[Dakar V]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

What do you mean?

Well, if you're going to make a big deal about it, you must want something done, right? Because if you don't, all the grousing in the thread seems masturbatory.

[Laminar]

I can't believe it's page 2 and no one's posted the "wasist" picture yet!

[Dakar V]

How long you had that one planned?

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Dakar V 

Well, if you're going to make a big deal about it, you must want something done, right? Because if you don't, all the grousing in the thread seems masturbatory.

That's kind of my point about the intent being irrelevant. I have absolutely no doubt in my mind that the Post's intention was to invoke the "monkeys at typewriters" expression. If that's what you "got" when you saw the cartoon, that's fine. But, because of the carelessness of the cartoonist and lack of judgment by the Post's editors, and in the context of the historical depiction of blacks in cartoons, I believe that it is perfectly reasonable for someone to interpret the cartoon as a racial attack. If someone reacts to the cartoon in that way and resolves to never buy the Post, then that is the punishment that the Post has inflicted on itself, their intentions aside.

[Dakar V]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

That's kind of my point about the intent being irrelevant. I have absolutely no doubt in my mind that the Post's intention was to invoke the "monkeys at typewriters" expression. If that's what you "got" when you saw the cartoon, that's fine. But, because of the carelessness of the cartoonist and lack of judgment by the Post's editors, and in the context of the historical depiction of blacks in cartoons, I believe that it is perfectly reasonable for someone to interpret the cartoon as a racial attack. If someone reacts to the cartoon in that way and resolves to never buy the Post, then that is the punishment that the Post has inflicted on itself, their intentions aside.

If some of the people in this thread are to be believed, the publicity the Post receives for this "controversy" is not a punishment, but the intended effect. So what do you do then?

[SpaceMonkey]

Nothing, of course. I think we agree there.

[shifuimam]

Okay, I can usually see where liberals go batsh!t insane over stupid crap just for the sake of finding a reason to be offended, but I'm totally missing this one.

Can someone please actually explain how this could be construed as racist? Is it because the monkey is somewhat dark? How is that racist? Most monkeys aren't pale, and in a black-and-white cartoon for a newspaper, it's a bit hard to show, you know, colors.

See, I just saw it as a poke at the stimulus bill, that a monkey (or a rock, or a piece of dirt, or a cat, or just about anything that isn't a Democrat on Capitol Hill) could have done a better job. So how is it racist?

Or is it that just about anything poking fun at Obama is going to be considered racist because the guy happens to be 50% black? 'Cause if that's the case, we're in for four years of hard left liberal black people going ballistic every single damn time someone says anything about the guy.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by osiris 

I'm not offended. The first time I saw this I thought about the "bunch of monkees in a room with a typewriter" analogy.
Apparently the racism aspect went right over my head.

Same here, that's exactly what I thought... at first. After pondering a few seconds the racial implications did set in, since many racists think of blacks as little more than talking monkeys.

Just being blunt, I have heard that kind of talk before.

[Luca Rescigno]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

Okay, I can usually see where liberals go batsh!t insane over stupid crap just for the sake of finding a reason to be offended, but I'm totally missing this one.

Can someone please actually explain how this could be construed as racist? Is it because the monkey is somewhat dark? How is that racist? Most monkeys aren't pale, and in a black-and-white cartoon for a newspaper, it's a bit hard to show, you know, colors.

See, I just saw it as a poke at the stimulus bill, that a monkey (or a rock, or a piece of dirt, or a cat, or just about anything that isn't a Democrat on Capitol Hill) could have done a better job. So how is it racist?

Or is it that just about anything poking fun at Obama is going to be considered racist because the guy happens to be 50% black? 'Cause if that's the case, we're in for four years of hard left liberal black people going ballistic every single damn time someone says anything about the guy.

I'm a liberal and I agree with you. I interpreted it as being critical of congress for coming up with a plan that a chimp could have written, and it also has a tie-in with the recent story of the chimpanzee that was killed after it attacked someone. It's not racist and the people who point out racism all the time (whether it exists or not) are not doing themselves any favors. All they do is bring the subject back to the forefront and make non-black people constantly afraid of being accused of racism. No wonder a lot of white people feel insecure around blacks. Not that it's anyone's fault, really, except those few wackos.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

Okay, I can usually see where liberals go batsh!t insane over stupid crap just for the sake of finding a reason to be offended, but I'm totally missing this one.

Can someone please actually explain how this could be construed as racist? Is it because the monkey is somewhat dark? How is that racist? Most monkeys aren't pale, and in a black-and-white cartoon for a newspaper, it's a bit hard to show, you know, colors.

See, I just saw it as a poke at the stimulus bill, that a monkey (or a rock, or a piece of dirt, or a cat, or just about anything that isn't a Democrat on Capitol Hill) could have done a better job. So how is it racist?

Or is it that just about anything poking fun at Obama is going to be considered racist because the guy happens to be 50% black? 'Cause if that's the case, we're in for four years of hard left liberal black people going ballistic every single damn time someone says anything about the guy.

Originally Posted by residentEvil 

monkey(s) is term used to describe black people. the US president is black; who just created/signed a stimulus package.

Also, I believe it's referencing this story. Since it appears that you skipped all of page 1.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

Okay, I can usually see where liberals go batsh!t insane over stupid crap just for the sake of finding a reason to be offended, but I'm totally missing this one.

Can someone please actually explain how this could be construed as racist? Is it because the monkey is somewhat dark? How is that racist? Most monkeys aren't pale, and in a black-and-white cartoon for a newspaper, it's a bit hard to show, you know, colors.

See, I just saw it as a poke at the stimulus bill, that a monkey (or a rock, or a piece of dirt, or a cat, or just about anything that isn't a Democrat on Capitol Hill) could have done a better job. So how is it racist?

Or is it that just about anything poking fun at Obama is going to be considered racist because the guy happens to be 50% black? 'Cause if that's the case, we're in for four years of hard left liberal black people going ballistic every single damn time someone says anything about the guy.

I am not asking you to agree with it, but the line of thinking would be that 1) the stimulus bill is the major achievement so far of the Obama administration, and Obama has been personally championing it through his press conference and town hall meetings, and 2) there is a long, long history of portraying blacks in cartoons as ape-like, so 3) the chimp in the cartoon may be interpreted as representing Obama.

Again, you do not have to agree with it, but it is IMHO a reasonable interpretation, especially if you are familiar with the history of the medium.

[Luca Rescigno]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

I am not asking you to agree with it, but the line of thinking would be that 1) the stimulus bill is the major achievement so far of the Obama administration, and Obama has been personally championing it through his press conference and town hall meetings, and 2) there is a long, long history of portraying blacks in cartoons as ape-like, so 3) the chimp in the cartoon may be interpreted as representing Obama.

Again, you do not have to agree with it, but it is IMHO a reasonable interpretation, especially if you are familiar with the history of the medium.

Your username is racist.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Luca Rescigno 

Your username is racist.

Your sig is racist!

[Dakar V]

Luigi is racist.

[Laminar]

*Additional post explaining the situation to shif*

[SpaceMonkey]

What an insensitive thing to say, Laminar.

[Dakar V]

I like to spank the monkey. Am I racist?

[SpaceMonkey]

No, but you owe it reparations.

[Laminar]

It demands rice crispy bars.

[osiris]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Same here, that's exactly what I thought... at first. After pondering a few seconds the racial implications did set in, since many racists think of blacks as little more than talking monkeys.

Just being blunt, I have heard that kind of talk before.

No doubt. After it sets in, the implications become quite clear. This one took a little longer for me to get. I guess it depends on what you're tuned to at the moment, racism not being one of them.

[osiris]

I'm an anti-Dentite. Does that make me a bad person?

[OAW]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

I am not asking you to agree with it, but the line of thinking would be that 1) the stimulus bill is the major achievement so far of the Obama administration, and Obama has been personally championing it through his press conference and town hall meetings, and 2) there is a long, long history of portraying blacks in cartoons as ape-like, so 3) the chimp in the cartoon may be interpreted as representing Obama.

Again, you do not have to agree with it, but it is IMHO a reasonable interpretation, especially if you are familiar with the history of the medium.

Indeed. Anyone who would claim that it isn't a reasonable interpretation to associate the monkey with Obama is simply woefully (and perhaps willfully) ignorant of the longstanding history of white media associating blacks with apes. Now perhaps that wasn't the intent of the author. But nevertheless, it's still a reasonable interpretation and someone on the editorial board should have had a clue. To dismiss the widespread outrage this has sparked by pretending that Al Sharpton is the only one making a fuss only makes the motivations of the NY Post even more suspect.

OAW

[Oisín]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

It demands rice crispy bars.

So you now admit to being a racist with malfunctioning taste buds.

You’re so white.

[Dakar V]

Originally Posted by Oisín 

So you now admit to being a racist with malfunctioning taste buds.

Wait, you don't like Rice Crispie Treats?

GTFO

[sek929]

From Penny Arcade

[Oisín]

Originally Posted by Dakar V 

Wait, you don't like Rice Crispie Treats?

GTFO

I don’t like Rice Krispies anything, they taste like vomit someone pissed in.

And I’m staying TFI!

[subego]

Originally Posted by Oisín 

they taste like vomit someone pissed in.

MacNN Dark Confession Series 09: STRANGE THINGS YOU'VE TASTED

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

I am not asking you to agree with it, but the line of thinking would be that 1) the stimulus bill is the major achievement so far of the Obama administration, and Obama has been personally championing it through his press conference and town hall meetings, and 2) there is a long, long history of portraying blacks in cartoons as ape-like, so 3) the chimp in the cartoon may be interpreted as representing Obama.

Again, you do not have to agree with it, but it is IMHO a reasonable interpretation, especially if you are familiar with the history of the medium.

This is venturing dangerously close to PWL material, but the only way that stupid stimulus bill is a major achievement is its accomplishment in pissing off lots and lots of people with things like giving money to broke-ass people (who apparently haven't gotten enough government handouts as it is) and controlling what kind of services doctors are allowed to provide. Yeah, that's awesome.

I don't think it's a remotely reasonable interpretation. Perhaps if it had been a white guy in blackface with big giant fake lips, it'd be racist. But it was about a relevant news article and a relevant political issue.

You know what would be better? If people would stop bitching every single effing time something makes them feel bad about themselves. Life is not always going to hand you a flipping Godiva truffle on a solid platinum platter, and people need to man the hell up and learn to deal with it when someone doesn't make them feel like a unique snowflake or whatever else you want to call it.

It'd be one thing if the officer in the cartoon was saying "that monkey could have done a better job than that n***** Obama", but to interpret this as racist is just looking for a reason to be offended.

And, like Luca Rescigno mentioned, getting up in arms about this kind of thing does nothing for mankind's progress toward the complete eradication of racism. How a person interprets something does not make it objectively offensive to everyone. It makes it offensive to you, and any time anyone opens their mouth, someone somewhere is going to get offended. Get over it.

[SpaceMonkey]

My viewpoint is that there is no such thing as "objectively offensive." You can't simply dismiss the actual feelings people have about the cartoon, just because you don't share their interpretation of it. If you don't share their interpretation, that's fine.

[0157988944]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

My viewpoint is that there is no such thing as "objectively offensive." You can't simply dismiss the actual feelings people have about the cartoon, just because you don't share their interpretation of it. If you don't share their interpretation, that's fine.

winnar.

[dcmacdaddy]

Did I see it as racist? NO!
Did I see it as a poorly conceived execution (no pun intended) of a salient idea. YES!

I too thought monkey = members of Congress monkeying around with the stimulus bill. But it would seem to me this artist had plenty better ways to convey the message that Congress is inept at creating a stimulus bill and still use a monkey. He could have put a little Capitol dome hat on the monkey or drawn a donkey pin on the monkey's chest or put the monkey in a barrel. All these visual images would seem to better convey (what I perceive to be) the artists intent in disparaging members of Congress by comparing them to monkeys.

Having said all that, there is a long, in-glorious history in this country of whites equating blackness with primates, of large swaths of the population viewing blacks as sub-human and animal-like. Although, I would again have to say that if this message was the artist's intent (i.e.: a Black president acting like an inferior, sub-human animal with his push for a stimulus bill) he again did a poor job of execution in getting his message across. There are plenty of better ways to snidely denigrate Obama's race without having to resort to such a bold comparison as Obama = monkey.


Overall, my general opinion of this cartoon is that it was confusing and not clearly conveying any message. And my opinion of the furor surrounding the cartoon is that the furor was more about getting press (on the part of the NY post for what they did and on the part of those who instantly claimed racism) than anything else.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

Did I see it as racist? NO!
Did I see it as a poorly conceived execution (no pun intended) of a salient idea. YES!

I too thought monkey = members of Congress monkeying around with the stimulus bill. But it would seem to me this artist had plenty better ways to convey the message that Congress is inept at creating a stimulus bill and still use a monkey. He could have put a little Capitol dome hat on the monkey or drawn a donkey pin on the monkey's chest or put the monkey in a barrel. All these visual images would seem to better convey (what I perceive to be) the artists intent in disparaging members of Congress by comparing them to monkeys.

Agreed, but that would not have kept some left whiners from claiming that the monkey stands for racism.

-t

[osiris]

Please move this to the PWL. The hate is starting to spew and it stinks.

[Jawbone54]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

My viewpoint is that there is no such thing as "objectively offensive." You can't simply dismiss the actual feelings people have about the cartoon, just because you don't share their interpretation of it. If you don't share their interpretation, that's fine.

People misinterpret everything.

Sure, the cartoonist probably should've thought this one through a bit more, but there's always something causing someone to be offended (often to the point of insanity). To give weight to every little objection is just a ridiculous way to live.

Often times, the people most offended by this sort of thing are the ones who are actively looking for new reasons to be offended.

Man, 9 pages of nonsense...
*ahem*

[Dakar V]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54 

Man, 9 pages of nonsense...
*ahem*

not funny

[Captain Obvious]

Ehh, it was just someone else crying racist wolf yet again.

There are people who want to see racism when it is not there so they can feel justified for thinking all their world's ills stem from it. And people are so politically correct now that they are primed to buy into the stories the second they come out. They don't even realize they enable this nonsense by giving it so much undeserved attention.

[design219]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54 

Often times, the people most offended by this sort of thing are the ones who are actively looking for new reasons to be offended.

I don't agree with that statement. I most think people would rather get on with society than making an effort to correct it.

[Jawbone54]

Originally Posted by design219 

I don't agree with that statement. I most think people not on the Internet would rather get on with society than making an effort to correct it.

Fixed.

[design219]

Thanks.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54 

People misinterpret everything.

Sure, the cartoonist probably should've thought this one through a bit more, but there's always something causing someone to be offended (often to the point of insanity). To give weight to every little objection is just a ridiculous way to live.

I don't agree. In fact, if you weigh each objection equally it's perfectly rational. Let's say 100,000 people were offended by this cartoon. Clearly, such a cartoon would be more offensive than something that caused a fringe group of 10,000 to be offended.

The point is that if you do something that ticks a lot of people off, maybe you are the problem, whether you intended to cause offense or not. In this situation, the cartoon has drawn ire from a multitude of sources for reasons that the Post should have anticipated (which we seem to agree on).

[Jawbone54]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

I don't agree. In fact, if you weigh each objection equally it's perfectly rational. Let's say 100,000 people were offended by this cartoon. Clearly, such a cartoon would be more offensive than something that caused a fringe group of 10,000 to be offended.

The point is that if you do something that ticks a lot of people off, maybe you are the problem, whether you intended to cause offense or not. In this situation, the cartoon has drawn ire from a multitude of sources for reasons that the Post should have anticipated (which we seem to agree on).

I definitely agree (once again) that the cartoonist was being dense, but I am concerned that we can never again use monkeys and apes for humor, because they're friggin' hilarious.

I understand that we have to be sensitive concerning certain issues, but it feels like we're toeing the line of being TOO sensitive (this particular cartoon isn't really what I'm discussing here).

[SpaceMonkey]

Right. I worry about over-generalizing in either direction. To the folks who want to ascribe a racist intent to the Post, I say get a grip. We should be annoyed with the Post for being this stupid (and we should expect an apology). To those who are worried about being "too sensitive," I would argue that the problem is self-correcting. Make your cartoons funny and unambiguous, and fewer people will be offended.

[Doofy]

OK, here's Doof's take on the whole thing.

Since certain factions have been comparing the former president with a chimp for the last eight years, it would be racist not to compare the current one with a chimp. Especially with those ears.

Doof is, of course, racist. Doof far prefers to canoodle with latin or mixed race chicks over the fat, bloated, lumpy, rash-ridden local white girls harridans. And likes watching The Fresh Prince. Doof is down with that shiz.

[Jawbone54]

If I were racist, I wouldn't be allowed at family reunions. I'm an Irish boy with a Portuguese wife (who is also part-black). One aunt is hispanic, one is black, and my grandpa pastored an almost entirely black church for decades. If two people in the family would just marry someone of asian and arab descent, we'd look like the UN.

Observation/question: Are children of mixed heritage almost always more attractive than your average person, or is that my imagination? If so, my almost entirely Irish lineage has possibly contributed to my bad skin, thick beard, freckles, and generally unpleasant exterior.

[design219]

Originally Posted by Jawbone54 

Observation/question: Are children of mixed heritage almost always more attractive than your average person, or is that my imagination?

I think there may be something to that, in that most experts say that beauty is being "average" in proportion and symmetry.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

OK, here's Doof's take on the whole thing.

Since certain factions have been comparing the former president with a chimp for the last eight years, it would be racist not to compare the current one with a chimp. Especially with those ears.

LOL, winnaaar.

-t

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

My viewpoint is that there is no such thing as "objectively offensive." You can't simply dismiss the actual feelings people have about the cartoon, just because you don't share their interpretation of it. If you don't share their interpretation, that's fine.

I'm curious as to why this only seems to be applied to minorities and liberal types.

I basically have to completely disregard and dismiss the fact that I despise university scholarships based on being lucky enough to be a racial minority, because I work for a public university. It's actually not fine that I don't share the school's interpretation of "progression past racism" or whatever the hell you want to call it; in fact, if I were to say anything about it, I'd suddenly find myself face-to-face with the CIO and my not-so-friendly-now HR rep.

Even when people do stupid things like that blasphemy project on YouTube or whatever it was, where people made videos of themselves committing "the unforgivable sin" (denying the existence of God), Christians are screamed at for being close minded and "fundies" for vocalizing their offense at that kind of behavior.

You can't have it both ways. Either the general public needs to STFU and quit mocking the conservative Christian right, or racial minorities need to STFU about cartoons and anything else that might be perceived by some people as racist.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

I'm curious as to why this only seems to be applied to minorities and liberal types.

I basically have to completely disregard and dismiss the fact that I despise university scholarships based on being lucky enough to be a racial minority, because I work for a public university. It's actually not fine that I don't share the school's interpretation of "progression past racism" or whatever the hell you want to call it; in fact, if I were to say anything about it, I'd suddenly find myself face-to-face with the CIO and my not-so-friendly-now HR rep.

Even when people do stupid things like that blasphemy project on YouTube or whatever it was, where people made videos of themselves committing "the unforgivable sin" (denying the existence of God), Christians are screamed at for being close minded and "fundies" for vocalizing their offense at that kind of behavior.

You can't have it both ways. Either the general public needs to STFU and quit mocking the conservative Christian right, or racial minorities need to STFU about cartoons and anything else that might be perceived by some people as racist.

Speaking only for myself, I don't think I apply what I've said here "only to minorities and liberal types." It seems to me that both liberals and conservatives have ample voices out in the public square decrying whatever it is that offends them. Neither the conservative right nor racial minorities need to STFU. We don't need to be so defensive in the sense of believing that one set of voices presents an existential threat to the other. In most cases, the consequences of protest are proportional to its size. In the case of the Post, we're talking about pretty minor consequences. I highly doubt that anyone at the Post is going to lose their job over this. At most, they might lose some subscribers who agree with the criticism.

The case of your dislike for affirmative action scholarships is a rather different set of circumstances than the public's reaction to a cartoon -- you're talking about voicing dissent within a workplace to official policy. If you felt passionately enough about it, you could leave your job and protest to your heart's content.

[shifuimam]

Actually, outside of the workplace, I've seen people get a hell of a lot more flak for talking about their conservative beliefs, both religiously and politically.

A guy wearing a freethinkers' society shirt on the bus is seen as a forward-thinking, open-minded progressive. A guy wearing a "Jesus died for my sins" shirt, on the other hand, is seen as a hyperconservative "fundie" Christian who shouldn't shove his viewpoints on others.

I don't just pull this out of my ass, either. I have seen in far too many situations, both online and IRL, open hatred, disrespect, and hostility toward people who aren't afraid to show the world that they don't support the liberal agenda.

On the bus this morning, I was talking to my neighbor about how I thought that giving money to black kids just for being black was racist, since it discriminates against white people. He started looking really nervous and tried to get me to shut up, because he was afraid of people around us hearing what I was saying.

Screw that. If I'm not allowed to say anything that might offend a liberal black atheist lesbian, then you better be damn sure you don't say anything that might offend a conservative white christian straight male.

Or, we could all just play nice and quit getting our damn undies in a bunch every time someone makes us feel bad. Hate speech is not a crime. It's this thing that we seem to have forgotten, yet is still guaranteed by the constitution...you know, that thing called freedom of speech. The fact is, while spraypainting "N!GGER" on a black guy's front door is a really cruel thing to do, the fact that it's a racial epithet does not make it any more of a crime (or any worse, really) than painting a frowny face instead.

See, what I've noticed is that when the liberal left types find something offensive, they go ballistic and it turns into a freaking federal case. When conservative right types find something offensive, they might get annoyed, but you don't see articles on Google News blasting someone for calling a Christian a fundie. Yet when Miley Cyrus takes a group picture with people squinting their eyes, the liberal Asians decide it's worth a $4bil lawsuit.

And, on a more personal example, I apparently caused some stupid chick on OKCupid to cry her eyes out for several hours because I wrote a post on that site about how stupid it was to only post "MySpace angle" photos on your profile. Sorry, but get the hell over yourself. You can't avoid offending people. Period. No matter what you do or say, someone somewhere can easily find some way to take offense at it. People need to quit obsessing over this self-esteem BS and realize that, as Eleanor Roosevelt once said, "nobody can make you inferior without your consent". People choose to be offended by anything. You can either choose to cause a sh!tstorm, or you can choose to be the better person and move on with your life.

[0157988944]

"Free speech" in no way gives anyone permission to say anything they want, especially harrassment or verbal/written abuse. Spray painting racial slurs is in no way protected under any part of the constitution.