You are correct, I do fear the council is a bunch of biased white people siting in judgement of a situation they have never experienced. Especially after reading the justification for their opinion. I wanted my tone to express that assumption and I’m happy that you picked up what I was putting down. That being said, I don’t actually know the make up the council so I felt it would be best to ask in hopes that an Aussie can provide some insight.
Just so I’m clear, I have no interest in trying to figure out who is biased or racist on the council. What I am interested in is how many people of color are in a position to represent and express the opinions of minorities. Far too often we find ourselves being subjected to the thoughts, feelings and opinions of others (mostly white people) while our input is expressly ignored or discounted. I’m curious as to if this situation fits that particular mold.
Let me ask you a question: If the council made this decision without at least 1 person of color being involved to represent the folks who thought the cartoon was racist, can you really say they examined all the facts (or opinions)?
I answered your question in post #393: Council should not put forth an opinion.
As I’m sure that they don’t care what some people on the other side of the world think. Let’s not forget this is about a cartoon in an Australian newspaper. US mores are not universal, and at least partially a product of US history and current political climate.
Australia has its own very sordid history of dealing with native aboriginals. While mores aren’t universal, there is plenty of overlap between US and Australian treatment of people of color.
And sometimes people listen to your input and still decide against what you want. So it goes.
The council can’t prove the cartoon isn’t racist any more than anyone else can prove it is. It’s opinion all the way down.
And just saying “you shouldn’t express an opinion unless you’re a person of color” doesn’t get anywhere, because it isn’t going to happen. People are going to have and express their opinions, on both sides. “You don’t get to talk” doesn’t work unless you can make it stick, and you can’t make it stick.
I agree. This is why I don’t believe the council should be able to express an opinion on the subject.
This is not my position and I’m not sure where you’re getting this from. I am of the opinion that any review council needs to have people from all walks of life in a position to offer input and criticism and not get stuck with a mostly monolithic group. If you do have a mostly monolithic group, it doesn’t look good when you absolve your group of any wrong doing while outside critics strongly disagree with your position.
On the first point, if a formal complaint has been lodged, I assume they are obliged to consider it and express an opinion.
Whether the composition of the Press Council should be changed is another question. I gather it’s set up as a way of ‘self-regulating’ the media, while not constraining free speech. As such, the Council is funded by the media, and the committee has representatives of all the major media organisations, as well as independent journalists and members of the public.
This cosy kind of system was extensively investigated and debated in the UK during the Leveson Inquiry - without any concrete results.
If you agree that the council shouldn’t able to express an opinion because it can’t be proved, then nobody should be able to express an opinion that can’t be proved, including an opinion that the cartoon is racist.
By your reasoning above, the outside critics shouldn’t be able to express an opinion either. No matter what their racial make up.
You appear to be subject to the genetic fallacy.If the cartoon isn’t racist, it doesn’t matter what color the people are who say it isn’t racist. It also doesn’t matter what color the people are who say that it is racist. And vice versa - the color of those who defend it and those who condemn it doesn’t matter either. The opinion of whether it is racist or not has to stand or fall on its own merits.
Regardless of ethnic make-up they could certainly examine all the facts because facts have no racial element and are not subjective. There are no facts open to one ethnic group that are not open to another.
Now it may be that the council cannot easily represent the full range of opinions in this case, but opinions are not facts. “the cartoon is racist” is not a fact. “The cartoon is not racist”, is not a fact. So having all views represented is sensible but I don’t believe it is necessary in order to come to reasonable decision.
I think the experience of the council and the way they reach their decision is of vastly greater importance than ethnic make-up.
A question for you, is there a specific racial make-up of the council that would legitimise their opinion in this case?
Wow! I am impressed at your ability to completely miss the point and reframe the argument into whatever the hell this is supposed to be!
Last I checked opinions can’t be proved. If they could be proved then they would be facts. Everyone is allowed to have whatever opinion they want. Everyone is free to express that opinion whenever, wherever and however they see fit. In my opinion, no one (or no one group) should be allowed to have an opinion that represents an entire government. Especially when the subject is something as touchy as racism.
If most (if not all) views are not represented how in the world can you possibly believe you have fully examined the issue and opinions of the public much less come to a reasonable decision about subjects of this nature? That being said, I would like to reiterate that I don’t think the council should have put forth an opinion on this subject.
How many white people do you know who have experienced racism throughout their entire lives? Or is that experience not important when deciding if something is or isn’t racist? What type of experience can a white person have that will give them a complete and total understanding of what it’s like to be black in a majority white society?
What is it about being a certain ethnicity that makes a person incapable of gathering or holding a wide range of relevant opinions. In any case did you miss the part where I said that it was sensible to have all views represented. I just don’t necessarily think it is an absolute requirement to have the committee ethnically engineered in order to achieve that.
Irrelevant. I’m not sure how many judges or jury members have first-hand experience of any/all of the crimes they sit in judgement of or a full understanding of the lived experience of the people they see before them. I do rather still think they are capable of making decent decisions.
I don’t know. Some will have experienced prejudice and some won’t. Ultimately no single person can ever have a “complete and total understanding” of what it is like to be another person but we do our best. Do you apply the same thinking in the reverse case?
I think overall that’s a counsel of despair and one I don’t share.
So I’ve answered you. Did you wan’t to have a go at my question? A reminder
If you think white people who have never experienced racism or the effects of racism are capable of fully understanding the impact of the black experience then there is nothing I can say that will disabuse you of that notion. Especially after hearing your ridiculous opinions on how blackface makes for good comedy.
I have answered your question several times. Everyone is allowed to have whatever opinion they want. Everyone is free to express that opinion whenever, wherever and however they see fit. In my opinion, no one (or no one group) should be allowed to have an opinion that represents an entire government. Especially when the subject is something as touchy as racism. This is my answer to your question (in case you missed it for the 3rd time).
This is, of course, from some time back, but I just now saw this while reading older posts. The cartoon linked here may depict Serena accurately, but I’m old enough to remember McEnroe’s “glory” days, and he most certainly was NOT described as being “outspoken”. He was called a crybaby, a poor sport, and a sore loser. His antics were not admired.
