Cartoonist Slammed As 'Racist' For Serena Williams Cartoon

[Smokey1]

I see what you want from me, and I'm not going to give it to you.


First of all, you acknowledged yesterday that you can see why the damned thing is ignorant and offensive. But you don't want to use the word racist. So try this: whatever it is YOU think makes it "ignorant and offensive" is what I think makes it "racist".


Also, I've seen you argue and debate and I know how you operate - and I can see that at this point, you are now simply trying to win an argument. When you read my words you're not trying to understand the points I made nor are you intending to understand the spirit of where I'm coming from - you are analyzing my words to find out where the weaknesses are and how you can exploit them. You are trying to railroad me into saying something like, "It's the hair", or "It's the ears" or some ####, so you can say "AHA! The hair is just hair - it looks like her hair - so it's not racist", "AHA! The ears are just ears! They look like her ears, so it's not racist".

Completely ignoring the fact that the whole is more than the just sum of the parts. That is the kind of pedantic nonsense I told you from the get-go that I'm not interested in engaging.


It is not individual parts of the image that I find to be wrong. It is THE Image.

I cannot point to individual pieces and say - "There.... right there. That part. That is what makes it a racially insensitive drawing". And as I told you, yesterday, simply telling someone: "Look at this piece of garbage. Just look at it" doesn't make for stimulating intellectual discourse when both parties have already made up their minds.




Anyway, I've said my piece on the subject.

You think I'm looking for reasons to be offended.
I think you're in denial about something as plain as the nose on your face.

There's no point in going around in more circles, and I honestly don't see this conversation doing anything else besides that.

Good you got to speak your mind but unfortunately your mind is wrong according to the dictionary.

racism
[rey-siz-uh m]
noun
1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human racial groups determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to dominate others or that a particular racial group is inferior to the others.
2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/racism?s=t

The cartoon clearly doesn't meet either of the three meanings of the word.

 

[Toxick]

Good you got to speak your mind but unfortunately your mind is wrong according to the dictionary.



http://www.dictionary.com/browse/racism?s=t

The cartoon clearly doesn't meet either of the three meanings of the word.

K. Thanks.

 

[This_person]

Just for the record. I'm not agreeing with any such a ####ing thing. Do not put words into my mouth unless it is your intent to piss me off.

My apologies. When you said there was nothing specific about the drawing that is racist except for the sum of the parts, I took that to mean there was nothing specific about the drawing that is racist except for the sum of the parts in your view. What did you mean?

Bite me.

Brother, it is not an insult. It is simply the only reasonable explanation I can come up with. Why else would you find a racial component where you admit none exist in the mind of the artist or in the specific parts of the drawing?

You should take your own advice.

I do

And, literally everything else you said in this post is a misrepresentation of what I said and I do not feel compelled to acknowledge nor respond to it.

Please explain.

 

[Gilligan]

K. Thanks.

*snort*

 

[Toxick]

My apologies. When you said there was nothing specific about the drawing that is racist except for the sum of the parts, I took that to mean there was nothing specific about the drawing that is racist except for the sum of the parts in your view. What did you mean?

I don't know how many different ways I can say it.
The hair, the eyes, the nose, the ears, the dress, the body: each, in and of themselves, are nothing. They are not racist; they are not not racist. They're neutral. Like eating a sandwich. Or scratching your taint. Or driving.


When you combine them to form the composition in question, they form a caricature of this person. And this caricature is undeniably belittling the person in question by drawing them in the same fashion as an old-school pickaninny headhunter cartoon.

Honest to ####ing God, I don't really know how much more specific I can be.




I'm aware that you will not find "Belittling of a person by over-stylizing their race and/or culture" in one of the enumerated dictionary definitions of the word racist.

Here's actual footage of me giving a #### ---->


English is a living language, strongly influenced by colloquial references and meanings, and I don't think I need to point out that I'm writing quite informally. So please spare me the dictionary references. Despite my obvious penchant for swearing, I do have an above average vocabulary. I know what the #### I'm saying. And I would daresay so does everyone else here.

Brother, it is not an insult. It is simply the only reasonable explanation I can come up with. Why else would you find a racial component where you admit none exist in the mind of the artist or in the specific parts of the drawing?

Yesterday I told you that I pride myself on my independent thinking. You (assuming I read you correctly) agreed that I do think independently. So why would I not take the term "brainwashed" or "conditioned" as an insult. It is anathema to everything I stand for, and everything I strive to be.

Also, what possible benefit could there be, having a reputation as an independent thinker - if I'm going to be dismissed as "brainwashed" when someone doesn't like something I said, just because I called it as I saw it.

 

[This_person]

I don't know how many different ways I can say it.
The hair, the eyes, the nose, the ears, the dress, the body: each, in and of themselves, are nothing. They are not racist; they are not not racist. They're neutral. Like eating a sandwich. Or scratching your taint. Or driving.


When you combine them to form the composition in question, they form a caricature of this person. And this caricature is undeniably belittling the person in question by drawing them in the same fashion as an old-school pickaninny headhunter cartoon.

Honest to ####ing God, I don't really know how much more specific I can be.

Look, it's either racist or it's not. There's no such thing as not not racist.

We know for sure that it's not racist by definition, so I am assuming by "racist" you really mean "offensive."

You are saying it is a caricature that is belittling to the person. EVERY caricature is belittling to the person being caricatured, so that is not exactly news. That, too, is not "racist" or "offensive", it is "by design to all people equally."

This is why I ask "what about this is not about the person, but about her race?" You have never even come close to answering this question. You say it is belittling to her, and I challenge you to find a single caricature of a person, in a cartoon designed to belittle the person for their antics, that is not belittling to the person. I would bet you a year's salary that you cannot, because it doesn't exist.

What would make it offensive in a racially-insensitive way is if there were something based on Williams' race, not her actual characteristics. If there WAS a bone in the nose - IT WOULD BE RACIALLY-OFFENSIVE/RACIST!!!! Note, there's no bone. There's not a caption above her head that says, "unga boonga boonga" or "I'm a niger hoe-bag" or anything else that is in any way racially insensitive to make it offensive/racist.

If she were white, but in every other way looks exactly the same as she does, and this caricature were done exactly the same way (which it would have been, surely) except for filling in the skin tone, it would not be racist. You know why? There's NOTHING in the drawing that is about her race. EVERYTHING about the caricature of her is about HER, in particular, in specific, in reality to HER.

Honest to ####ing God, I don't really know how much more specific I can be.

English is a living language, strongly influenced by colloquial references and meanings, and I don't think I need to point out that I'm writing quite informally. So please spare me the dictionary references. Despite my obvious penchant for swearing, I do have an above average vocabulary. I know what the #### I'm saying. And I would daresay so does everyone else here.

I did, too. You mean "offensive" when you say "racist". "Offense" is, of course, in the eye of the beholder.

Yesterday I told you that I pride myself on my independent thinking. You (assuming I read you correctly) agreed that I do think independently. So why would I not take the term "brainwashed" or "conditioned" as an insult. It is anathema to everything I stand for, and everything I strive to be.

Also, what possible benefit could there be, having a reputation as an independent thinker - if I'm going to be dismissed as "brainwashed" when someone doesn't like something I said, just because I called it as I saw it.

I absolutely agree you read me correctly.

Please explain why you are finding a racial component to a drawing that is based on a person, not a person's race. I believe that we have been societally conditioned, just like we think killing our daughters for dishonoring our family is highly offensive to us, but not to other cultures. That's not a Christian thing to take offense at the concept of killing our daughters for being dishonorable, it's not an atheist thing, it's not a Jewish thing or a white thing or a black thing or even just a human thing - because there are cultures out there that find it quite acceptable. So, it must be a societal thing. Our society, for the last 10 decades or so, has moved more and more and more to finding racial components to things that do not have racial components. (SEE: Kapernick).

So, I made the assumption that you were finding a racial component here where there is none because you are among the whole of society that has been conditioned. I am not excluding myself from this conditioning, nor thinking I am more advanced because in this one instance I can see it - I am quite certain there are other places where it exists that I do not see it, and I am equally confident that there are times when it has happened that YOU have seen it and been able to get out of your conditioning. But, in this one instance, I am making the determination that you are not seeing past your conditioning.

Surely, you will not agree with my assessment. So, I will again ask you what about that drawing is offensively showing something based on Ms. Williams' race, and NOT on her actual appearance or actions. You will prove me wrong by just showing me what that is.

I do not believe you can show me that.

 

[Gilligan]

And this caricature is undeniably belittling the person in question by drawing them in the same fashion as an old-school pickaninny headhunter cartoon.

Why do you hate the classics?

[video=youtube;sls5H4xVHys]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sls5H4xVHys[/video]

 

[Smokey1]

Apparently some people want to define racism as anything a white person says or does that is negative or critical of a black person.

 

[Toxick]

I do not believe you can show me that.

Neither do I.

 

[This_person]

Neither do I.

So, can we agree, then, that the drawing is not attacking her race, but attacking HER?

 

[Toxick]

So, can we agree, then, that the drawing is not attacking her race, but attacking HER?

Absolutely ####ing not.



I'm agreeing that I cannot show you a damned thing.

 

[Gilligan]

I'm agreeing that I cannot show you a damned thing.

We can agree that I showed everyone a classic thought...right? ;-p

And this one...

[video=youtube;RkFhZMa-8Xw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RkFhZMa-8Xw[/video]

 

[Toxick]

We can agree that I showed everyone a classic thought...right?

Pure legitness.

I see absolutely nothing wrong with those cartoons. Amirite!?

 

[Gilligan]

Pure legitness.

I see absolutely nothing wrong with those cartoons. Amirite!?

Art..nothing but art. Art is always ok..right?

 

[This_person]

Absolutely ####ing not.



I'm agreeing that I cannot show you a damned thing.

So, you admit you can't show how it is race-based rather than specific-person based, and that there's nothing there to show me any different, but your opinion remains the same?

Think about that for a second.




Or, wait, are you saying it's there but I just can't see it? You can't define it, but it's there? There really IS something that is not based on Serena but rather based on her race ONLY, I just can't see it?

Is it in the room with us now?

 

[This_person]

Pure legitness.

I see absolutely nothing wrong with those cartoons. Amirite!?

:shrug:

You can make asinine points all you want. I don't see a single thing in the first cartoon (the second one won't play for me) that is based on a legit person, on legit actions of that legit person. I see what was considered many, many decades ago to be funny because it slammed on people based on their race and the ignorant suppositions made about people based on their race. You know, all of the things NOT present in the Williams cartoon.

 

[This_person]

Art..nothing but art. Art is always ok..right?

This is why I ask "what about this is not about the person, but about her race?" You have never even come close to answering this question. You say it is belittling to her, and I challenge you to find a single caricature of a person, in a cartoon designed to belittle the person for their antics, that is not belittling to the person. I would bet you a year's salary that you cannot, because it doesn't exist.

What would make it offensive in a racially-insensitive way is if there were something based on Williams' race, not her actual characteristics. If there WAS a bone in the nose - IT WOULD BE RACIALLY-OFFENSIVE/RACIST!!!! Note, there's no bone. There's not a caption above her head that says, "unga boonga boonga" or "I'm a niger hoe-bag" or anything else that is in any way racially insensitive to make it offensive/racist.

If she were white, but in every other way looks exactly the same as she does, and this caricature were done exactly the same way (which it would have been, surely) except for filling in the skin tone, it would not be racist. You know why? There's NOTHING in the drawing that is about her race. EVERYTHING about the caricature of her is about HER, in particular, in specific, in reality to HER.

Honest to ####ing God, I don't really know how much more specific I can be.

 

[Toxick]

So, you admit you can't show how it is

First of all you need to stop shoving your ####ing words in my mouth.



I said this:
I'm agreeing that I cannot show you a damned thing.


Meaning that I'm saying I cannot show you a damned thing. Not because I'm unable - but because when I do you simply will not accept it.



And that's fine. I'm not accepting any of yours either.



I admit nothing as you suggest.
We don't agree on anything as you've suggested.



And that's all there is to it.

The fact that I'm unable to convince someone who is unwilling to be convinced proves nothing, and you standing up and saying, "YOU'VE CONVINCED ME OF NOTHING - THEREFORE YOU ARE WRONG" is a steaming pile of bull####.




So, I'm bored with this thread and topic.

 

[This_person]

First of all you need to stop shoving your ####ing words in my mouth.



I said this:
I'm agreeing that I cannot show you a damned thing.


Meaning that I'm saying I cannot show you a damned thing. Not because I'm unable - but because when I do you simply will not accept it.



And that's fine. I'm not accepting any of yours either.



I admit nothing as you suggest.
We don't agree on anything as you've suggested.



And that's all there is to it.

The fact that I'm unable to convince someone who is unwilling to be convinced proves nothing, and you standing up and saying, "YOU'VE CONVINCED ME OF NOTHING - THEREFORE YOU ARE WRONG" is a steaming pile of bull####.




So, I'm bored with this thread and topic.

I addressed what you said. You're saying you see it and I don't. Everything you've said you see is "if there was a bone through the nose" or "it looks kinda like what they used to draw 70 years ago when they drew bugs bunny cartoons". In other words, you're not seeing what's there, you're adding to what's there.

Meanwhile, you can't point out what is not based on her. Even if it IS drawn the way they did 70 years ago, this is about a person, not a race. That is irrefutable. And, you can't show how it is NOT about the person.

I'm not saying you're wrong, you're saying I'm wrong. Think about that, too.

Now, we've both had the chance to get our last words in. I still think you're a great person with whom to have a debate, because you tend to normally not take things personally, and you usually provide a pretty good look at things. Even if you couldn't see past emotion on this topic, I still hope to have discussions with you on other topics.

 

[Toxick]

I'm not saying you're wrong, you're saying I'm wrong. Think about that, too.

I've thought about it.

Yes. I'm saying you're wrong.



Call me a stubborn dick. I will not deny that.

Even if you couldn't see past emotion on this topic,

Don't let my tone or persistence fool you. I am not emotional about this, nor am not offended by the picture. (That's one of the reasons I deliberately avoided the word "offensive" as opposed to "racist" is because I'm not personally offended) I'm generally not offended by racism at all - even when it's directed against me. I'm simply acknowledging that it's there. And I honestly cannot believe that anyone does not see it. Sorry. I just can't.


But, frankly, I've spent way more time on the subject than it's importance to me actually merits.

I was actually bored with the subject 2 days ago.

I still hope to have discussions with you on other topics.

Of course we will.