I am surprised that you find this repulsive and hateful. How is such witty criticism hateful? Do you lack a sense of humor when it comes to you own side?
Because of the vicious stereotype it traffics in: the black street thug mugging whites. It's racist and evil. And not a word about the real muggers and thieves: the Wall Street plutocrats and their lapdogs in Congress and the former administration. And the way it seeks to lay the blame on Obama, barely in office for three months, for the evils perpetrated by said plutocrats and congressional cretins. It's as if you put someone on the ground during a class five hurricane to rebuild and help, and then blame him for not saving everyone and getting everything perfect at once, while the storm rages! Republicans disgust me more and more.
I have to agree with Louis. If the cartoon had not used the phrase "well spoken, charismatic, young MINORITY gentleman" you could argue that race wasn't an issue. But as it is, the cartoon indulged in the patronizing "compliment" made to black athletes when they speak the English of the educated: he's so articulate.
your friend
keith
Thanks to you guys, I coined a new phrase in my head – 'blasphemy speech' – a combination of 'hate speech' and 'blasphemy laws'. As I've often written, the liberal equivalent of blasphemy laws are hate speech laws. Hate Crimes Laws – needed reform or threat to free speech? Hate crimes vs. religious freedom Hate speech laws and blasphemy laws – twin evils
First of all, I think that you are missing the point of the cartoon because you are too sensitive to racial slights.
The primary point is that liberals (who in the case of this ongoing cartoon strip are your stereotypical white liberals, the same as parodied beautifully at Stuff White People Like) excuse the missteps of Obama *precisely because* he is black – because we should 'give the first black president a chance.'
The perception from the right, which I think is at least partly true, is that liberals, who already lack discernment and discrimination (since they've not only abandoned the proper use of that word, but the proper use of discrimination itself), excuse all kinds of political gaffes on Obama's part, not least of which are the incredible earmarks in the omnibus bill, not just because he is liberal, but because of his charm, his eloquence, AND his race.
You display quite well the liberal fear of racial allusions – it reminds me of the supposed 'white guilt' that may have motivated many whites to vote for Obama. It was clear that many people of all races voted for Obama, not based on his policies, but upon his race. For example, in California, while a majority of blacks voted for Prop 8 (that is, conservatively), they did NOT vote conservatively in the National election – presumably because Obama was black.
I am not begrudging them this, but I am only pointing out that the main critique of this cartoon, that liberals excuse his thuggish policies because, among other things, he is a minority, seems very clear, esp. in light of their reaction when race is even brought up.
SECOND of all, his policies are 'thuggish.' I suspect that casting Obama as Robin Hood has already been done, but this allusion gives more punch to the message, for a couple of reasons.
First, because outright thuggish behavior is more vicious than the somewhat glamorized Robin Hood approach. Second, because despite the lies about saving 97% of middle class Americans from tax hikes (he won't have the money to do that, and when many of those Americans lose jobs because he is taxing their employers, what good are tax breaks to them?), he *IS* robbing us to pay the likes of AIG.
The fact that he is proudly touted as a black president, somehow liberals think that therefore he should only be associated with the 'overcoming victim', and not the thuggishness of black american culture? I mean, for every Obama, there are fifty Snoop Doggs, Fifty Cents, and Farrakhans (OK, maybe not so many Farrakhans).
The visceral association with black american thug life is a perfect allusion for his thuggish policies. Racial overtones? Absolutely. Out of order or improper? Not at all, it's a perfect analogy.
I think that your visceral reaction to this has little to do with rational analysis of this masterful cartoon, and more to do with your high and mighty attitudes about what can be said in public. Attack the white christian majority with crude and often illogical hatred? No problem. Use a perfectly valid and pointed allusion to black thugs (a salient feature of black american life and music)? Blasphemy!
This is free speech, and artful at that, not hate speech as you suppose. The fact is, this cartoon hits right at home – many libs excuse Obama's bad policies because he is the first black president, and accuse anyone who criticizes him of being unamerican, if not racist. This cartoon has racial overtones and allusions, but to call it racist is, imo, to be willfully ignorant of the difference between healthy biting humor and hatred. But libs still don't understand What hate is – they still define it as anything that disagrees with their liberal politics. It's anti-intellectual, alarmist, disingenuous, hypocritical, inaccurate, and wrong.
What is it about the "white Christian majority" that, if they don't get their way in everything, they whine and moan that they are so persecuted? Thus, we are not allowed to call them out on their obvious prejudice and ignorance because, if we do so, we are terrible bigots and hypocrites. The cartoon above is anything but "masterful." It's crude and stupid. Sure, snooty liberals are ripe for satire. But this cartoon's primary purpose isn't that, but in the demonization of Obama personally and his policies only secondarily. stinker's attempt to associate Obama with the "thug life" and his characterization of his policies as "thuggish" are ad hominem attacks, purely – and hypocritical in the extreme (stinker's favorite whine when criticized is to complain that he's the recipient of ad hominem slurs). "Thuggish policies" indicate criminal behavior; plenty of blacks engage in criminal behavior (according to stinker); therefore, Obama is a thug engaged in thuggish behavior. Righting the tax load (unfairly weighted in favor of the rich and powerful plutocrats of Wall Street and elsewhere by King George and his Republican cohorts) is now the work of thugs and other criminals. This isn't a legitimate disagreement over policy, it is character assassination and an attempt to silence those who disagree. Add to this stinker's usual demonization of liberals (liberalism=equal), and we have his usual extremist view on things. Proof? His agreement with the wackjob SaveCalifornia.com "issues alert." What a lunatic.
>> LOUIS: "Thuggish policies" indicate criminal behavior; plenty of blacks engage in criminal behavior
I think that the Obama policies ARE thuggish, in that they unrighteously steal money from people. You can be disobeying a higher law even when the law of the land says you can do it, and in that way be 'criminal,' and that is what is implied. And yes, blacks do make up a higher percentage of criminals, esp. in light of their numbers. But that's not the point at all. I *do* think that Obama's policies can be considered thuggish, but you libs just take it and smile because he is charming AND black.
Where do I go about calling your 'observations' vile? Don't depictions of oral sex between the president and a senator you don't like amount to TRUE vileness, when this cartoon makes an important analogy?
Like I said, I think the liberal mindset sees racism and hate in nearly all criticisms and comparisons.
>> LOUIS: But this cartoon's primary purpose isn't that, but in the demonization of Obama personally and his policies only secondarily.
How do you figure that? (1) the people in the FOREGROUND are the subject of the cartoon, that is, 'snooty' liberals (redundant? ;). The Obama figure is way in the background. (2) His race is not the only feature mentioned, but it IS mentioned because that is part of the hypocrisy of the liberal left – excusing bad behavior because blacks are 'victims.' This is essential to criticizing the typical multicultural malaise.
>> LOUIS: Righting the tax load (unfairly weighted in favor of the rich and powerful plutocrats of Wall Street and elsewhere by King George and his Republican cohorts) is now the work of thugs and other criminals.
This is liberal double-speak. How is it that something like 6% of Americans pay 90% of the taxes, and you say that they aren't paying their fair share? Liberal math = insanity. What you want is communism, where everyone gets paid the same regardless of their wisdom or effort. I like a system where the lazy and stupid can change their lives through effort, but don't get rewarded for being lazy and stupid.
>> LOUIS: This isn't a legitimate disagreement over policy, it is character assassination and an attempt to silence those who disagree.
Yes, all criticism of liberalism is hate. Typical. I expect almost nothing else. You live by such double standards, justifying your own hate, while telling everyone else that THEY hate when they criticize. I think that BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome) should be broadened to LDS (Liberal Derangement Syndrome). It's endemic on the left.
"I think, therefore I am a Liberal.
I reason, therefore I am a Conservative."
I do believe that there is a double standard in the discussion of race in our country. However, that's not an issue that's worth fighting for me – at least not through cartoons that are obviously going to offend.
I was all with the conservatives over the stupid Al Sharpton initiated "rage" over the cartoon with the cops shooting the monkey and saying that they would have to find someone else to write the stimulus bill. That cartoon had nothing at all do with Obama, but was playing off a real life event of cops having to shoot a run away monkey and the idea of monkeys typing on a keyboard and forming some piece of text.
This cartoon, however, seems to relish the opportunity to offend. That's not something I want to be a part of. Too many people are way too easily offended, but I don't believe being more offensive is the way to change that.
Louis, I would ask one thing though – you often sling around the term "neo-con." Since we are in this context of racial insensitivity, you are aware that term has it's own racial context, which many find offensive?
The term "neo-con" is short for "neo-conservative," a movement of conservatives usually associated with Krauthammer, Cheney, Bush, the magazine Commentary, Bill Krystol, and others. It's usually associated with the war on Iraq, the extreme measures taken to combat terrorism, and virtually unquestioning support of everything Israel does. As such, it has no racial context (at least for me). In fact, I've never heard it associated with any racial group. If you do, that's your thing and not mine.
And I don't "sling" around the term. I use it for specific purposes consistent with the definition I put forth above.
It is quite odd that you added the "virtually unquestioning support of everything Israel does," since that is exactly the place where the racial issues come in. It has antisemitic connotations.
You say that it is my problem, not yours, however if someone else uses a term that you deem offensive you don't seem to care if they meant it in that way or not. Was it your problem and not Daniel's or the cartoonists that you found the cartoon offensive or racist?
I do not believe that you use the Neocon label in an antisemitic fashion, but you do not give others the same benefit of the doubt. Either the problem is in the usage of the speaker/writer or with the hearer, which one is it?
"Virtually unquestioning support of everything Israel does" is a part of neo-con philosophy. I have observed this over the years. I don't bring it up because I'm antisemitic (I'm not), but because it's the case. I, myself, support Israel (an oasis of democracy and freedom – not the least for gays fleeing Arab persecution), except in the cases where it is in the wrong. Neo-cons are well known for their unstinting support of Israel. Some of them are Jews (Krauthammer, Krystol), but many aren't. Many Jews are highly critical of Israel's actions. So? Are those Jews being antisemitic?
The cartoon was racist and offensive. Period. End of discussion.
On to something else…
Truly repulsive and, I might add, completely in line with current right wing hate propaganda (and the mind – such as it is – of stinker).
I am surprised that you find this repulsive and hateful. How is such witty criticism hateful? Do you lack a sense of humor when it comes to you own side?
Because of the vicious stereotype it traffics in: the black street thug mugging whites. It's racist and evil. And not a word about the real muggers and thieves: the Wall Street plutocrats and their lapdogs in Congress and the former administration. And the way it seeks to lay the blame on Obama, barely in office for three months, for the evils perpetrated by said plutocrats and congressional cretins. It's as if you put someone on the ground during a class five hurricane to rebuild and help, and then blame him for not saving everyone and getting everything perfect at once, while the storm rages! Republicans disgust me more and more.
I have to agree with Louis. If the cartoon had not used the phrase "well spoken, charismatic, young MINORITY gentleman" you could argue that race wasn't an issue. But as it is, the cartoon indulged in the patronizing "compliment" made to black athletes when they speak the English of the educated: he's so articulate.
your friend
keith
What Louis said, Daniel. Vile.
Thanks to you guys, I coined a new phrase in my head – 'blasphemy speech' – a combination of 'hate speech' and 'blasphemy laws'. As I've often written, the liberal equivalent of blasphemy laws are hate speech laws.
Hate Crimes Laws – needed reform or threat to free speech?
Hate crimes vs. religious freedom
Hate speech laws and blasphemy laws – twin evils
First of all, I think that you are missing the point of the cartoon because you are too sensitive to racial slights.
The primary point is that liberals (who in the case of this ongoing cartoon strip are your stereotypical white liberals, the same as parodied beautifully at Stuff White People Like) excuse the missteps of Obama *precisely because* he is black – because we should 'give the first black president a chance.'
The perception from the right, which I think is at least partly true, is that liberals, who already lack discernment and discrimination (since they've not only abandoned the proper use of that word, but the proper use of discrimination itself), excuse all kinds of political gaffes on Obama's part, not least of which are the incredible earmarks in the omnibus bill, not just because he is liberal, but because of his charm, his eloquence, AND his race.
You display quite well the liberal fear of racial allusions – it reminds me of the supposed 'white guilt' that may have motivated many whites to vote for Obama. It was clear that many people of all races voted for Obama, not based on his policies, but upon his race. For example, in California, while a majority of blacks voted for Prop 8 (that is, conservatively), they did NOT vote conservatively in the National election – presumably because Obama was black.
I am not begrudging them this, but I am only pointing out that the main critique of this cartoon, that liberals excuse his thuggish policies because, among other things, he is a minority, seems very clear, esp. in light of their reaction when race is even brought up.
SECOND of all, his policies are 'thuggish.' I suspect that casting Obama as Robin Hood has already been done, but this allusion gives more punch to the message, for a couple of reasons.
First, because outright thuggish behavior is more vicious than the somewhat glamorized Robin Hood approach. Second, because despite the lies about saving 97% of middle class Americans from tax hikes (he won't have the money to do that, and when many of those Americans lose jobs because he is taxing their employers, what good are tax breaks to them?), he *IS* robbing us to pay the likes of AIG.
The fact that he is proudly touted as a black president, somehow liberals think that therefore he should only be associated with the 'overcoming victim', and not the thuggishness of black american culture? I mean, for every Obama, there are fifty Snoop Doggs, Fifty Cents, and Farrakhans (OK, maybe not so many Farrakhans).
The visceral association with black american thug life is a perfect allusion for his thuggish policies. Racial overtones? Absolutely. Out of order or improper? Not at all, it's a perfect analogy.
I think that your visceral reaction to this has little to do with rational analysis of this masterful cartoon, and more to do with your high and mighty attitudes about what can be said in public. Attack the white christian majority with crude and often illogical hatred? No problem. Use a perfectly valid and pointed allusion to black thugs (a salient feature of black american life and music)? Blasphemy!
This is free speech, and artful at that, not hate speech as you suppose. The fact is, this cartoon hits right at home – many libs excuse Obama's bad policies because he is the first black president, and accuse anyone who criticizes him of being unamerican, if not racist. This cartoon has racial overtones and allusions, but to call it racist is, imo, to be willfully ignorant of the difference between healthy biting humor and hatred. But libs still don't understand What hate is – they still define it as anything that disagrees with their liberal politics. It's anti-intellectual, alarmist, disingenuous, hypocritical, inaccurate, and wrong.
What is it about the "white Christian majority" that, if they don't get their way in everything, they whine and moan that they are so persecuted? Thus, we are not allowed to call them out on their obvious prejudice and ignorance because, if we do so, we are terrible bigots and hypocrites. The cartoon above is anything but "masterful." It's crude and stupid. Sure, snooty liberals are ripe for satire. But this cartoon's primary purpose isn't that, but in the demonization of Obama personally and his policies only secondarily. stinker's attempt to associate Obama with the "thug life" and his characterization of his policies as "thuggish" are ad hominem attacks, purely – and hypocritical in the extreme (stinker's favorite whine when criticized is to complain that he's the recipient of ad hominem slurs). "Thuggish policies" indicate criminal behavior; plenty of blacks engage in criminal behavior (according to stinker); therefore, Obama is a thug engaged in thuggish behavior. Righting the tax load (unfairly weighted in favor of the rich and powerful plutocrats of Wall Street and elsewhere by King George and his Republican cohorts) is now the work of thugs and other criminals. This isn't a legitimate disagreement over policy, it is character assassination and an attempt to silence those who disagree. Add to this stinker's usual demonization of liberals (liberalism=equal), and we have his usual extremist view on things. Proof? His agreement with the wackjob SaveCalifornia.com "issues alert." What a lunatic.
>> LOUIS: "Thuggish policies" indicate criminal behavior; plenty of blacks engage in criminal behavior
I think that the Obama policies ARE thuggish, in that they unrighteously steal money from people. You can be disobeying a higher law even when the law of the land says you can do it, and in that way be 'criminal,' and that is what is implied. And yes, blacks do make up a higher percentage of criminals, esp. in light of their numbers. But that's not the point at all. I *do* think that Obama's policies can be considered thuggish, but you libs just take it and smile because he is charming AND black.
Where do I go about calling your 'observations' vile? Don't depictions of oral sex between the president and a senator you don't like amount to TRUE vileness, when this cartoon makes an important analogy?
Like I said, I think the liberal mindset sees racism and hate in nearly all criticisms and comparisons.
>> LOUIS: But this cartoon's primary purpose isn't that, but in the demonization of Obama personally and his policies only secondarily.
How do you figure that? (1) the people in the FOREGROUND are the subject of the cartoon, that is, 'snooty' liberals (redundant? ;). The Obama figure is way in the background. (2) His race is not the only feature mentioned, but it IS mentioned because that is part of the hypocrisy of the liberal left – excusing bad behavior because blacks are 'victims.' This is essential to criticizing the typical multicultural malaise.
>> LOUIS: Righting the tax load (unfairly weighted in favor of the rich and powerful plutocrats of Wall Street and elsewhere by King George and his Republican cohorts) is now the work of thugs and other criminals.
This is liberal double-speak. How is it that something like 6% of Americans pay 90% of the taxes, and you say that they aren't paying their fair share? Liberal math = insanity. What you want is communism, where everyone gets paid the same regardless of their wisdom or effort. I like a system where the lazy and stupid can change their lives through effort, but don't get rewarded for being lazy and stupid.
>> LOUIS: This isn't a legitimate disagreement over policy, it is character assassination and an attempt to silence those who disagree.
Yes, all criticism of liberalism is hate. Typical. I expect almost nothing else. You live by such double standards, justifying your own hate, while telling everyone else that THEY hate when they criticize. I think that BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome) should be broadened to LDS (Liberal Derangement Syndrome). It's endemic on the left.
"I think, therefore I am a Liberal.
I reason, therefore I am a Conservative."
I do believe that there is a double standard in the discussion of race in our country. However, that's not an issue that's worth fighting for me – at least not through cartoons that are obviously going to offend.
I was all with the conservatives over the stupid Al Sharpton initiated "rage" over the cartoon with the cops shooting the monkey and saying that they would have to find someone else to write the stimulus bill. That cartoon had nothing at all do with Obama, but was playing off a real life event of cops having to shoot a run away monkey and the idea of monkeys typing on a keyboard and forming some piece of text.
This cartoon, however, seems to relish the opportunity to offend. That's not something I want to be a part of. Too many people are way too easily offended, but I don't believe being more offensive is the way to change that.
Louis, I would ask one thing though – you often sling around the term "neo-con." Since we are in this context of racial insensitivity, you are aware that term has it's own racial context, which many find offensive?
The term "neo-con" is short for "neo-conservative," a movement of conservatives usually associated with Krauthammer, Cheney, Bush, the magazine Commentary, Bill Krystol, and others. It's usually associated with the war on Iraq, the extreme measures taken to combat terrorism, and virtually unquestioning support of everything Israel does. As such, it has no racial context (at least for me). In fact, I've never heard it associated with any racial group. If you do, that's your thing and not mine.
And I don't "sling" around the term. I use it for specific purposes consistent with the definition I put forth above.
It is quite odd that you added the "virtually unquestioning support of everything Israel does," since that is exactly the place where the racial issues come in. It has antisemitic connotations.
You say that it is my problem, not yours, however if someone else uses a term that you deem offensive you don't seem to care if they meant it in that way or not. Was it your problem and not Daniel's or the cartoonists that you found the cartoon offensive or racist?
I do not believe that you use the Neocon label in an antisemitic fashion, but you do not give others the same benefit of the doubt. Either the problem is in the usage of the speaker/writer or with the hearer, which one is it?
"Virtually unquestioning support of everything Israel does" is a part of neo-con philosophy. I have observed this over the years. I don't bring it up because I'm antisemitic (I'm not), but because it's the case. I, myself, support Israel (an oasis of democracy and freedom – not the least for gays fleeing Arab persecution), except in the cases where it is in the wrong. Neo-cons are well known for their unstinting support of Israel. Some of them are Jews (Krauthammer, Krystol), but many aren't. Many Jews are highly critical of Israel's actions. So? Are those Jews being antisemitic?
The cartoon was racist and offensive. Period. End of discussion.
On to something else…