-I have done X, and been called insult Y.
-Other people have done Z, and been called insult Y unjustifiably.
-Therefore, I am not insult Y.
People tend to use it when they’re called sexist or racist or religious bigots, as though they are insulated from being these things by the fact that other people have been unjustly accused of being them. It’s absurd.
In this case, the poster reflects no racist intent on the author’s part: indeed, an author clever enough to deliberately pull up two different allusions through a single makeup job would surely have come up with a more coherent message for the poster (perhaps some relevant Joker quote translated into faux ebonics). It inadvertantly resonates with certain racist tropes, but it’s ridiculous to blame the artist for this resonance: it assigns more competence to the artist than is fair.
That is what debates with you are like. Blindfolded and fingers in your ears is not how to discuss. Your position is no amount of evidence will sway you? Fine go away.
Are you typing in mirror. You are the one who can’t see the other side. In this thread, with many people from the left side of the aisle, there seems to be a consensus that you’re position is the unreasonable on. That you just insist on seeing racism. Think about that. When the SDMB comes out on the side of “not racist” that should give you pause. But it won’t. Nothing will. The fact that I’ve pointed out that your argument—there was racism with blackface half a century ago means the poster is racist, never mind there’s no blackface and that the whiteface comes from clowns and a famous comic book character—and you’ve not addressed the points doesn’t place you anywhere near the high road.
So, how about directly addressing the MANY points I’ve made showing you’re position to to be valid only in your own mind? I mean before you go away.
When you made the point that no amount of info I give you will change your opinion, you again showed who you are. I am wasting time showing you the genesis of the blackface and the exaggerated lips that blacks were depicted with. It was certainly racist then. I did not realize ,you have the power to declare it is no longer racist. I tried to get through to you that our time periods have brought different reactions toward the depiction. I can assure you I found the poster insulting and racist.
But you simply declare no amount of evidence of information will change your mind. That is why you are a waste of time. Go away.
No, I don’t think I will. There appears to be ignorant that needs to be fought. But you may run away any time you’d like. That said, I do not deny YOU see racism in it. I believe you. Your posts have been quite convincing in that respect. What we disagree on is how reasonable it is for one to see racism in it. Let’s evaluate.
One uses blackface on white people, the other uses white face on people of either color.
One comes from attempting to mimic and insult black people, the other is a direct portrayal of a comic book character called The Joker, whose facade is a take off on circus clowns. For the record, neither The Joker or clowns are know to have anything to do with racism.
Your proof that the poster is racist is the fact that racist depictions of blacks through make-up were popular over 50 years ago. Never mind that the person was white and the makeup was black.
You now offer the additional “proof” that the old caricatures of blacks included “exaggerated lips”. Based on that, and the presence of face makeup, are you of the mind that that traditional circus clowns are racist? They have the ingredients you offer as proof: a painted face and exaggerated lips. If not, what’s the difference?
Is the difference is that Obama ids black? If so, are you of the mind that a black person could never play The Joker? And do you find this racist? That character was around for a year or two and I don’t recall anyone crying racism. Did you? Why or why not?
As I suggested, if what you see in the poster is racism, you should probably reevaluate what triggers racism in your mind. As evidence to the unreasonableness of you labeling it so, I mentioned the general consensus among this left-leaning debate site. I mean, sheeze, if the body of the SDMB is telling you that they don’t feel it’s racist, it may be time to rethink things.
But you go right on seeing things that aren’t there. YOu go right on holding on to your racist colored lenses with both hands.
I agree with you. I don’t see the racism. I suppose I can see where some people might, but I think that once you realize that it’s the Joker, you realize the intent… and that it wasn’t racism. At least, I think anyone sane would realize this. Newspapers, on the other hand, just want shock… and no one can argue that “a racist parody” isn’t a shocking headline.
I’m mostly saddened by the fact that people feel the need to ridicule the President. I didn’t vote for him. I don’t agree with most of his choices. In fact, I feel that some are detestable. But I KNOW that his heart is in the right place. And I really don’t think that it does anyone any good to be slinging insults and ridicule.
I agree. I think much of the stuff went overboard with Bush, and I find this quite unfortunate. It’s just sooo dark, and for that I think worse than when they portrayed Bush as The Joker. But some perceived racism is not the reason.
I agree. Also, as was mentioned, with Bush it was topical, plus the caption made more sense. I agree with what many have said regarding the caption as well – what does socialism have to do with the Joker?
As has been said before, I am proud of my country and the rights that we have to speak freely, but I am beyond embarassed by how some of my fellow Americans choose to use that freedom.
If the caption had read, “racism,” it would be exactly as stupid a satire as it currently is, for the reason you stated. (Note that some have also accused Obama of being racist).
“Currently we are still conducting interviews of victims, witnesses, and other suspects who were placing the Obama Joker Poster throughout our city,” Jensen said in the statement.
How can anyone be a “victim” of a poster? WAH! Can I claim victimhood when I see Ron Paul 2008 sign almost a year after the election?
It’s very like the fight against heretics in the Middle Ages. The evil thoughts of witches cause the chickens to stop laying, the cows to dry up, and children to be born with two heads.
As I said much earlier, I think the “Socialim” line causes this to fail as any intelligent commentary. However, the line I provided on Page 1 elevated it to a true work of art. Naturally.
You and Shodan both are disappointing me–aren’t y’all supposed to be defenders of private property rights?
What term, pray tell, should apply to the owner of a private property who has to spend money cleaning up the vandalism of having posters glued to the property? If it had been punks putting up “Free Mumia” posters, would you have an easier time answering the question?
That already happens. I’m sure you’ve heard of cases where a black Repub might be referred to as Uncle Tom or a house n_____r. It’s already happened as far as I know.
Added on edit:
I’m not sure about the Joker thing though. The Joker is an “agent of chaos”, isn’t he? Doesn’t that in itself contradict the usual “overcontrolling socialistic” argument? The Joker doesn’t want control. He wants NO control. He wants chaos.
I definitely fall in the “not racist, but not good satire” camp on this one. At the very least, couldn’t the poster maker have gone with “Why so socialist?”
