically associated this way, it wouldn't carry racist undertones.

No, I'm am not arguing that it is okay to do it in a racist manner. We are disagreeing on whether this is a racist manner or not, I'm not saying it's okay to be racist in the campaign tactics. I'm arguing that this monkey shirt isn't any more 'racist' than drawings of GWB as a chimp and Chaney as an organ player. I'm arguing that it is not a racist attack to associate a president as a monkey on a t-shirt in the manner provided in the picture, is not inherently racist, it is political satire (and rude and obnoxious).


As you'll notice, this picture was from 2004, long before Obama could have influenced it...
http://i235.photobucket.com/albums/ee218/Balderdash71964/BushChimp.jpg


Chimps and Presidents go hand in hand... Even Curious George specifically, as shown earlier. And several people have commented that the Curious George cartoon does remind them visually of Obama specifically, not just his race...

Are you paid to be this obtuse?

And to make that argument, you have to ignore decades of history, the person making the shirt, and the lack of context provided (where context was provided to begin making the comparisons with Bush).

To make that argument I have to listen to what the creator/producer of the shirt says and what it looks like...

The shirt being sold at a bar in Marietta shows a cartoon chimp, Curious George, peeling a banana with the words "Obama in '08" printed beneath.

About a dozen people gathered outside the bar yesterday to protest. The Southeast regional director of the Anti-Defamation League says the shirt is "an outrageous slur" against Obama and all African-Americans.

Mike Norman, who owns Mulligan's Food and Spirits says the T-shirt is not meant to be racist. He says he thinks it's funny because he says Obama and Curious George, quote, "look so much alike."
link (http://kdka.com/national/barack.obama.curious.2.723699.html)

Gosh, I wonder if either of these are racist.

http://i87.photobucket.com/albums/k144/jocabia/hangmans-noose-BUSH.jpg

The rational leap here is that I'm referring to Bush as a war criminal. There are long and known rants about Bush as a war criminal.

http://i87.photobucket.com/albums/k144/jocabia/hangmans-noose-OBAMA.jpg

The rational leap here is that Obama, a black man, belongs in a noose. There are no known other reasons to put Obama to the noose and I ddin't offer any.

I'm going to quote this again, since it demonstrates exactly why context matters. Either one of these would be stupid, both could be argued to be political, but only one of them is racist.

lll try again. Its ok to come onto a woman in a bar, but not in a job interview.

Better?

Traditionally it's only OK to come onto a woman unless she asks or you're filming a porno.


Oh. Ohhhhhhhhh.

... If you were to portray him as some other animal not typically associated this way, it wouldn't carry racist undertones.

Any animal could be made into a racist slur... If the picture looks like Obama (as others have said, ears and hairline apparently) then this picture is a caricature of a person, not a racial epitaph stereotype.

I'm going to quote this again, since it demonstrates exactly why context matters. Either one of these would be stupid, both could be argued to be political, but only one of them is racist.


Both of those are an invitation to violence. The obama/george shirt is not.

To make that argument I have to listen to what the creator/producer of the shirt says and what it looks like...

The shirt being sold at a bar in Marietta shows a cartoon chimp, Curious George, peeling a banana with the words "Obama in '08" printed beneath.

About a dozen people gathered outside the bar yesterday to protest. The Southeast regional director of the Anti-Defamation League says the shirt is "an outrageous slur" against Obama and all African-Americans.

Mike Norman, who owns Mulligan's Food and Spirits says the T-shirt is not meant to be racist. He says he thinks it's funny because he says Obama and Curious George, quote, "look so much alike."
link (http://kdka.com/national/barack.obama.curious.2.723699.html)

You left out some significant bits. Everyone, please, notice that guy changed links. It's no wonder why. Here is the original.

http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/cobb/stories/2008/05/13/mulligans_0514.html

Norman acknowledged the imagery's Jim Crow roots but said he sees nothing wrong with depicting a prominent African-American as a monkey.

And, again, some other acts from the owner include making a sign stating "Hillary should have married OJ".

Both of those are an invitation to violence. The obama/george shirt is not.

Um, actually, no. They could both be construed as saying they deserve the death penalty. Particularly the first one. If you recall, Hussein was hanged. He was hanged as a war criminal. Many argue that Bush is also a war criminal. They are advocating nothing illegal.

Meanwhile, you entirely avoided the point. AGAIN. Is either of them racist?

No, I'm am not arguing that it is okay to do it in a racist manner. We are disagreeing on whether this is a racist manner or not, I'm not saying it's okay to be racist in the campaign tactics. I'm arguing that this monkey shirt isn't any more 'racist' than drawings of GWB as a chimp and Chaney as an organ player. I'm arguing that it is not a racist attack to associate a president as a monkey on a t-shirt in the manner provided in the picture, is not inherently racist, it is political satire (and rude and obnoxious).


As you'll notice, this picture was from 2004, long before Obama could have influenced it...
http://i235.photobucket.com/albums/ee218/Balderdash71964/BushChimp.jpg


Chimps and Presidents go hand in hand... Even Curious George specifically, as shown earlier. And several people have commented that the Curious George cartoon does remind them visually of Obama specifically, not just his race...

Now, notice something about that picture.
It provides a context.
The reason Bush is being portrayed as a monkey in this cartoon is because the implication is that he's being controlled by Big Oil, much as a monkey dances on the command of the organ grinder.

However, the Obama shirt is making a connection to the historical "damn niggers are hardly more than monkeys" idea. The joke is based on "Obama is black. So he's like a monkey." That is racist.

To overcome this, the creator of the shirt would need to provide additional context. Yes, there's a history of portraying politicians as animals, but the animal is never randomly chosen. It is chosen for a specific reason. In this case, the most rational explanation is that the person selling the shirt chose monkeys for the racist implication.

Oddly, he admits the Jim Crow roots of the depiction. Funny, isn't it?

How many links do you want? These are from today, not yesterday.

"It wasn't meant to be racist," Norman said. "It was just funny to me because they look so much alike - the ears, hairline." A friend gave him the shirts, Norman said, and he donated the profits to the Muscular Dystrophy Association.

Richard Pellegrino, a Mableton resident and director of Cobb-Cherokee Immigrant Alliance, wasn't buying it. He saw the T-shirt when he and his wife, who is black, stopped into Mulligan's recently, he said.

"I understand intellectually that African-Americans have been associated for a long time with monkeys," he said. "For someone to say it's just a cartoon shows a complete lack of understanding and sensitivity to our African-American neighbors."

http://www.mdjonline.com/content/index/showcontentitem/area/1/section/21/item/110972.html

Sure he can say he didn't mean it racially. He can say that it was not intended to harken back to Jim Crow rootes. He can claim that all he wants.

But actions speak louder than words, and based on the actions of this particular individual in the past, from what's been uncovered, while he says he's not doing it with racist overtones in mind, there appears to be definite chance that he's lying

...
However, the Obama shirt is making a connection to the historical "damn niggers are hardly more than monkeys" idea.

Really? where does the shirt say that exactly?

...To overcome this, the creator of the shirt would need to provide additional context. Yes, there's a history of portraying politicians as animals, but the animal is never randomly chosen. It is chosen for a specific reason. In this case, the most rational explanation is that the person selling the shirt chose monkeys for the racist implication.

Oddly, he admits the Jim Crow roots of the depiction. Funny, isn't it?

The provided additional context is that he says it 'looks' like Obama.

Sure he can say he didn't mean it racially. He can say that it was not intended to harken back to Jim Crow rootes. He can claim that all he wants.

But actions speak louder than words, and based on the actions of this particular individual in the past, from what's been uncovered, while he says he's not doing it with racist overtones in mind, there appears to be definite chance that he's lying


Most definitely, I think the guy sounds like a total jackass. But the shirt is political satire.

How many links do you want? These are from today, not yesterday.

"It wasn't meant to be racist," Norman said. "It was just funny to me because they look so much alike - the ears, hairline." A friend gave him the shirts, Norman said, and he donated the profits to the Muscular Dystrophy Association.

Richard Pellegrino, a Mableton resident and director of Cobb-Cherokee Immigrant Alliance, wasn't buying it. He saw the T-shirt when he and his wife, who is black, stopped into Mulligan's recently, he said.

"I understand intellectually that African-Americans have been associated for a long time with monkeys," he said. "For someone to say it's just a cartoon shows a complete lack of understanding and sensitivity to our African-American neighbors."

http://www.mdjonline.com/content/index/showcontentitem/area/1/section/21/item/110972.html

None of your links change whether they are racist or not. "It's not racist to play up his middle name and depict him in traditional Muslim garb. He DOES have that middle name and wore that garb." See, that the guy can make excuses doesn't erase the context. It doesn't change that he's playing it up knowing it harkens to Jim Crow era and admitting he's doing so.

The provided additional context is that he says it 'looks' like Obama.
wink wink nudge nudge say no more.


Man:
Is, uh,... Is your wife a goer, eh? Know whatahmean, know whatahmean, nudge nudge, know whatahmean, say no more?

Squire:
I, uh, I beg your pardon?

Man:
Your, uh, your wife, does she go, eh, does she go, eh?

Squire:
(flustered)
Well, she sometimes 'goes', yes.

Man:
Aaaaaaaah bet she does, I bet she does, say no more, say no more, know whatahmean, nudge nudge?

Sure he can say he didn't mean it racially. He can say that it was not intended to harken back to Jim Crow rootes. He can claim that all he wants.

But actions speak louder than words, and based on the actions of this particular individual in the past, from what's been uncovered, while he says he's not doing it with racist overtones in mind, there appears to be definite chance that he's lying

Um, he didn't actually say that. He said he knew it harkened back to Jim Crow roots.

"Norman acknowledged the imagery's Jim Crow roots but said he sees nothing wrong with depicting a prominent African-American as a monkey."

He never claimed it was unintentional. And as you say, he has a history of racism and mysogyny. His credibilty... not so good.

The provided additional context is that he says it 'looks' like Obama.

Um, where does the t-shirt say that?

Um, where does the t-shirt say that?

The picture itself is the description.

The picture itself is the description.

a picture comparing a black man to a monkey, yes.

I have a question for you Baldy, since we're all here. It's a simple question really. Can a political statement still be racist? You keep arguing that "it's not racist if it's a political statement" so I just want to ask, can a statement, aimed at a politician, still be a racist statement?

If so, if we admit that even if it's a "political statement" it can still be racist, my second question is this: can a statement made to or about one politician not be racist, but a similar statement made to or about another politician be racist, based on the difference in the race of the politicians?

Those are my questions. Is it possible for a statement made about or to a politician, a politically motivated statement, to be still a racist statement and, if so, can a statement be considered racist if made to one person, but not racist if a similar statement is made to another?

Let's get all the dancing around over with, answer those two questions.

Most definitely, I think the guy sounds like a total jackass. But the shirt is political satire.

Still avoids the point. Political satire is not immune to racism. NA is talking about the man being racist. Whether it is political satire is a seperate issue.

It can be...

1. Racist political satire
2. Non-racist political satire
3. Racist, but not political satire
4. Non-racist, but not political satire.

That it's political doesn't change it's meaning.

Most definitely, I think the guy sounds like a total jackass. But the shirt is political satire.

I asked before I'll ask again.

Can political satire be racist?

The picture itself is the description.

Yup, it's a picture of a monkey with the name Obama under it. It tells us that he's a monkey. I noticed. Can't fathom why anyone might notice a hint of racism. I really can't. There is absolutely not social context that would indicate that. And certainly the man has no history, no context that would suggest he might be a proponent of racist ideas. No way.

I asked before I'll ask again.

Can political satire be racist?

Given all possible hypotheticals, I won't say it can't be. But this t-shirt is caricature and political satire.

Given all possible hypotheticals, I won't say it can't be. But this t-shirt is caricature and political satire.

So if political satire CAN be racist, then the fact it is political satire does not address the question. That you keep bringing it up, doesn't change anything.

So the question proposed by your OP, is this racist?

It's not a charicature. It might be political satire. It's certainly racist, and harkens back to Jim Crow roots according to the subject of your article. Also, according to the subject of your article, Hillary Clinton should have married OJ and various other racist statements.

To make that argument I have to listen to what the creator/producer of the shirt says and what it looks like...

....and ignore the rest of what he says and the fact that he has a history of racist and mysoginistic statements.

We're talking about a man who basically outright wished that Hillary Clinton had been murdered, but we're going to just believe him when he says it wasn't meant to be racist?

Meanwhile, if he really thought they "look so much alike", he could have provided a picture comparison, just as those who thought Bush looked like a chimp did.

Any animal could be made into a racist slur...

Perhaps, but not all animals have already been used that way. Any word could be made into a racial slur as well, but that doesn't mean that the "n" word isn't already one.

....and ignore the rest of what he says and the fact that he has a history of racist and mysoginistic statements.

We're talking about a man who basically outright wished that Hillary Clinton had been murdered, but we're going to just believe him when he says it wasn't meant to be racist?

And he just happened to choose as her "killer", a black man that highlighted a lot of racial issues during his trial (I don't mean actively) and who is joked about by racists to like to kill white women. So we get a twofer, there.

The provided additional context is that he says it 'looks' like Obama.

Really? Where does the shirt say that? Where does it provide a picture of Obama for comparison?

Most definitely, I think the guy sounds like a total jackass. But the shirt is political satire.

Only in that Obama happens to be a politician running for office. The shirt doesn't make any sort of political statement. It simply replaces Obama with a monkey and leaves it at that.

We're talking about a man who basically outright wished that Hillary Clinton had been murdered, but we're going to just believe him when he says it wasn't meant to be racist?


I'm English and we haven't heard anything about this tshirt over here, who designed it??


the tshirt is definitely racist for all the reasons that have already been stated, not gonna waste valuable posting time repeating them

Most definitely, I think the guy sounds like a total jackass. But the shirt is political satire.And now it's up to you to prove that because it's political satire it's not an act of racism.

And now it's up to you to prove that because it's political satire it's not an act of racism.

He also needs to prove that it's political satire. Which honestly is probably going to be even more difficult.

He also needs to prove that it's political satire. Which honestly is probably going to be even more difficult.

It is political satire pretty much by definition. But political satire can still be racist.

And now it's up to you to prove that because it's political satire it's not an act of racism.

How many more pictures of GWB monkey or GWB curious george pictures do you want? Regardless of you being more accepting of a GWB monkey, GWB doesn't look anymore like a monkey than Obama looks like Curious George... but other people seem to think so.

He also needs to prove that it's political satire. Which honestly is probably going to be even more difficult.

He seems to think that if it's even tacitly related to politics, it's satire. I'm not sure what's satirical or even political about this. "Obama is a crackhead" must also be political satire by the same measure.

There is BOTH a history of calling A president Curious George, because his name and looks and mannerisms, and a history of calling black people monkeys because they are considered subhuman.

As of yet, no one has shown why the single instance is more relevant than the long history. You don't get a pass simply because it's a political figure.

How many more pictures of GWB monkey or GWB curious george pictures do you want? Regardless of you being more accepting of a GWB monkey, GWB doesn't look anymore like a monkey than Obama looks like Curious George... but other people seem to think so.Please stop acting like an idiot child. It's been explained quite often before, I'm not doing it again. You can read. Go and put that skill to use.

How many more pictures of GWB monkey or GWB curious george pictures do you want? Regardless of you being more accepting of a GWB monkey, GWB doesn't look anymore like a monkey than Obama looks like Curious George... but other people seem to think so.

How does this prove it's political satire? The person selling the shirt never mentioned politics nor the idea that it's satirical.

You can show the GWB comparison all you like, but that doesn't make this the exact same situation. Similarly, if one said to Clinton while he was in office, "what have you been drinking" in reply to a strange statement it would carry a different connotation than saying it to GWB.

How many more pictures of GWB monkey or GWB curious george pictures do you want?

How does that in any way relate to what he asked you. In fact, he pointed out, as you yourself admitted, that just because it's satire doesn't make it not racist. So I'm really not sure why you keep clamoring "it's satire, it's satire!" when the mere fact that it's satire doesn't somehow stop it from being racist

Does Baldy's defense remind anyone else of the Chewbacca defense?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/08/0330chewbacca.jpg

Does Baldy's defense remind anyone else of the Chewbacca defense?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/08/0330chewbacca.jpg
It makes no sense! :eek:

I'm saying, calling a candidate an animal is stupid, rude and obnoxious, but there is a long history of it and in the context of politics that makes it not racist. If it wasn't common to caricturize candidates as animals and then to attack one candidate in that way would be racist, but it is common and the norm to attack a candidate that way.
Even if it's common and the norm to attack a candidate that way, you can't ignore the context and history of the animal used to attack with. Each animal carries with it something, and you choose to ignore that.

As you'll notice, this picture was from 2004, long before Obama could have influenced it...
http://i235.photobucket.com/albums/ee218/Balderdash71964/BushChimp.jpg
Notice, again, that in all the Bush examples you've provided it is impossible to not understand that it's Bush. You don't have to turn your head and squint, nor look at it in poor lighting: It is, unmistakeably, the face of Bush.

Chimps and Presidents go hand in hand... Even Curious George specifically, as shown earlier. And several people have commented that the Curious George cartoon does remind them visually of Obama specifically, not just his race...
However, I don't believe for a second that anyone would look at the picture of the chimp and think of Obama if the text wasn't there. And I have a hard time believing those who claim that it reminds them of Obama, even after reading the text.

Now, notice something about that picture.
It provides a context.
The reason Bush is being portrayed as a monkey in this cartoon is because the implication is that he's being controlled by Big Oil, much as a monkey dances on the command of the organ grinder.

However, the Obama shirt is making a connection to the historical "damn niggers are hardly more than monkeys" idea. The joke is based on "Obama is black. So he's like a monkey." That is racist.

To overcome this, the creator of the shirt would need to provide additional context. Yes, there's a history of portraying politicians as animals, but the animal is never randomly chosen. It is chosen for a specific reason. In this case, the most rational explanation is that the person selling the shirt chose monkeys for the racist implication.

Oddly, he admits the Jim Crow roots of the depiction. Funny, isn't it?
^^
This.

Given all possible hypotheticals, I won't say it can't be. But this t-shirt is caricature and political satire.
No, it is not a caricature. If it's satire - what is it supposed to satirize, btw? - it's incredibly bad satire at best.

It is political satire pretty much by definition.
How is this satire?

How many more pictures of GWB monkey or GWB curious george pictures do you want? Regardless of you being more accepting of a GWB monkey, GWB doesn't look anymore like a monkey than Obama looks like Curious George... but other people seem to think so.
Irrelevant, really.

Here's another example of racist political satire:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/wwtwo/images/nazi_propaganda_eternal_jew.jpg

The text, in German, reads "The eternal Jew."

A note: I was careful to avoid images of swastikas, but if this picture is also considered too objectionable, I will remove it without complaint.

Your source doesn't seem to allow hotlinking.

errr, you have to log in in order to see that apparently


edit: actually if I'd read your translation of the text I would've known it was this picture (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/images/Holocaust/eternal.jpg)

errr, you have to log in in order to see that apparently


edit: actually if I'd read your translation of the text I would've known it was this picture (http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/images/Holocaust/eternal.jpg)

yeah, I found one that lacks that problem, though I still feel skittish about even posting it.

Here's another example of racist political satire:

http://www.bytwerk.com/gpa/images/diebow/cover.jpg

The text, in German, reads "The eternal Jew."

A note: I was careful to avoid images of swastikas, but if this picture is also considered too objectionable, I will remove it without complaint.

Well, the eternal Jew was more a propaganda film supported by the Nazi government rather than satire. I do find that picture hilarious in its stupidity though, being both a Bolshevik and seemingly a greedy money hoarder is a bit of a confusing.

to be honest pretty much every western European under the age of 40 that did Modern History at school will have already seen it, but I second your promise to remove the link immediately if anyone is offended

Does Baldy's defense remind anyone else of the Chewbacca defense?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/08/0330chewbacca.jpg

If Chewbacca does not live on Endor, then the image is not racist. The defense rests... comfortably... because this chair is comfortable... and their case is stupid. *nods*

If this is getting protested as racist and won't be tolerated...
http://i235.photobucket.com/albums/ee218/Balderdash71964/Obama-George.jpg
Link (http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/cobb/stories/2008/05/13/mulligans_0514.html)

And this has been going on for years without protest...
http://i235.photobucket.com/albums/ee218/Balderdash71964/GeorgieBoy.jpg
Link (http://www.bushorchimp.com/)

What is the difference? Why is one funny and the other offensive? Perhaps both are funny or both are offensive? What say you?

Obama does look like a monkey, can't say otherwise. If you do, then your a racist against monkey's...fucken' monkey haters :upyours:

What about them? I've never heard of any such thing, which may not prove it's never happened, but certainly casts doubt as to whether there is any legitimacy in claiming its somehow representative enough to warrant the attention you're giving it.

I believe Rush Limbaugh made fun of Obama's name, beating his chest and saying it in sort of a tribal chant. It's still up for grabs whether or not he was intentionally being racist, though, I'm sure Limbaugh would deny that he was.

I believe Rush Limbaugh made fun of Obama's name, beating his chest and saying it in sort of a tribal chant. It's still up for grabs whether or not he was intentionally being racist, though, I'm sure Limbaugh would deny that he was.

I, on the other hand, deny Rush Limbaugh is a human being.

Guess who's closer to the truth? :p

I believe Rush Limbaugh made fun of Obama's name, beating his chest and saying it in sort of a tribal chant. It's still up for grabs whether or not he was intentionally being racist, though, I'm sure Limbaugh would deny that he was.

since it is Rush Limbaugh, I'd accept that he was being unintentionally racists :)

since it is Rush Limbaugh, I'd accept that he was being unintentionally racists :)

Because it's like a bodily function in his case?

since it is Rush Limbaugh, I'd accept that he was being unintentionally racists :)

Rush Limbaugh's definition of racist is so skewed as to be useless. I would say the same thing about a definition that denies racism because Presidential candidates are fair game.

Because it's like a bodily function in his case?

Yeah. If I wanted to be mean I'd compare him with a slug. Oozing* prejudiced slime from every orifice.


*I really like that word. I don't use it enough, it just looks and sounds so great. Ooze.

Because it's like a bodily function in his case?

It's kind of like racism incontinence. He needs mouth diapers.

It's kind of like racism incontinence. He needs mouth diapers.

:D

Here's another example of racist political satire:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/wwtwo/images/nazi_propaganda_eternal_jew.jpg

The text, in German, reads "The eternal Jew."

A note: I was careful to avoid images of swastikas, but if this picture is also considered too objectionable, I will remove it without complaint.

That...

That's not satire. Do you even know what satire is?

That...

That's not satire. Do you even know what satire is?

what exactly makes it not satire? I certainly don't agree with what it has to say, as it's obviously quite racist, but how is it any less satire than, say, a political cartoon?

what exactly makes it not satire? I certainly don't agree with what it has to say, as it's obviously quite racist, but how is it any less satire than, say, a political cartoon?
Because 'satire' is too weak a term?

what exactly makes it not satire? I certainly don't agree with what it has to say, as it's obviously quite racist, but how is it any less satire than, say, a political cartoon?

Um, seriously, I think about half of you don't know what satire is. Satire *gasp* satirizes a purported vice or mistake.

What vice is this satirizing?

Um, seriously, I think about half of you don't know what satire is. Satire *gasp* satirizes a purported vice or mistake.

What vice is this satirizing?

......


...being a Jew?


I got nothing.

To begin with, I didn't click on the links.

They are composed of maximum retardosity.

Of course people look like monkeys. We're closely related to the damn things, and our facial expressions are equally similar.

what exactly makes it not satire? I certainly don't agree with what it has to say, as it's obviously quite racist, but how is it any less satire than, say, a political cartoon?

What, exactly, is it satirizing? What flaws does it point out?

To begin with, I didn't click on the links.

They are composed of maximum retardosity.

Of course people look like monkeys. We're closely related to the damn things, and our facial expressions are equally similar.

The funny thing is that guy keeps defending the idea that the hairlines are similar. Curious George has always been drawn with a widow's peak (like a vampire) and a hairline that curls around his eyes, basically giving the effect that his hair shapes around his eyes.

In case anyone wants to see...
http://pbskids.org/curiousgeorge/img/hm_george_1.gif
That's Curious George's hairline

Obama's -
http://files.meetup.com/373491/Barack%20Obama%20'08%20Desktop%20Wallpaper.jpg

Well, goodness, that's the exact same hairline. I mean, his curls in above his eyes, but, hey, why ACTUALLY care about whether the racist, I mean, the proprietor of the tavern is talking about something credible. Let's just ignore his past racist comments, his past mysogyny and the fundamental flaws in his claims, and let's just pretend he's not completely full of crap.

They are clearly practically twins.

The funny thing is that guy keeps defending the idea that the hairlines are similar. Curious George has always been drawn with a widow's peak (like a vampire) and a hairline that curls around his eyes, basically giving the effect that his hair shapes around his eyes.

In case anyone wants to see...
http://pbskids.org/curiousgeorge/img/hm_george_1.gif
That's Curious George's hairline

Obama's -
http://files.meetup.com/373491/Barack%20Obama%20'08%20Desktop%20Wallpaper.jpg

Well, goodness, that's the exact same hairline. I mean, his curls in above his eyes, but, hey, why ACTUALLY care about whether the racist, I mean, the proprietor of the tavern is talking about something credible. Let's just ignore his past racist comments, his past mysogyny and the fundamental flaws in his claims, and let's just pretend he's not completely full of crap.

They are clearly practically twins.



Besides, last I checked, saying "That there ****** looks like a monkey!" was racist...

What, exactly, is it satirizing? What flaws does it point out?

You can't tell what it's trying to say by looking at it? It's calling jews greedy communists. It's a lie and a steriotype, yes, but being a lie doesn't make it not satire.

Something doesn't have to be correct to be Satire. Not all satire is good.

off the topic, what does it say that a thread about satire extends for over 300 posts?

You can't tell what it's trying to say by looking at it? It's calling jews greedy communists. It's a lie and a steriotype, yes, but being a lie doesn't make it not satire.

Being not satire makes it not satire. It's a straightforward depiction of a racial stereotype, with no wit or mockery involved. Nothing about it is ironic, nothing is parodied. These are pretty much essential characteristics of satire and they're nowhere to be found.

Being not satire makes it not satire. It's a straightforward depiction of a racial stereotype, with no wit or mockery involved. Nothing about it is ironic, nothing is parodied. These are pretty much essential characteristics of satire and they're nowhere to be found.

then by that definition, the Obama monkey isn't satire either, just racist propaganda.

then by that definition, the Obama monkey isn't satire either, just racist propaganda.

Yes, I would agree with that.

then by that definition, the Obama monkey isn't satire either, just racist propaganda.

The only people claiming it to be satire were you and Balderdash.

Obama does look like a monkey, can't say otherwise. If you do, then your a racist against monkey's...fucken' monkey haters :upyours:

I agree... comparing the noble and oppressed monkey with Politicians? HOW INSULTING!!!

off the topic, what does it say that a thread about satire extends for over 300 posts?

It says either NSers have no sense of humor or take a joke waaaaay too far.

Sorry about the bit of gravedigging, but new information relevant to this has come up.

The people who publish Curious George are not amused. (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/05/16/curious_george_publisher_may_sue_t_shirt_vendor/)

MARIETTA, Ga.—The publisher of the popular children's book series "Curious George" is considering legal action against a Georgia bar owner for selling T-shirts that show the inquisitive monkey peeling a banana with "Obama in '08" printed beneath the image.
more stories like this

"Houghton Mifflin Harcourt did not nor would we ever authorize or approve this use of the Curious George character, which we find offensive and utterly out of keeping with the values Curious George represents," said Richard Blake, the company's spokesman.

Bar owner Mike Norman, who began selling the shirts in late April, has said they are not meant to be racist. He said he thinks the Illinois senator and the character "look so much alike."

Bill Nigut, southeast regional director for the Anti-Defamation League, said Norman is being disingenuous.

"He can pretend he doesn't understand what the message of that T-shirt is, but he knows full well that's an offensive and demeaning stereotype used to insult African-Americans," Nigut said.

Note that the T-shirt maker is now pretending to not be aware of the racist connotations.

which we find offensive and utterly out of keeping with the values Curious George represents
"When asked what those values were, Blake responded 'breaking and entering, destruction of public property, trespassing, theft, and general mischief.'"

Sorry about the bit of gravedigging, but new information relevant to this has come up.

The people who publish Curious George are not amused. (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/05/16/curious_george_publisher_may_sue_t_shirt_vendor/)



Note that the T-shirt maker is now pretending to not be aware of the racist connotations.

Good. Let's hope he loses his bar and ends up as a hobo.

"When asked what those values were, Blake responded 'breaking and entering, destruction of public property, trespassing, theft, and general mischief.'"

But not racism.

But not racism.
I don't think you got the joke..

I don't think you got the joke..

I did, somewhat (I don't know Curious George, I'm Brazilian), but I tried to turn a phrase there.

I did, somewhat (I don't know Curious George, I'm Brazilian), but I tried to turn a phrase there.
Curious George is some guy's monkey who gets into alot of trouble in each story by being 'curious' - it's a children's story. The guy talked about the values of Curious George, so I listed to possible crimes he commits in every children's story.

Curious George is some guy's monkey who gets into alot of trouble in each story by being 'curious' - it's a children's story. The guy talked about the values of Curious George, so I listed to possible crimes he commits in every children's story.

Very well. Ah well, did try to turn that phrase...