NY Post cartoon

Is this website racist because it says "white women" first: whitewomenblackmen.com instead of blackmenwhitewomen.com? :smt017

 

So, for the sake of argument, if you are completely wrong about the intent of the cartoonist and the editor. If they stated their case and it was plausible enough for the the newspaper to believe them. Why do you have the right to demand anybody get fired for your wrongly held belief? You aren't even their customer. That is called a lynching. Not a good look.
As I've said before, this matters. Hearts and minds aren't won with brutality.

Look, I understand the why of this thing, but understanding how a person is offended is not the same as agreeing to censorship.

I'm trying to keep this discussion above the actual content and inflammatory reasons why some are offended as it's not the issue, but you and Loki keep going there. I'm not missing your point. I'm making one. Personally, I have been offended time and time again by misogynistic fools. Despite the history of treatment and discrimination against women in this country (and in the world) being brutal and evil, I am still not going to advocate censorship under any circumstances. If a thing is said that I see as wrong, I am allowed to say so. If I say "you cannot say it", then those in power could turn that same gun on me when they don't like what I say. That is the point.

You are saying that your speech is more valuable because it was you that was offended. You are saying that despite protestations of innocence, people should be fired, humiliated, strung up, whatever, all based on your opinions and personal perceptions. You are saying that you can silence opposition with impunity, without serious consequences to everyone's freedoms. You are saying, "First amendment be damned." I am saying this a dangerous precedent.

Yes, consequences exist, but they are not always what you want them to be. The ignorance of this particular incident was not illegal, it's not even really immoral, since intent could be argued as not racist but stupid. Truly, it is mostly embarrassing for those involved. Understand, not everybody is from a background where the ideas of simians and black people being automatically associated is "a given". These people, if nothing else, have learned a hard lesson. A more appropriate response would be a demand for an apology in writing in the same paper (which was demanded). Followed by the "forgiveness" of those apologizing. Hearts and minds...that's how they are won. If you must continue to construe intent according to your own bigotry and vilify some guy then you will make him the victim, continuing derisiveness and preventing any progress from being made at this stage in history. Your speech has consequences too. There is a bigger picture, win the battle, lose the war.

Also, I disagree with Loki again on his assertion that calling for the dismissal of an employee of a business (of which you aren't a patron) is the same as boycotting. It is demanding silence from those who disagree with your interpretation. It is censorship.

 

Co-sign 100%. They apologised for their stupidity, I don't think firing someone will solve anything. I'm not saying it didn't offend anyone, clearly it did, but how is making people lose their jobs going to solve any problems?

Oh, and black people can be racist, anyone can. Unless you don't know the definition of racism. That is total BS, sorry.

"hatred or intolerance of another race or other races."

You're saying that some black people are never hateful or intollerant of other races?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/racism

 

I have avoided this thread for a reason but now I'm glad I finally read it. You and I actually agree on something. I should probably make sure my conscience working today.

Anyway, yeah, it was in bad taste and not at all funny.

 

Im not saying my speech is more important than the cartoonist. Im not saying the cartoonist doesnt have the right to draw his cartoons however he feels. What Im saying is that when you excercise poor judgement and draw a racist cartoon, there are going to be consequences.

You make too many assumptions...

1) How do you know whether or not I read the post and whether or not Im a customer?

2) How do you know what the true intentions of the cartoonist?

Of course the cartoonist is gonna cry innocence. Few, if any racist in the world actually claim to be a racist. If you go on stromfront, one of the first things the site claims is that they dont promote derogatory comments or statements regarding race, sex, religion, etc. Hell, the klan says the same thing. But the whole world knows what both organizations stand for.

Intent may or may not have anything to do with consequences a person may suffer. (Im completely aware that my speech has consequences.) Maybe this guy will be fired. Maybe he wont. Thats for rupert murdock to decide. But Im not going to pretend that I dont want him fired.

The ny post has a history of racist cartoons and columns. (Im assuming you dont know the history of the post. Look it up!) Thats why the the current outrage - along with other factors - is so strong. And their apology was almost as insulting as the cartoon.

If having this guy fired prevents this from happening in the future and makes papers think twice before printing such racist crap, then the it will be worth it. If you think thats censorship, then you are entitled to your opinion. But their are certain standards of conduct in all walks of life, even "art." If you cant meet them, stay your ass home and spare the rest of the world your ignorance.

 

The net results are the same.. by any means necessary. And again nobody is demanding silence from this cartoonist, if he wants to go the private enterprise route to distribute his satire, he has that right.

 

How about you read the post's apology before you call it an actual apology. And the problem that firing this asshole will solve is that it will make others think twice before doing something so stupid.

And dont cherry-pick the 3rd and broadest definition of "racism" and say "oh, thats the one that fits my arguement." The first one is the true definition.

a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.

 

Which is exactly what I said, Loki.

Good to see you back on the boards.

 

That cartoonist made a lot of offensive cartoons. He will keep his job in spite of those protests.

 

Good to be back and good to see you still fighting the good fight.

Discrimination, reverse discrimination, what is/is not racist, how to best combat racism, freedom of speech issues, how to get others with different life experiences to understand different point of views, how to understand different viewpoints ourselves, what are the best solutions to these problems, historical factors,.....difficult and complex questions, and it is always good to see young intelligent thinkers such as yourself who are willing to engage in such debates.

 

I didn't cherry pick I chose the shortest one. :neutral:
Besides, that definition can fit my argument too.
Some black people believe that their race is superior and that they should rule others (e.g. black supremicists). Of course, you get all races like that - hense all races can be racist. I know of a black man in the UK who was charged with racial abuse or something (my exs brother). So yeah, it's not just us white people who can be racist.
Look, I read the apology. I agree it was a shitty apology, but I just can't see why firing a guy or guys is going to make this any better. I think they learned from their embarrassment. I think the cartoon was in poor taste and offensive to some but I highly doubt it will happen again. To find something offensive is pretty subjective though, like Effie said I'm more concerned about censorship - where do we draw the line? When is it classed as offensive? If we censor anything anyone could find remotely offensive we're left with a nanny state politically correct society where no one has the freedom to express any opinion incase they offend someone.:?

 

Sarah, I gather you live in the UK, where I understand from a recent trip there, that it is still illegal to denounce the crown in a public forum. Please correct me if my sources have it wrong, but surely you see the irony in you speaking to us here in America about freedom of speech.

 

Ok the last part of what I wrote last night didn't show up for some reason I'll amend this post.


IMO trying to get the cartoonist or the editor or even angling for an apology is completely and utterly pointless. If News Corporation management or Murdoch himself did actually decide to remove someone on staff at The Post as result of this incident, the replacements would undoubtedly be even worse. As distasteful as the cartoon may be to some, it's no where as offensive to me as the fact that Rupert Murdoch owns as much of the media in this country as he does. We need serious media reform because what the oligarchic cabal of corporations who control the public airwaves have done to influence American political discourse over the past decade or so is criminal.

 

Straw man and not a particularly well-conceived one.

The petition does not advocate for the implementation of speech codes into the rule of law, which for future reference is what "censorship" typically is.

The editor's job, like that of any journalist, should be held to a standard of integrity where the public is free to protest their performance of it.

 

Hmm Loki..dont really see the point in this post. I live in the UK too. Does that mean I can't have an opinion on freedom of speech because it may sound ironic as I hold a British passport??? If we took that stance wouldnt near half the damn world be not allowed to comment on freedom of speech issues? Because lets be honest, a hell of alot of countries have had freedom of speech issues!

 

Bit tongue in cheek, just found it interesting that she was voicing a strong first amendment preference for our country when her home country has their own issues on the matter.

 

This cartoon is in bad taste, whatever way you look at it.
Even if the cartoonist claims it wasnt racist, why make a joke out of someone who got mauled by a Chimp?

Also:

I am always amazed when people say black people can't be racist!!

Anyone heard of IDI AMIN?? One of the biggest black racists you could possibly meet..

 

Are chimps even allowed as pets?? Who the hell has a full grown chimp as a pet?!

I think it's really really bad taste and it made me feel a little weird but I don't think they need to fire anyone over it. Anyway, yeah, I'm not really a fair judge of whether it's offensive or not so I'm going to shut up.

I think some people put individual racism, internalised and institutionalised racism together when they're very different things. The fact is that all races can be racist.

 

That is your opinion. You have your reasons for it, but it doesn't change the fact that the artists claims to have a completely different reason for and interpretation of the imagery than that which you have assigned to it.

I was referring to the general "you" not you in particular. If I were a gambling woman, however, I would wager that you personally are not as you have expressed a disdain for this paper, but that would only be a guess.

I don't "know", this is why I started with "for the sake of argument".

The "consequences" of your speech to which I was referring is the possible unintended result of losing more than you win. As I said, win the battle, lose the war.

There are many people, non-racist people, who are watching and wondering if they will always be accused of racism no matter what, then why bother? You then have lost the war.

...and Loki, I don't see that (in particular) as fighting the "good fight". It's fighting perceived racism with short-sighted bigotry. Two wrongs man...

 

Agreed. However, we're talking about The New York Post here. While I happen to believe that the outrage regarding this cartoon is a bit overblown, there is a clear pattern of Rupert Murdoch owned media outlets exploiting if not promoting racial strife for profit.

Again, I think this cartoon in particular has more to do with with crassness, bad taste and the pathetic state of political discourse in this country than racism, but there is in fact a problem with institutional racism at News Corporation and IMO that may have helped to spark a portion of the ongoing protest.