I’m not a caricaturist. In general terms, as I said earlier, either someone’s a good enough artist to represent a specific person while avoiding racist stereotypes, or I think they’d be wise to steer clear of caricature altogether. We don’t owe cartoonists a solution to this problem, they don’t just get a pass on their drawings appearing racist because it’s sometimes hard to draw things while avoiding racist stereotypes. It’s going to be more challenging to caricature someone who does happen to possess prominent features that have historically been used as stereotypical markers in demeaning a group. It’s not a principle that can be applied without sensitivity to history, and it’s not something that’s going to be symmetrical for all social groups.
Yes, it is racist.
Unfortunately, Serena was fat, big-lipped, huge-mouthed,irrational and screaming like a baby.
I disagree about the frazzle-haired though.
Actually, I disagree about the screaming like a baby. She was screaming like a drunk dockworker.
Did she deserve the penalties she got? Hell yes.
Did she receive biased treatment from the umpire? Not compared to that same umpire’s last couple of years on the job.
Comparing the umpire’s actions to those of the McEnroe era is ludicrous, that is from two generations ago!!
Compare it to recent standards, and you will see that every tennis player that acted like a spoilt brat, high on his/her entitlement, has been treated the exact same way.
Of course, at this time, the only international tennis player that acts like that is Serena.
Clarification on why *you *think it matters and how, that’s why I asked, yes. Twice now.
fine, answer it or don’t.
Reading back I don’t think you gave any context at all. Certainly no indication as why “fire” was being shouted in either case. i.e. what the intent was. So I think it is an unhelpful analogy and still do. Greater context from you may help but as it stands it is of no use. I certainly don’t understand the point you are trying to make by using it. Poorly chosen on your part or inability to understand on mine. Honestly, it could be either.
OK, so you’ve made your mind up and the intent of the artist is irrelevant. I’m not sure how well that backs up your previous comments but your view is yours to have of course.
I’ve already said why I think the platform matters. Scope and setting makes the difference between private opinion and corporate speech.
I did.
Well, that clearly shows how well you read back, then, if you think I said it was being *shouted *in both cases. My (deliberate) word choices made intonation differences obvious.
It’s not irrelevant, it’s just not credible.
Are you of the opinion artists never lie?
Which of my previous comments are incompatible with my view that this artist is lying about his intent?
In what universe is Serena Williams fat?
True, but that doesn’t mean that those people trying to do so with the right intentions should *automatically *be assumed to be racist. Note that the “right” intentions here are not necessarily ones that are benign towards the subject. It is perfectly reasonable to set out to offend a public figure, in fact it is absolutely necessary that we have the capacity and willingness to do so from time to time.
Yes, they really should. It’s the 21st fucking century, they should know better.
The universe where the cartoon’s not racist, dammit! The facts must support me because I’m right!
Let’s resolve it: NEVER UGLIFY BLACKS IN CARTOONS. It’s not safe for you.
But good intentions aren’t adequate here. If the effect of a drawing is racist, then it is a racist drawing. It’s surely incumbent on us to know history.
Yes, the only safe way is to represent everyone in your cartoon as straw men.
no, you haven’t. You’ve *asserted *it several times like you just did then but you haven’t explained it and it looks like you don’t want to. Suit yourself.
see above
Context would be an understanding of why it was being spoken or shouted in either case. You haven’t given any context in either scenario. The volume may or may not be relevant. I have absolutely no way of knowing and you haven’t elaborated.
That is a very low debating tactic. Your comment about artists lying was made for the first time just now. You can’t retroactively take a comment of mine and say it doesn’t agree with something you’ve just said in clarification.
We should automatically assume that anyone drawing a caricature of an ethnic person is racist?
Personally I first look at the caricature to determine whether it has attributes I associate with standard racist characterizations, and only after I determine the image is clearly a racist caricature (as the one in the OP is), only then do I cast aspersions upon its creator.
I disagree. I place intent on a much higher level than you do and that is how I navigate the world.
If you think it is not important then that’s a philosophical chasm that I can’t get over so I’ll leave it there.
Out of curiousity, what’s your take on ‘classic’ disney and warner brothers cartoons, which were probably not designed by people chuckling to themselves “I’m gonna offend some people, heh heh heh”, but managed to include characterizations that their own owners won’t release to the public today because they themselves confess that the art is inherently racist?
I don’t think intent is not important. That’s how you tell the difference between somebody who made an error of judgment and somebody who’s a despicable asshole.
But it’s equally wrong to think that intent is all that matters. It’s almost certainly true that most racism is unintentional. (Well, maybe that’s naive, given who we elected President, I don’t know.) It behooves us to consider the effect of what we do, and to learn that the effect of what we do may be quite different from what we intended or expected.
It’s hardly a philosophical chasm, unless you believe that being inconsiderate of others is a philosophy. It’s simply learning to be a better human being by expanding our capacity for empathy.
Those racist characterizations were themselves caricatures. Why is it surprising that legitimate caricatures share characteristics? How could it be otherwise?
Your second sentence is begs the question. A caricature that shares the characteristics is of historical racist characterizations is not legitimate precisely because it shares those characteristics. If that leaves no non-legitimate caricatures in your repertoire, your options are to learn to be a better caricaturist, to quit using caricatures, or to accept that people calling you a racist are correct.
What has more tangible impact though? Intent or effect? Obviously effect. So much so that intent in many cases is of trivial significance. I can personally relate to this as a disabled man. Just as I’m sure it’s relatable to black people and other minorities, women, even those with mental illnesses.