- Joined
- May 28, 2011
- Messages
- 13,813
- Reaction score
- 2,233
- Location
- Huntsville, AL
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
One thing I have learned from my experience here is that I was out of my mind to consider voting Republican last time. I hope I never ever think of doing such a thing again.
Right. As long as you vote for greater government coercion I suppose you will consider yourself happy.
Bush took government coercion and intrusion into the private lives of citizens to the next level. The Republican party is whack, and will be that way for a while.
It's not impossible to suggest it's racist. It's impossible to know that it's racist.I'm not suggesting it's definitely not racist
I'm saying it's impossible to suggest it's racist based only on the actual presentation and context of the cartoon.
Actually, I think that the cartoon would be a very effective dog whistle specifically because it does require us to assume and apply outside context. That's how dog whistles work. They are meant to go "over the heads" of non-racist people and communicate to racist people - people who commonly make fun of Black skin color - people who regularly say things like "they say Black skin is chocolate, but it's more like feces". We don't say those things so we would never automatically make that connection. People who do say those sorts of things regularly would make the connection. That's why it's called a "dog whistle." People like us aren't supposed to "hear" it. The question is whether or not the cartoonist intended to highlight the connection. I say "no", but who knows.I've acknowledge it could possibly be racist, though I think the chances of that given the realities of how the cartoon is crafted are extemely low as it would be Avery very ineffective dog whistle given its lack of context that reasonably points one in that direction in any real fashion, but primarily by applyin outside assumptions and contest to portions of the cartoon, of which the cartoon gives zero credence to within its actual design.
This, again, is you misunderstanding what a "dog whistle" is. A "dog whistle" does not make the racist connections for you. It does not wink at you and say, "Get it? Because Obama's Black?" A "dog whistle" rests on PLAUSIBLE DENIABILITY. It rests on putting something together that DOES NOT LOOK RACIST, but that its author knows his racist audience will see in it. In other words, a "dog whistle" relies on people placing their outside context in it. That is the point. So when you want to discern if something could be a "dog whistle", you have put yourself in the mindset of a racist and find what THEY, not you, would see in it. Many racists would look at that cartoon, full of contempt for the common analogy that Black = chocolate/sweet, and see it as an argument that Black = feces (a joke that they've probably made among like-minded racists). But again, the question is whether the author intended it to reach those people or if it was just a coincidence.Nothing in the cartoon, what so ever, gives ANY suggestion that the use of the word chocolate is meant to indicate race or that obama's effects on policies is turning them into policy equivalents of "black people". To reach a conclusion that the use of chocolate in that cartoon is to make reference to black peoples one must simply assume that's the case not because of any actual context or evidence within the cartoon, but based on the individual's personal feelings that certain people are racist and thus anything done by someome that in ANY WAY could possibly be racist must actually be racist.
Again, the point of a "dog whistle" is to craft some sentence, cartoon or other form of communication that requires people to insert outside context in order to get the "hidden meaning." The only way something can even be a "dog whistle" is if it requires the audience to place their own context onto it. Otherwise, it's just blatant racism.My argument is not that it absolutely isn't racist. My argument is that it absolutely can't be suggested as racist without inserting outside context or assumptions that are no way actually represented within the comic itself, and that given the multitude of logical issues with claiming it as racist that I've outlined in numerous posts, I think the likelihood of it being racist is slim but at least feasible.
The question is whether or not the cartoonist intended to highlight the connection. I say "no", but who knows.
I understand that everyone must have a demon to point to in the past to excuse the demon standing before us. You will find no salvation with any democrat nor with any establishment Republican.
I'm not going to find salvation in people who, like me, are bewildered by mundane things. Salvation lies in taking shelter those who are divine in nature.
That said, I have come to the conclusion that Republicans need to be kept out of office.
Agreed.
Gotcha. Then when you want to make a claim, but refuse to actually defend your claim, then you shouldn't be surprised if people then critize the logic and reasoning you use because you provide them with no reason to come to any other conclussion given the fact that you won't even defend the things they claim are flaws in your logic.
Unless you've finally been the one to discover how to have your cake and eat it too.
It's fine if you don't want to have a debate over your view point; just don't be shocked when people don't actually hold your view point in any real regard.
Did you really not understand what the cartoon was trying to say?
Sure, his ideas are ****. The sniffing part makes it pretty clear. Did you really not understand that chocolate carry's a pretty specific connotation for black people?
No I do not understand that.
What connotation does chocolate have for black people?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?