No shit. The Ledger portrayal was daaarrrrk. Even the Nicholson version believed in self-preservation and would have run away with the Romero version if he ever “gotta loada” the Ledger character.
I don’t think you are, but that’s your business.
*You know, you really should read people’s posts all the way to the end before responding. But thank you for reminding me why there’s no point in writing out lengthy, detailed explanations for people who aren’t really interested in thinking about any perspective other than their own.
Oh, so because I quoted and responded to just one or two parts of your posts, you feel it reasonable to conclude that I didn’t read the whole thing.
Like I said, we’re working with two different definitions of reasonable. I’m comfortable with the earth version.
On the flip side, he could probably push health care reform through Congress if he just showed up on the Senate floor and demonstrated how to make a pencil disappear.
No, that’s not why I believe you didn’t read the whole thing. I believe you didn’t read the whole thing because your response demonstrated no comprehension of anything in my post beyond the portion you chose to quote. For the second time in this thread, you managed to “contradict” me by telling me something that I’d just said in the very same post you were responding to. If you’d bothered to read just two more sentences you’d have seen me say that a sound argument isn’t valid unless the premises are true. I then spent several hundred words explaining why someone might believe that the first premise was true. All of this was of course wasted on you, leaving me to meditate upon Matthew 7:6.
I said you could have the last word as long as you didn’t come up with anything new. This is something new :).
You’re missing a step. The image’s similarity to minstrel images does not necessarily make it a “minstrel-style” image. This image looks like a “paleface” minstrel more than the Obama image does–it has the huge lips and the prominent teeth, for example. But it would be unreasonable to conclude that it’s a racist image. Your “reasonable” argument needs another step, a step by which we distinguish between images that share some traits with “minstrel-style” images, and images that are actually “minstrel-style.”
As I’ve stated before, images are only racist to the extent that they reflect racism on the part of the creator. Consider whether a water-stain on a wall, or a smudge on a piece of toast, could ever be racist, to see what I mean. Your missing step, the one by which we distinguish between minstrel-type images and images that share some similarities with minstrel-type images, will probably need to reference the creator of the image.
Oh, brother. Toward the end of all those words, many of which were irrelevant to the discussion, you said this:
(emphasis mine)
Which leads back to my previous post to you. Feel free to read again. At least, that would be the reasonable thing thing to do.
Then for further input, read what LHOD last posted.
The guy who made the poster was a 20 year old playing with photo shop. He saw the picture of Obama in Time and decided to use the joker program on it. Someone saw his picture and added the caption and distributed it. That is according to Drudge.
I am sure they were not aware of minstrel shows. The racism was not on purpose . But it was there anyway.
If something is racist, and no-one looks to perceive it, does it offend?
In your mind, yes. In the poster, no.
Y’know, magellan01, you might be advised at this point to follow my ocassional feeling - sometimes, honestly, with you, but what the hell, here goes: There is nowhere further to go with those who believe this poster is racist. You’ve made your best argument. There should be, at some point, a perfectly valid recognition that you will get no farther, and you’re just wasting your breath.
This is a bullshit thread; there is no reason it should have gone remotely close to this long. All reasonable people have stated their views; all unreasonable people have stated their views; nobody seems likely to change.
Unless, of course, you’re just trying to keep gonzomax from spewing his ignorance in other threads, which may very well be the best thing you’ve ever done on the SDMB. 
Actually, you said “better”, not “new”. I thought it was rather good myself. In fact, it was so good that I’m going to leave it as it stands. Anyone still curious about my point of view here is welcome to read and re-read everything I’ve written in this thread until they get it. Otherwise you can just go to your graves not understanding. I’m done explaining.
I guess that’s what you told yourself to justify your decision to skip to the end.
No, it doesn’t. You only think that because you skipped the bulk of my post, where I addressed that point in considerable detail. Next time perhaps you should just post “TLDR”, or just quietly move on to some other post that doesn’t strain your attention span so badly.
On preview, although Frank and I had different opinions in this thread, I agree with him here. This discussion became repetitive quite some time ago. The rest of you can keep going back and forth for another page or so, but you’ll all be wasting your time. I wish I had back the hours I’ve already spent on this thread, because it sure didn’t do me any good.
Right, because I commented on the beginning and end of your post, that means I skipped the middle. Yet, somehow I was able to arrive at the opinion that some of what you wrote was irrelevant. (A big, fat paragraph, in fact.)
Translation: You’re wrong. But nice try, toots.
Oh, and :rolleyes:.
HA! Now, that’s funny. Perhaps someone else can take the next shift. It certainly would make the neighborhood a more sensible place.
And now, I take your advice. Unless Lamia wants to spew more of her tangential nonsense.
No, my condescending dear, the problem isn’t that we don’t “get” what you’re saying. The problem is that what you’re saying is ridiculous. I understand perfectly the brand of bullshit you’re peddling. I’m just not buying it.
Slap yourself on the back if you wish, but the simple fact is that to some older people with different backgrounds than some of you find,the poster is racist. What the hell gives you the right to declare it otherwise.? All you can do is say it is not racist to you. I am not saying it should be racist to you. I see why it is not. Conversely you have no right to declare others reactions as wrong. You are not wasting your breath. You are demonstrating clearly that you think racism in this case would be determined by you. Fine ,have at it.
http://dailydose.us/2009/08/03/is-the-racist-obama-joker-poster-racist-or-racist-y/ Another discussion on the poster with them admitting that it is possible for people to see it as racist. You guys better get busy, you have a lot of people to correct. There have been a few in this thread that can see the racism. They do not know BRICKER and MAGELLIAN have the authority to decide it is not.
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Poster-with-Barack-Obama-as-The-Joker-Branded-as-Racist-118478.shtml More work for you 2.
Ron Paul says the poster can be easily construed as racist.
Obama as the Joker: Racial Fear's Ugly Face - American Renaissance Here is another take with a slightly different reason for thinking it was racist. Mostly that blacks can not be trusted . They will tear the system up and are dangerous.