Some people just love to argue. Some people are themselves racist (although it’s of note that even one self-admitted racist has agreed it is racist). And some people, while not racist, are very defensive of their White privilege.
I don’t have a take on them as I’m not familiar with them. The creators seemed to have self-censored as they themselves think it is racist. It is not my claim that there are no racist works out there.
I agree but I think that in the current climate intent is given little to no consideration at all.
and it is also true that people will see racism where none is intended and where it does not exist. Not every accusation of discrimination is valid and I don’t think the default position should be that it is. I think a cure of that nature is worse than the disease.
Correct, but as we all do that we have to balance it with an equivalent responsibility to assess of the motives of others in their interactions with us and modify our response accordingly.
Empathy is a wonderful thing, being able to see things from the other side is a wonderful thing and I wholly support that approach. Part of that is accepting that people are sometimes going to do something that rubs you up the wrong way and absent of any malicious intent we should be broadly tolerant. It isn’t a zero sum game where the offense taken on one side equates to an equivalent guilt and responsibility on the other.
Free expression is massively important, as it stands at the moment the back and forth of this discussion is exactly the right thing to do. A verbal difference of opinion that both sides may learn from.
What bothers me is any suggestion of a curb on free expression based purely on subjective offence and a discussion shorne of any nuance. I think that is a massively dangerous path to take and this goes well beyond racism.
And maybe it’s possible to debate whether the cartoon was racist without being labelled a racist for engaging in the debate.
Clearly only an effect can have an effect in the world as we experience it, that’s pretty much the definition of “effect”. However to treat intent as “trivial” is unhelpful in the extreme. How do you react to, understand, change or discuss peoples behaviours without an appreciation of why they are doing what they do?
I agree completely with this, I think that is exactly the nuanced view that is so often missing with the offerenderati on both sides perfectly willing and able to knee-jerk their way to idiotic conclusions.
No, my question (asked multiple times now) was “why” not “what” but to be honest it’s going nowhere is it?
There are others in this thread that are happy to have a productive back and forth. I’m not having any problem understanding the points their making and ours is rather heavy weather and extremely unproductive so I’ll politely bow out of this line of argument with you.
There are 2 other options in there. Nobody’s been labelled as a racist, feel free to pick whichever fits, or give another category if you don’t like mine.
Distinction without a difference. The what of how they’re different *is *the why - as I’ve said before : because the press is not the private sphere. Again, asking “But why” to that reply makes you come across a little bit otariid.
Takes two to tango. Like what I said above about sincere debate vs obvious equivocation.
Cheers.
I said “in many cases” intent can be of trivial significance. Don’t mischaracterize my words, I didn’t describe intent as inherently trivial or meaningless. I agree with you, understanding and appreciating one’s intent is important when wishing to influence the impact of the behavior that is shaped by that intent. My only point was that the damage or benefit of the two concepts, intent and effect of behavior shaped by that intent are apples and oranges, not comparable.
So I think I need to acknowledge a misstatement on my part and correct myself. Originally I took issue with the notion that intent is of primary or even sole importance. In my effort to challenge this position I went too far in characterizing intent as potentially trivial. It’s not, it is of equal import. In the sense that discerning it is fundamental to the task of changing or influencing the behavior it produces. And I realize that I’m arguing against a point that you didn’t actually make. I read it as being implied in your post. I see that I could be wrong though. However, it’s still a valid point in general to make re the subject.
No mis-characterisation intended. I was talking in the abstract regarding the lengths to which that line of thinking can be taken. Not that you do. I think were are in general agreement on the points you made.
Clarification gladly understood and though we are not perfectly aligned on this I think we agree on those points in general.
I agree.
I’ve finally found an image that illustrates a lot of what we’re talking about:
You can see that the drawing of Serena has the same ears, mouth, and hair style (except longer) of the old racist cartoon. Only the skin color and lack of bangles are there.
What you can’t see is that this character (named Angelfood McSpade) also has the weird fat muscular thing going on. So here is the same character. She’s actually less big than the cartoon Serena.
I don’t really understand how anyone can’t see the similarities. And, if you do see them, then you know why the comic is said to be racist.
For the record, I personally never claimed she was being portrayed accurately, but I did make the claim that she has the same skin tone as Serena, and in another thread mentioned the pink cheeks of the judge. Isn’t it only fair to the artist though, that if you are going to claim that Osaka was portrayed as white, that you make sure of this, by, yes, examining closely? For all I know, others did examine it closely. But if so, how they couldn’t see the white highlighting of Osaka’s nose and chin and by comparison note her brown skin tone is beyond me. And your 100 random people theory? Quite frankly, it’s ridiculous. I could just as easily say the opposite, and neither one of us could prove the other wrong.
Also, the people throwing a temper tantrum at their comic being described as racist and getting all defiant and putting in on the front page while yelling about PC only make me more sure of the artist’s intent.
That’s not how non-racist people react to being told that what they made might be offensive. They would just say something like “I wasn’t trying to be racist, but I can see the similarities and I apologize for those who I may have offended.”
Easy peasey. But they’d rather milk this for popularity and outrage.
Oh, yeah? Well, that anyone can attack the cartoon as racist is baffling. Hey, that was easy! :rolleyes:
That’s a convenient way to have a discussion. Anyone disagreeing with you is proof that you are correct.`
Or the cartoonist and others may actually be sick of the concept of PCness being used as a bludgeon to silence and control. It’s sad that illiberalism is so acceptable.
ah yes, of course.