Emphasis mine:
The god detailed in the bible isn’t only not omniscient, he’s stupid.
I said I thought the ad in question was a non-issue because it wasn’t calling Obama a monkey in the first place. I still thought it was worthwhile to point out that there’s at least an overtone of racism in comparing a black person to a monkey which doesn’t exist when George W. Bush is caricatured the same way.
Right. So what you (and Discordia and Cosmic Relief) seem to be saying is that some forms of lampooning are, indeed, out of bounds.
Change the word “ox” above to “monkey” and perhaps you will see my point.
As mentioned, it seems legitimate to object, but not riot in the streets.
Regards,
Shodan
You have a problem with a rhetorical question?
Except I never said that. I said that there is a different connotation in calling a black man a monkey, which should be obvious to anybody.
To clarify my post (gods I need coffee), I don’t think any form of lampooning is out of bounds*, I just don’t think the black man as monkey type cartoon is, in fact, satire. It’s just a racist cartoon, because there’s no element of truth to it.
*A local guy called Zapiro recently did a cartoon picturing our future President unzipping his pants while his friends held down a woman with a “justice system” sash on, which caused quite a stir and I thought was excellent.
Did you actually want me to answer that? 
Maybe that IS the deal with the apologies from the WP Ombudsman – “Uh, oh… if we are going to back away from offending Group X, we’re going to have to back away from offending Group Y, too.”
Meanwhile, and yes, I understand that this will pain the more pious among us, during the whole “Danish Muhammad” flap there was this unspoken (ans sometimes spoken) undercurrent of “gee, how quaint, they worry about blasphemy, can you believe it? We in the West are secure enough to mock our own religions but “they” get all bent out of shape” with which I must say I did not disagree. IOW I look far more favorably upon a religious culture where the faithful just roll their eyes and wag their fingers at you for spoofing them, than upon one where they may physically assault you, and if that means the tolerant get to endure more spoofs and put-downs, it’s a fair price. God’s a big boy, he can take care of himself.
The old “element of truth” is only present in good satire, and there is plenty of satire out there that’s bad. A racist satire is still a satire, the problem is the racism.
Not to rehash this, but the thread Shodan linked to was about a Japanese cell phone ad that used a monkey dressed as a politician and the word “change.” I’d say it’s inarguable that the “change” thing is a reference to Obama, but the racism question pretty much turned on whether or not the monkey was intended to be a caricature of the candidate himself. For reasons laid out in the thread and also based on the tone of the ads, most of us agreed there was no racism.
One of the ads in question.
A monkey poster.
As to how this effects the broader issues being discussed in this thread… I still say it doesn’t.
Different definitions I guess. I’d say intent is irrelevant, if there’s no element of truth you failed at making satire. I suppose by my definition racist satire isn’t possible, since racism is by definition untrue.
That ad is incredibly weird.
True enough. Those are not the questions of a stupid person, unless every parent who ever existed is stupid. Those are the questions of a person who thinks that the questioned is stupid, more likely.
I don’t see where Oliphant “dislikes” anything. He simply developed his writing at a time when people indicated dropped letters (or sounds) with apostrophes and has continued the practice.
And ISTM that whether or not you believe that a given satire contains an element of truth or not often depends on whose ox is being gored.
Is there an element of truth in the suggestion that God damns right-wing politicians, and doesn’t listen to their prayers? Is there an element of truth in the idea that John McCain - not George Bush, John McCain - believes his campaign has a direct line to God? Is there an element of truth in the idea that Muhammad encourages his followers to engage in bombings? Is there an element of truth in the idea that Obama is secretly a Muslim? (After all, he went to a Muslim school, and spoke recently of “his Muslim faith”!)
Regards,
Shodan
I’m not trying to be a dick, I’ve just never, ever seen that construction before. It’s distracting. I don’t understand why he wouldn’t just write “damned” or “damn” if that is the construction he is used to, unless he is trying to avoid writing the word “damned”. He’s clearly not worried about using a few extra letters.
Does he use that spelling in other cartoons?
That’s a given.
A meaningless question for me, personally, although I don’t think the cartoon is a statement about all right-wing politicians, and the “dam’” is an expression of irritation rather than an actual condemation to hell.
I think it’s vanishingly unlikely.
Bombings specifically? No. Is there an element of truth in the idea that terrorists are, to use an overused phrase, hijacking the Islamic faith to suit their ends - which I think was the actual point of those cartoons? I’d say yes.
No.
Is there an element of truth that McCain claimed that Palin’s alleged talking in tongues gave him a line to God? That was the quote being mocked wasn’t it?
Obviously yes. Was McCain just trying to be funny? Maybe, maybe even probably, but if so it was McCain who was insulting the Pentecostal faith, not Oliphant. And satirizing that is fair 'nuff. (Or should I drop the apostrophe?)
Did he actually say something like that? I hadn’t heard.
When have any of Oliphant’s so-called political cartoons had anything to do with reality in any way? I personally think he’s on drugs 24/7. Strong drugs.
As I’ve pointed out many times before, ridicule or criticism of a belief is not comparable to racism (or sexism or homophobia). Crazy ass religious practices are voluntary. Physiology is not.
He used the same construction (in a very similar context) on September 4 (along with the contraction “F’GOD’S” indicating “for God’s”–another use of the apostrophe to indicate elided sounds).