Racist Cartoon?

[Preston_79]

What do you think? Here's the cartoon the NY post had in their paper a few days back. Some people were very offended by it.

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2009/02/18/chimpcartoon460.jpg

[Brando @$$ Fat]

Of course it's racist. How is that even disputable?

[shoe1985]

I saw this on the news first, and I was a little offended and I am white. More than likely it was made out of fun, but the people behind it should have known it would have caused problems.

[The Heart Collector]

I don't know if it's racist, but you've got to be dumb as shit to print that cartoon.

[Preston_79]

Many people who were offended probably didn't realize why the cartoon shows a monkey being shot. That's not to say you can't still be offended, but it puts it in more context.
Here's the related article on the chimp attack that inspired the illustration.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/C/CHIMPANZEE_ATTACK_VICTIM?SITE=NCASH&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

And here's what the Post had to say about the criticism.

NEW YORK - The New York Post is apologizing for a cartoon that critics say links President Barack Obama to a raging chimpanzee shot dead by police in Connecticut. But the newspaper also says the image was exploited by its longtime antagonists.

After two days of protests, the paper posted an editorial on its Web site Thursday saying the cartoon was meant to mock the federal economic stimulus bill, but "to those who were offended by the image, we apologize."

The editorial also says some people who have long-standing differences with the paper saw the cartoon "as an opportunity for payback."

The editorial calls them "opportunists" and says: "To them, no apology is due."

The drawing was published Wednesday. It shows a dead chimp, with the caption reading: "They'll have to find someone else to write the next stimulus bill."

[Criminal Rock]

How the fuck can someone NOT see this as racist? Jesus Christ..

[Pentangeli]

Comparing an individual to a Chimp isn't racist. I've seen cartoons depicting Dubya as a chimp. I've also heard Dubya being called white trash, a term I consider racist. Would "black trash" be acceptable? I think not. Is that cartoon racist? not necessarily, although those with a predisposition for melodrama will certainly believe so.

[Potter82]

Comparing an individual to a Chimp isn't racist. I've seen cartoons depicting Dubya as a chimp. I've also heard Dubya being called white trash, a term I consider racist. Would "black trash" be acceptable? I think not. Is that cartoon racist? not necessarily, although those with a predisposition for melodrama will certainly believe so.

There is a long, long history in the US and elsewhere of disparaging black people as a race by comparing them to apes, chimps, gorillas, etc.

This comparision has been used to advance the argument that blacks are somehow inherently more primative, less civilized, and un-evolved than white people which in turn has been used to justify everything from slavery, to segregation, to imperalism.

As far as I know, there is no such history of comparing white people to primates, apes, gorillas, etc. in order to dehumanize them for such purposes. By virture of this fact, comparing Bush, a white man, to a chimp is not racist whereas in the case of Obama, it is.

With that said, I find this cartoon very hard to defend.

I don't buy the NYP explanation for a single second; they knew damn well that people would interpret this comic as being racist given the past use of such comparisons. They are either fools or liars or both.

This is just an example of a little game played by partisan conservatives. Every so often, they will do/say something blatantly racist and then they will feign indignation when people start to protest or call them on it. They will then try to cast their critics as being irrational, hypersenstive, and (I love the gall of this), that the people who find this offensive only do so because they are the real racists at heart! It is an amazing feat of double-speak and cognitive dissonance. George Orwell would be very impressed.

[Criminal Rock]

Predisposition for melodrama? lol, that's pretty funny. Seems our so-called "predisposition for melodrama" is met by your lack of compassion/world view towards blacks regarding racism.

And good post, Potter. That is my line of thinking on the matter.

[Pentangeli]

Seems our so-called "predisposition for melodrama" is met by your lack of compassion/world view towards blacks regarding racism.

Your arrogance is your downfall. Don't assume you know me.

I have compassion for all innocent people who are victims, black, white, Chinese or Palestinian. I have compassion.

That cartoon is not necessarily racist. It might be, but then it might not, we don't know for sure.

[Bourne101]

I don't know if it's racist, but you've got to be dumb as shit to print that cartoon.

This sums it up perfectly.

Who knows, the thing was probably not intended to be interpreted like it has been and their explanation does make sense, but come on... anyone in their right mind would realize the other possible interpretation.

[Preston_79]

I think the Post was going far out of their way to be controversial. Not many people were aware of the story about the chimp going crazy, so for them to use it was a stretch. I don't think it's blatant racism, just very poor taste.

If another animal were used I'm not sure people would have thought it represented the President. Am I the only one that would hold the house largely responsible for writing the bill? If it had said signed the bill it would be blatant. Regardless though it's a pathetic cartoon. Who ever actually wrote the cartoon is a dunce.

[Dr Martin Luther Loomis]

Little Travis took off someone's face, and inspired a blatantly racist cartoon, causing a nationwide controversy. And he probably thought his fifteen minutes of fame came from a few crappy commercials.

The little fucker went out on top. My Nana went the same way.

[Potter82]

I think the Post was going far out of their way to be controversial. Not many people were aware of the story about the chimp going crazy, so for them to use it was a stretch. I don't think it's blatant racism, just very poor taste.

If another animal were used I'm not sure people would have thought it represented the President. Am I the only one that would hold the house largely responsible for writing the bill? If it had said signed the bill it would be blatant. Regardless though it's a pathetic cartoon. Who ever actually wrote the cartoon is a dunce.

Yeah I agree, if they had used say a donkey instead there wouldn't have been a such a controversy but that is what I think they were aiming for. Clearly they subscribe to the theory that any publicity is good publicity (personally I think that is really simplistic, this has hurt their rep, no doubt).

Congress was far more responsible for the content of this bill but the thing is most people, for better or worse, associate the bill with Obama. For a unfunny, tasteless cartoon, you can tell that they put a lot of thought into ensuring this cartoon would offend people without going so far as to say, put the label "Obama" around the monkey.

[Homyrrh]

I don't know if it's racist, but you've got to be dumb as shit to print that cartoon.
Pretty much. It can easily be considered a racist move, but in the context of the dreaful chimp attack, it appears to more likely be a case of awful taste. Exactly why they chose to run it is inconceivable.

[Criminal Rock]

Your arrogance is your downfall. Don't assume you know me.

I have compassion for all innocent people who are victims, black, white, Chinese or Palestinian. I have compassion.

That cartoon is not necessarily racist. It might be, but then it might not, we don't know for sure.

You claim this cartoon is not "necessarily" racist and those who suggests otherwise are those with a "predisposition for melodrama", (that we somehow have generic inclinations to "exaggerate" and be "overdramatic" on issues of race), and in suggesting that comparing a person to a chimp is somehow not racist, without even considering the history of the term towards blacks and that the cartoon is implying Obama as the chimp... and you're the one to talk about arrogance. Saying what you said would indeed merit a lack of objectivity and compassion on the issue and I stand by my original post.

I don't assume anything apart from what I read and gather from your words... I'm sure you have compassion for lots of different ethnicities and cultures, however, within this thread, you have not shown any when you unashamedly defend this racist cartoon, and by suggesting that those who find it racially prejudiced are exaggerating.

[Pentangeli]

by suggesting that those who find it racially prejudiced are exaggerating.

The toon is not necessarily making a racial comment, it could be focused on character, or parodying other recent events. Only the creators will know their true intentions. You believe otherwise, you arrogantly believe you know their intentions, you believe they intended to create a racist cartoon. Prove it's racist. You can't. You jump to your conclusion because it fulfills your melodramatic needs.

[The Heart Collector]

Barack Obama is the President. He does not write stimulus bills.

The legislative branch writes the stimulus bills. That would be Congress.

The cartoon is saying the stimulus bill (which was not written by Barack) was written by monkeys.

It is not actually comparing Barack Obama to a monkey. It is comparing the authors of the legislative branch to monkeys.

If the cartoon said "they'll have to find someone else to sign the stimulus bill" or "they'll have to find someone else to pass the stimulus bill", the racism accusations might make sense.

Perhaps the cartoon is ill-conceived (it's also not really funny at all), but I think arguing that the cartoonist is a malicious asshole is a bit too much.

[Vong]

Haha, upon reading the cartoon I thought back to Clerks II and the "Porch Monkey 4 Life" shirt Randal wore...hilarious!

[AceD]

Barack Obama is the President. He does not write stimulus bills.

The legislative branch writes the stimulus bills. That would be Congress.

The cartoon is saying the stimulus bill (which was not written by Barack) was written by monkeys.

It is not actually comparing Barack Obama to a monkey. It is comparing the authors of the legislative branch to monkeys.

If the cartoon said "they'll have to find someone else to sign the stimulus bill" or "they'll have to find someone else to pass the stimulus bill", the racism accusations might make sense.

Perhaps the cartoon is ill-conceived (it's also not really funny at all), but I think arguing that the cartoonist is a malicious asshole is a bit too much.

This is exactly the case the cartoonist is making, and it makes logical sense. That said, I have a hard time believing that the cartoonist and numerous editors didn't think this could be misconstrued. I don't know that the artist is actually a racist, but he sure doesn't mind the controversy (and neither does his paper, obviously).

[K_Lincourt30]

That is the worst thing I've ever seen. Whoever drew that should have their ass kicked.:mad:

[Criminal Rock]

There is no getting around the implications of the cartoon. Sure, Obama didn't officially write anything, however he worked alongside congress when they were drafting the bill and he did author and edit much of what is currently in there before it was even signed. Besides, the stimulus package is widely perceived as belonging to or created by Obama by much of the public, similar to King James and his Bible-- didn't write it, but it's his version and it is credited to him as is the stimulus package to Obama... both the cartoonist and the NY Post most certainly knew these things unless they really are dumb bastards, which is possible, but I doubt that's the case. It is not farfetched to believe there is, to some degree, malicious intent in that cartoon towards Obama, whether it is by pure ignorance, wilful ignorance, or blatant racism it doesn't matter. The cartoon is a fucking farce.

EDIT: And to note before I head off to work, the cartoon explicitly refers to “someone”, a compound word meaning a single person, and there is one dead chimp riddled with bullets... I'm sure he didn't sketch that shit on accident.

I suppose I have my doubts that Sean Delonas and the rest of the NY Post had never considered that the cartoon could be suggesting Obama, as ambiguous as it may be. I agree with THC in that they are dumb as shit for printing this... someone [almost] died as a result from the chimp incident and them poking fun at the situation was in very bad taste... that said, and also leaving in such racial connotations leads me to think they had ill intentions right from the get go.

[Homyrrh]

Actually, I don't think anyone died in the chimp attack. And I think the whole story warrants my seven laughs, a la Katt Williams. Or at least a "Really?" segment on Weekend Update..."Really? You have a 200-lb. chimpanzee as a pet? Really?"

[Reigh Kaufman]

That is the worst thing I've ever seen. Whoever drew that should have their ass kicked.:mad:


Do you live in Pleasantville?

If this is the worst thing you have ever seen, I hope that nobody ever takes away your child-like innocence.

I'm genuinely sincere.

[Criminal Rock]

Actually, I don't think anyone died in the chimp attack..."

Oops, I knew that, that was a mistake on my part. I should have put "almost died". I suppose, subliminally, I'm not to keen on adverbs or something ??

Who knows...

[Homyrrh]

Oops, I knew that, that was a mistake on my part. I should have put "almost died". I suppose, subliminally, I'm not to keen on adverbs or something ??

Who knows...
Well, I'm not trying to undermine the graveness of the incident or anything, but she's definitely alive...minus a face...

[Badbird]

I would file this under "stupid" before filing it under "racist."

When I first saw it, I made no racial connection. I saw it as the artist thought the stimulus bill was so stupid that a chimp could have written it.

So I don't think he's the kind of person who sees black people as monkeys, but that doesn't mean he's not stupid. Clearly some people were going to see it that way, and somebody should have vetoed it.

But, they probably did realize people would hate it, and let it go to print anyway while they sat back and laughed and said "fuck 'em!"

Cause that's how they roll.

[Homyrrh]

I would file this under "stupid" before filing it under "racist."

When I first saw it, I made no racial connection. I saw it as the artist thought the stimulus bill was so stupid that a chimp could have written it.

So I don't think he's the kind of person who sees black people as monkeys, but that doesn't mean he's not stupid. Clearly some people were going to see it that way, and somebody should have vetoed it.

But, they probably did realize people would hate it, and let it go to print anyway while they sat back and laughed and said "fuck 'em!"

Cause that's how they roll.
Or they, actually the individual known as Rupert Murdoch who owns the paper, sat back and cackled devilishly and muttered, "How profitable."

[The Postmaster General]

I knew it was clearly the Travis the Chimp story being parodied, 3 bullet holes, same day that was in the the news; however, if I know something like that, a paid writer for a national magazine should have known that most Americans think Obama wrote the bill, and that criticizing the bill with an image of two white cops shooting down a chimp, well... I agree with the idea that they knew what they were getting into and loved it every step of the way.

[Brando @$$ Fat]

I just read that story about the escaped chimp. While the cartoon itself may not necessarily be racist, it should've been obvious to anyone with a brain that people would be up in arms about it. But then again, it's the New York Post.

[the clever guy]

Gotta love political correctness...:rolleyes:

The cartoon, as I've read on many many sites, illustrates that the bill was so bad, it must have been written by a chimp(s) [as also pointed out by another schmoe a few posts back]. Is that the real intention of the author? Who knows. But seriously, racist? They were parodying 2 events that have happened just recently. A wild chimp (who the fuck would think that was a good idea? I don't give a shit that the chimp was on TV or whatever...it's a Goddamn chimp!) and a supposedly bogus stimulus bill that had "mess" written all over it (only going off of what MANY people's opinions are on the bill). I think there's the issue of "closed-mindedness" in issues like this. I'm not calling out anyone in this thread or really anyone in particular, but I think people seem to point out the worse in a "possibly racial" situation. I understand that blacks and primates have been very racially interchanged (something that is offensive, yes), but this cartoon is stretching it. Nobody was pointed out with a finger in this cartoon.

Really, if anyone feels "attacked" in this cartoon (racially or whatever), wake the fuck up. These people that feel "attacked" in situations like this are the same people I catch shoplifting and claim I'm a racist because I'm white and they're of a different race. No, it's because you're a fucking thief and you're mad I caught you (OK, that analogy sounded good in my head given the circumstances). The shoplifting situation I've mentioned happens ALMOST everytime. So based on that, I'm apparently a racist because I caught someone shoplifting who isn't white and this cartoon is racist because it depicts 2 white cops (going on FACTUAL EVENTS) shooting a CHIMP and making a snide comment surrounding politics. Please. :rolleyes:

[ArtFactoryRadio]

Barack Obama is the President. He does not write stimulus bills.

The legislative branch writes the stimulus bills. That would be Congress.

The cartoon is saying the stimulus bill (which was not written by Barack) was written by monkeys.

It is not actually comparing Barack Obama to a monkey. It is comparing the authors of the legislative branch to monkeys.

If the cartoon said "they'll have to find someone else to sign the stimulus bill" or "they'll have to find someone else to pass the stimulus bill", the racism accusations might make sense.

Perhaps the cartoon is ill-conceived (it's also not really funny at all), but I think arguing that the cartoonist is a malicious asshole is a bit too much.

You nailed it, sir. Thank you for putting it into perspective. Now if someone had bothered to say this on the nightly news, this all could've been put to rest a long time ago.

[Brando @$$ Fat]

I knew it was clearly the Travis the Chimp story being parodied, 3 bullet holes, same day that was in the the news; however, if I know something like that, a paid writer for a national magazine should have known that most Americans think Obama wrote the bill, and that criticizing the bill with an image of two white cops shooting down a chimp, well... I agree with the idea that they knew what they were getting into and loved it every step of the way.

Yes.

The wild chimp story was such a non-event that most people (like myself, until today) probably skipped over it. That's why I thought at first it was a racist, albeit inaccurate (as mentioned earlier, Congress creates the package) cartoon. It was actually pretty horrifying at first glance. It had nothing to do with being PC, since I'm not overtly PC myself. We've all seen and heard racism at some point, but seeing a racially insensitive cartoon is something else entirely. It can be far more disturbing than a racial slur.

Also, this is the New York Post: a cheap tabloid paper that basically thrives on sensation and provocation. It doesn't seem too far-fetched to believe that they would publish this even with the knowledge that, if misconstrued, it could be seen as a hyper-racist cartoon trying to incite violence against the President. Although, their lack of credibility only makes me think that they really were oblivious to any of the obvious misconceptions that might arise from this.

[Brando @$$ Fat]

Comparing an individual to a Chimp isn't racist. I've seen cartoons depicting Dubya as a chimp. I've also heard Dubya being called white trash, a term I consider racist. Would "black trash" be acceptable? I think not. Is that cartoon racist? not necessarily, although those with a predisposition for melodrama will certainly believe so.

No. The comparisons of Bush to a chimp are nothing like any comparisons of Obama to a chimp, even if they are meant in the same context. It doesn't mean the person making the comparison is racist, but it will almost certainly seem that way every time. The comparisons of Bush to a chimp arose from the idea that he is seen as inarticulate and uneducated (often made by people who aren't really that intelligent themselves). These comparisons can't really be made to Obama at the same widespread level as they can with Bush. Obama has been called naive, opportunist, etc but nothing that evokes the image of a chimp. Maybe a squirrel, or maybe even a rat, but not a chimp.

[The Heart Collector]

EDIT: And to note before I head off to work, the cartoon explicitly refers to “someone”, a compound word meaning a single person, and there is one dead chimp riddled with bullets... I'm sure he didn't sketch that shit on accident.


he didnt sketch it on accident, indeed. he drew one chimp because there is one chimp: travis the chimp.

then he wrote "get someone else" because he is referring to the one dead chimp, travis.

besides that, what other word or expression could he have used? he can't use a plural one, because the line has to work when referring to a singular dead chimp.

[The Postmaster General]

Gotta love political correctness...:rolleyes:

The cartoon, as I've read on many many sites, illustrates that the bill was so bad, it must have been written by a chimp(s) [as also pointed out by another schmoe a few posts back]. Is that the real intention of the author? Who knows. But seriously, racist? They were parodying 2 events that have happened just recently. A wild chimp (who the fuck would think that was a good idea? I don't give a shit that the chimp was on TV or whatever...it's a Goddamn chimp!) and a supposedly bogus stimulus bill that had "mess" written all over it (only going off of what MANY people's opinions are on the bill). I think there's the issue of "closed-mindedness" in issues like this. I'm not calling out anyone in this thread or really anyone in particular, but I think people seem to point out the worse in a "possibly racial" situation. I understand that blacks and primates have been very racially interchanged (something that is offensive, yes), but this cartoon is stretching it. Nobody was pointed out with a finger in this cartoon.

Really, if anyone feels "attacked" in this cartoon (racially or whatever), wake the fuck up. These people that feel "attacked" in situations like this are the same people I catch shoplifting and claim I'm a racist because I'm white and they're of a different race. No, it's because you're a fucking thief and you're mad I caught you (OK, that analogy sounded good in my head given the circumstances). The shoplifting situation I've mentioned happens ALMOST everytime. So based on that, I'm apparently a racist because I caught someone shoplifting who isn't white and this cartoon is racist because it depicts 2 white cops (going on FACTUAL EVENTS) shooting a CHIMP and making a snide comment surrounding politics. Please. :rolleyes:


Why do the people dumbasses who find the cartoon offensive merit all the rolly-eyes and snideness via commentary, but not the dumbass who wrote the cartoon?

I'm also not as sure that the racial implications are as vile as the implication that whoever wrote the stimulus bill should be shot. The dumbass who wrote it even slip by mentioning that via his defense.

"Oh course I'm not being racist! Why would I say the president would be shot!? Dar Dar Dar!" (of course, Pelosi is okay to involved with being gunned down by police, because she isn't white, let's just hope the women's league doesn't pick up on it...) :rolleyes:

Sorry, I'm not calling you out The Clever Guy, but I think defending the nonracial intentions of the cartoon is just as short-sighted as being offended by them. It was a stupid cartoon for a plethora of reasons. Usually people aren't offended by art of any merit.

[Criminal Rock]

he didnt sketch it on accident, indeed. he drew one chimp because there is one chimp: travis the chimp.

then he wrote "get someone else" because he is referring to the one dead chimp, travis.

besides that, what other word or expression could he have used? he can't use a plural one, because the line has to work when referring to a singular dead chimp.

I understand what you're saying, but my point was referring to the cartoons ambiguity in the context of its implications. I find it unfocused and lazy how one dead chimp is supposed to characterize every man and woman involved with the stimulus while also using the word "someone", which somehow accentuates that point, knowing Obama is essentially the patron for the stimulus package and how it is credited to him. To me, their implications aren't clear. Hence why I said, "I suppose I have my doubts that Sean Delonas and the rest of the NY Post had never considered that the cartoon could be suggesting Obama." This leads me to assume, unless they're incompetent morons (which I would accept if it were true), the cartoon was purposely left ambiguous to stir controversy... for whatever reason. Probably to sell more newspapers.

[the clever guy]

Why do the people dumbasses who find the cartoon offensive merit all the rolly-eyes and snideness via commentary, but not the dumbass who wrote the cartoon?

I'm also not as sure that the racial implications are as vile as the implication that whoever wrote the stimulus bill should be shot. The dumbass who wrote it even slip by mentioning that via his defense.

"Oh course I'm not being racist! Why would I say the president would be shot!? Dar Dar Dar!" (of course, Pelosi is okay to involved with being gunned down by police, because she isn't white, let's just hope the women's league doesn't pick up on it...) :rolleyes:

Sorry, I'm not calling you out The Clever Guy, but I think defending the nonracial intentions of the cartoon is just as short-sighted as being offended by them. It was a stupid cartoon for a plethora of reasons. Usually people aren't offended by art of any merit.


Man, and there's a reason I don't post in this forum (that last post being my first). I guess I'm a little lost on what the first sentence you wrote meant, Bubba. No harm done though, afterall, this is a politics forum...and you're a good guy, so I know you're not calling me out in a bad way.

Anyways, my initial impression on the cartoon was that it wasn't racist. I knew the situations that were happening, I just didn't find it racist. "Oh, they shot a chimp! That's gonna piss off a lot of black people (or something to that effect)!" I personally just didn't find it racist until obviously every news site and "politically correct" commentator made a connection to it somehow relating to a black person. Some people just tend to take things way too far when they don't need to be taken anywhere because there's nothing wrong with it. Who knows, Barack might of shared a laugh with the comic.

That's just my opinion, and if someone wants to lose their shit after what I said (not you Bubba), well that's their problem. I didn't find it racist. Some people did. Controversy ensues. The world needs a little controversy every now and then. This isn't the type of controversy that personally hurt or attacked someone or destroyed lives, it's a comic that may or may not be racist...it all depends on who you talk to. It's not a fact, it's an opinion. And my opinion states it ain't racist. Don't like it? Oh fucking well.

[The Postmaster General]

Man, and there's a reason I don't post in this forum (that last post being my first). I guess I'm a little lost on what the first sentence you wrote meant, Bubba. No harm done though, afterall, this is a politics forum...and you're a good guy, so I know you're not calling me out in a bad way.

Anyways, my initial impression on the cartoon was that it wasn't racist. I knew the situations that were happening, I just didn't find it racist. "Oh, they shot a chimp! That's gonna piss off a lot of black people (or something to that effect)!" I personally just didn't find it racist until obviously every news site and "politically correct" commentator made a connection to it somehow relating to a black person. Some people just tend to take things way too far when they don't need to be taken anywhere because there's nothing wrong with it. Who knows, Barack might of shared a laugh with the comic.

That's just my opinion, and if someone wants to lose their shit after what I said (not you Bubba), well that's their problem. I didn't find it racist. Some people did. Controversy ensues. The world needs a little controversy every now and then. This isn't the type of controversy that personally hurt or attacked someone or destroyed lives, it's a comic that may or may not be racist...it all depends on who you talk to. It's not a fact, it's an opinion. And my opinion states it ain't racist. Don't like it? Oh fucking well.


Haha. That's not why you don't like to post here. Man, it's cool, I don't think you drew the cartoon or anything. I'm just saying in my opinion so much focus is on the people who called foul, and that I think the artist really did do something to call foul on. The cartoon was pretty easy to take out of context. At the same time, Sharpton may be drumming up publicity over nothing. I just don't think either way there is some deep problem with the whole thing as much as I just think the cartoonist may be acting kind of douchey. They issued an apology now, so that's not even as important any more.

[gayzilla]

Intent has nothing to do with it when discussing racism. Most racist, and bigots for that matter, don't realize they are racists or bigots.

And make no doubt about it, this cartoon is extremely racist. The post and this artist have a LOOOOONG history of doing such things.

[The Postmaster General]

It's just a stupid cartoon, all around. I think it's funny too because the writer, when he was defending himself, was like "Well duh! It's about current events! I was only making fun of an exploited animal being killed and drawing parallels between murder and criticizing Nancy Pelosi."

He's just an asshole, no matter how you look at it. If you genuinely think the cartoon is funny, and no one seems to think that it is, then whatever - more power to you.

It's just not a funny cartoon. The fact that their response was to explain the joke, that hammers this point in.




BTW - I saw the sentence I wrote that The Clever Guy was referring to in my earlier post, I just meant to write "the dumbasses" not "the people dumbasses" --- I was giving TCG the benefit of calling the offended parties dumbasses.

[the clever guy]

BTW - I saw the sentence I wrote that The Clever Guy was referring to in my earlier post, I just meant to write "the dumbasses" not "the people dumbasses" --- I was giving TCG the benefit of calling the offended parties dumbasses.

Phew! Otherwise I would have to kill you until you died from it (just watched that movie)!


I think we can all agree that the comic isn't funny, but depending on who you talk, it has varying degrees of offensiveness, no?

[gayzilla]

...
I think we can all agree that the comic isn't funny, but depending on who you talk, it has varying degrees of offensiveness, no?

That's true, but it should be agreed that the opinion of white people as to what is racist to a black person should carry considerably less weight.

[Homyrrh]

That's true, but it should be agreed that the opinion of white people as to what is racist to a black person should carry considerably less weight.
???

[gayzilla]

???

Same thing with being gay. There's not a straight person alive who can tell me what is homophobic and what isn't. Just the idea is totally ridiculous. It has something to do with perspective.

[the clever guy]

Same thing with being gay. There's not a straight person alive who can tell me what is homophobic and what isn't. Just the idea is totally ridiculous. It has something to do with perspective.

Good point.

[Pentangeli]

Same thing with being gay. There's not a straight person alive who can tell me what is homophobic and what isn't. Just the idea is totally ridiculous. It has something to do with perspective.

Not quite. What a person finds offensive is determined by perception. Prejudice is more objective.

[Pentangeli]

but it should be agreed that the opinion of white people as to what is racist to a black person should carry considerably less weight.

Why "should [it] be agreed", considering the statement you wrote is untrue?

[gayzilla]

Why "should [it] be agreed", considering the statement you wrote is untrue?

Please tell me how, in any basis of reality, a straight person can claim to tell me, a gay person, what is homophobic and what isn't? And how on earth can you find the audacity to tell a black person what is racist? I'm very interested in hearing any possible explanation you can concoct.

[the clever guy]

**sits back, feet propped up, with a plate of nachos**


This should be good...

[Pentangeli]

I'm really not looking for another long-winded correspondence regarding an inconsequential matter. I've offered help by explaining where your problem lies, that you're confusing offensiveness with prejudice.

[gayzilla]

I'm really not looking for another long-winded correspondence regarding an inconsequential matter. I've offered help by explaining where your problem lies, that you're confusing offensiveness with prejudice. You're on your own now.

That's OK, i knew you couldn't do the impossible.

BTW, Prejudice is just pre-judging something, while offensiveness is a personal matter, anybody can find something offensive. Though they are related, neither are the same as racism and homophobia.

[Pentangeli]

Originally Posted by gayzilla
BTW, Prejudice is just pre-judging something, while offensiveness is a personal matter, anybody can find something offensive. Though they are related, neither are the same as racism and homophobia.

Quoted for the following reason: After gayzilla -- who claims racism and homophobia aren't prejudices -- re-reads his post, it is likely he will delete it.

[Vong]

I'm basing what I write below on what Pentangeli asserted to:

Racism and homophobia is founded on prejudice. Without prejudice the motivations behind racism and homophobia would be distrust or hatred towards "said people" on the basis of it being, purely, distrust or hatred towards "said people".

You need a reason to be something, and prejudice is a common human trait that gives birth to hundreds of negative attitudes towards a group of people.

[the clever guy]

OK, so before we start getting to the name-calling and whatnot, let's do a little detective work here..


racism
   /ˈreɪsɪzəm/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [rey-siz-uhm]

–noun

1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule 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.




prej-u-dice
   /ˈprɛdʒədɪs/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [prej-uh-dis]

–noun

1. an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason.
2. any preconceived opinion or feeling, either favorable or unfavorable.
3. unreasonable feelings, opinions, or attitudes, esp. of a hostile nature, regarding a racial, religious, or national group.

---taken from dictionary.com


While similar, they're not the same. In some aspects, you can't have racism without prejudice and vice versa. A lot of racism and prejudice is based on perception, both in the victim and the culprit, sometimes simultaneously. Some prejudices, err, pre-dispositions regarding gay people (using your example gayzilla, since you could back me up on this) I wouldn't understand and gayzilla would and vice versa. Suffice it to say, black people share this with, say, white people. A lot of racial and prejudicial boundaries exist between the two (and every other race) that only each individual race would understand.

Take the cartoon, for example. Black people and chimps have been racially interchanged for as long as I know of. It's offensive, it's racist, and it potentially upsets black people. Me, being a white person, doesn't understand that "hate" or "connection," so therefore I don't personally get offended by it. Certain (if not all) racist remarks or prejudice remarks are a matter of perspective. What doesn't offend me could offend another person. But I don't take things offensively or personally because I don't give a shit what people have to say about me. I'm too level-headed of a person, I guess. If someone wants to call me a name or some racial comment regarding me being white...so be it, I'll just fucking laugh about it. I've dealt with it being undercover security at various retail outlets, and apparently the thieves I've caught shoplifting, which just so happen to be of another race, call me a racist and a "slave driver" (don't get the connection, but whatever). My laughing doesn't help dissipate the situation, but that's their problem.


Hopefully my rambling didn't confuse anyone. In fact, upon re-reading my ramble, I've managed to confuse myself. So whatever. Take it or leave it. Let's just keep this a, uhhhhhh, civil argument (temporarily forgetting that this the 'politics' forum). Wow. Just rereading what I wrote again...honestly, I have no idea how I came up with what I did. :confused:

[Pentangeli]

Gayzilla claims:
There's not a straight person alive who can tell me what is homophobic and what isn't.
and:
it should be agreed that the opinion of white people as to what is racist to a black person should carry considerably less weight.
and:
Though [prejudice is] related, [it is not] the same as racism and homophobia.

The Clever Guy, am I right in saying that you agree with him?

[gayzilla]

Quoted for the following reason: After gayzilla -- who claims racism and homophobia aren't prejudices -- re-reads his post, it is likely he will delete it -- if indeed he understands the definition of homophobia and racism, and doesn't wish to appear moronic.

Just to educate you a bit, I never said that racism and homophobia are not prejudices, I said racism and homophobia are not the exact same thing as prejudice. And there is no bigger waste of time (and a distraction to the argument) than arguing semantics. racism and homophobia are forms of prejudice just like inches and meters are measurements...and I'm going to stop right there because I just read the clever guy's response and I couldn't say it better. (and the name suddednly seems very apropos)

Now rather than arguing the semantics of how we define said terms, I'm still waiting for a rational explanation of how one can presume to tell members of another race what is and isn't racism to them? And how a straight person can presume to tell a gay person what is homophobic as your post directly above appears to suggest you think you can do (which is quite shocking actually)

Oh, and maybe to keep with YOUR tone I should add, as long as you don't wish to appear moronic ;)

[Jon Lyrik]

Intent has nothing to do with it when discussing racism. Most racist, and bigots for that matter, don't realize they are racists or bigots.

And make no doubt about it, this cartoon is extremely racist. The post and this artist have a LOOOOONG history of doing such things.

Basically. I mean, I'd like to them the benefit of the doubt, but after seeing the kind of racism the notion of Obama's presidency has flung out into the open, my brain is saying "no".

[Pentangeli]

There's not a straight person alive who can tell me what is homophobic and what isn't.
it should be agreed that the opinion of white people as to what is racist to a black person should carry considerably less weight.
Though [prejudice is] related, [it is not] the same as racism and homophobia.

So no joke, you actually believe all that?

[the clever guy]

The Clever Guy, am I right in saying that you agree with him?


To a degree, yes. But also, to a degree, I can agree with some points you've made. But in one way or another, attacking him based on his opinions and/or views isn't cool. The opinion I agree most with is my own, hence it being my opinion. But whether I agree with gayzilla or you shouldn't rationalize who is right in this argument. What I do (or like to, at least) is take points from varying opinions and views and construct them into what I agree with.

With gayzilla being, well, gay, I can take what he has to say with opinions regarding points and arguments regarding the gay community a little better than, say, even myself who isn't gay. Does that mean everything gayzilla says about the gay community is canon and therefore is the concrete, no-bullshit answer? No. Same with if someone was black. I would obviously take their opinions with more grains of salt than someone like me who is white. Taking gayzilla's quote:

it should be agreed that the opinion of white people as to what is racist to a black person should carry considerably less weight.

I might have worded it a little differently, but the general concensus (sp?) is, in my opinion, right. Who am I, a white person, to tell someone else, a black person, what is offensive to THEIR race. Same thing if the coin was flipped. This point that gayzilla made, I do agree with.

[Homyrrh]

I think I jumped into this too late, someone's claiming that only a certian demographic may know what is offensive? I'm not sure I can comprehend that. I understand "nigger" is offensive to blacks and "fag" is usually offensive to homosexuals; albeit basic, these still seem fundamental in how they are mutually perceived as racist or homophobic. I can tell you what a homophobe looks like regardless of whether I'm a homo or I'm not...

*-If you meant to propagate some other argument, I apologize, but I can't fathom what I'm reading.

[the clever guy]

Sorry, I guess what I meant to say is that anyone can see anything as offensive, but to understand the degree of it would, more or less, be determined by the victim. I'm not saying only blacks are offended by certain words or gays are offended by certain words, but anyone can be offended by anything. It's all a matter of perspective, in my opinion. But the views on what is offensive to a certain demographic are mostly understood and relatable to said demographic. Anyone can interpret something as offensive, but the victims, I think, interpret that meaning in a "closer to the heart" type of way that the culprit doesn't get. Does that make any sense? It sounded better in my head and of course my thoughts got jumbled together.

[gayzilla]

I think I jumped into this too late, someone's claiming that only a certian demographic may know what is offensive? I'm not sure I can comprehend that. I understand "nigger" is offensive to blacks and "fag" is usually offensive to homosexuals; albeit basic, these still seem fundamental in how they are mutually perceived as racist or homophobic. I can tell you what a homophobe looks like regardless of whether I'm a homo or I'm not...

*-If you meant to propagate some other argument, I apologize, but I can't fathom what I'm reading.

If you are confused, then try this test. Go up to an African-American person. Any African-American will do and ask them this question. "Do you accept the fact that I as a white person can dictate what you as a black person may find racist"?

1. If you even think the above question is remotely acceptable then you may use this as a learning opportunity...You are Dead Wrong. THis is not a matter of opinion, in the same way it's not an opinion that if you purposely slam a door in someones face you are being rude. It's not a provable fact, but a fact of decent society none-the-less.

And Petangeli has now been officially Pwnd!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

as you still have neglected to make a point

I'm still waiting for a rational explanation of how one can presume to tell members of another race what is and isn't racism to them? And how a straight person can presume to tell a gay person what is homophobic as your post directly above appears to suggest you think you can do (which is quite shocking actually)


Let me just add that It's no surprise that somebody who finds the fact that gay people have families as "An absolute disgrace", "Sickening", "a disgusting brand of totalitarianism" and continually refer to gay couples as not being normal is completely unfit to judge what is and isn't homophobic.

I can tell you what a homophobe looks like regardless of whether I'm a homo or I'm not...

It's easy when it's as obvious as the above, but let me inform you that there are many situations you know nothing about and are not properly equipped to judge, just as there are situations which I am not equipped to judge. You can live with family members for thirty years and not realize they are homophobic (or racist) until something happens to bring their dark side to the surface.

[gayzilla]

I think I jumped into this too late, someone's claiming that only a certian demographic may know what is offensive?

No, that's not what I'm saying at all, each individual has the ability to decide what they do or don't find offensive. What I'm saying is that white people have no business telling black people what they can and can't find to be racist.

[Homyrrh]

No, that's not what I'm saying at all, each individual has the ability to decide what they do or don't find offensive. What I'm saying is that white people have no business telling black people what they can and can't find to be racist.
I think you're being a bit extreme...I can't tell a black man what should(n't) offend him, but I have a very wholesome idea of what does. Also, do refer to just blacks, or to other racial/ethnic groups as well?

[the clever guy]

I think you're being a bit extreme...I can't tell a black man what should(n't) offend him, but I have a very wholesome idea of what does. Also, do refer to just blacks, or to other racial/ethnic groups as well?

I would assume any and all, and that the use of blacks is only being used given the basic premise of this thread (at least in my examples).

[The Postmaster General]

I think you can be offended by something without it being an insult directed toward your group.

gayzilla, assuming you are white, are you saying that if you were in a room with a bunch of white guys, using racist language, you wouldn't be offended?

[gayzilla]

I can only related to racism against african-americans as an abstract becuase, though I can imagine what it may be like, truth be told I, (and any other white person alive) have no idea what it's like to walk in somebody elses shoes. So I tend to speak toward homophobia because I have seen and felt it rear it's ugly head all to often.

But for arguments sake, I feel the terms racism, homophobia, anti-semitism can be interchangable, in this instance as they don't change the result of the discussion

Now as clever guy has pointed out, I was not elected official representative of the gay community so I only really speak for myself in these instances

I have also lived in the Bronx NY for a couple years so I can also speak as to what it's like as a white person being the minority in a primarily black or spanish neighborhood.

I think you can be offended by something without it being an insult directed toward your group.

gayzilla, assuming you are white, are you saying that if you were in a room with a bunch of white guys, using racist language, you wouldn't be offended?

to your first sentence, Yes you can and vice versa. Like I have gay friends who recognize the f-g word as homophobic but are not offended when they hear it, and sometimes toss it around themselves.

As a white guy in a room with a bunch of other white guys I do feel offense if they start using racist language. I look down on people who use the N-word or speak negatively about other people.

However, it does not hurt nearly as much as when I hear people use the F-g word or Queer. I get a knot in my chest, my heart pinches and my stomach starts rumbling. You can feel your will and soul shrink as if struck. That is the main difference. There is a different physical reaction to bigoted language directed at a member of a minority that someone not on the recieving end can't understand. When people gather in mobs and use certain words while trying to kill members of a community they take on a meaning that just can't be understood by everyone.

If I were in a room with a bunch of rednecks and they started saying "N-word this", and "Jew that", yes I would be offended but if they started saying "those Queers" or "Fucking F---ots", I would not only be offended but I would fear for my life.

On the other hand, when I read (here and on far too many other sites) people use the term Gay to describe something negatively, as in "that's so gay" I always get offended. However it may not necessarily be homophobic, but just come from a place of ignorance and a limited vocabulary. And If I do read such, you will ALWAYS see my call out said offender. But it does not cause the same actual physical pain as other words do.

So, if your not jewish, you have no business trying to define anti-semitism to somebody who is. I'm also Italian, and I love mob movies, but it's not my place to tell other Italians that they can't be offended by them. Everyone is entitled to their feelings.

But back to my original point. When it comes to racism, black people are far more qualified than any white person to decide what is racist to a black person. I'm sure there are black grandmothers out there who have worked in departments stores and other labor jobs during the civil rights struggle of the 60's. I know they have worked hard despite discrimination and may have heard a bunch of white people use the term Monkey do describe their race, and I'm also sure a few of them may have even cried after seeing that cartoon that ran in the NY post. Unless you have been there yourself, you can only TRY to emphasize with the actual pain such discrimination can cause.

[Pentangeli]

So, if your not jewish, you have no business trying to define anti-semitism to somebody who is.
Incorrect.

it's not my place to tell other Italians that they can't be offended by them.
Correct.

When it comes to racism, black people are far more qualified than any white person to decide what is racist to a black person.
Incorrect.


You're still confusing Offensiveness with Prejudice.

Prejudices, such as racism and homophobia, can be viewed objectively. The ethnicity and sexuality of an individual is not relevant to them understanding what is racist and homophobic. We're all equally "qualified" in knowing what is anti-semitic, and what is homophobic, etc.

[gayzilla]

Incorrect.


Correct.


Incorrect.


You're still confusing Offensiveness with Prejudice.

Prejudices, such as racism and homophobia, can be viewed objectively. The ethnicity and sexuality of an individual is not relevant to them understanding what is racist and homophobic. We're all equally "qualified" in knowing what is anti-semitic, and what is homophobic, etc.

You are completely wrong and should just chalk this up as a learning experience. You have given no reason nor basis as to why you presume that you can tell an african-american what is racist to them. If you still think you are correct then I STRONGLY suggest you follow my exercise

Go up to an African-American person. Any African-American will do and ask them this question. "Do you accept the fact that I as a white person can dictate what you as a black person may find racist"?


I bet you'll find it impossible to find anyone who will answer yes to you. BUt when they say "no" and you tell them they are wrong, I would LOVE to be there to see it. Hell, I'd love to be there just to see the reaction when you ask the question

[Preston_79]

As a white guy in a room with a bunch of other white guys I do feel offense if they start using racist language. I look down on people who use the N-word or speak negatively about other people.




It really just depends in what context you use harmful words. I won't tell people what shouldn't offend them, but I use words that could potentially offend others on almost a daily bases.:D

I would never call a black man a "nigger", or even be so bold/stupid to say "nigga" and follow it up with, but I added an a on the end so it's not bad. However, I'm guilty of saying "Whadup nigga" to many of my white friends. Friends mind you, that know I'm using it as a term of endearment. I've also called my friends fags and homos, and they say the same to me. It's all in fun. I do have a couple gay friends and out of consideration for them I don't use those words when I'm around them. Some people would want me to stop using these words all together, but odds are these people have never actually heard me say these things becuase they aren't friends of mine and they can eat a dick.

Just speaking negatively about others doesn't bother me. People have negative opinions and why should they keep it to themself. It's lame when I hear "If you won't say it to me face, then don't say it at all." What has saying it to someone's face ever done accept turn things into a fight?

[Pentangeli]

You are completely wrong and should just chalk this up as a learning experience. You have given no reason nor basis as to why you presume that you can tell an african-american what is racist to them. If you still think you are correct then I STRONGLY suggest you follow my exercise

Hey everyone, apparently no one other than black people know what's racist to a black person. That really is laughable.

If you said: "nobody can tell a black person (or any other person) what's offensive to them", you'd be right. But once again you're confusing offensiveness with prejudice.

Go ahead and reply, keep digging yourself in even deeper. I suspect you realise your error, but you're unfortunately headstrong and can't admit you're wrong.

I'm done with you kid. You're a lost cause.

[gayzilla]

Hey everyone, apparently no one other than black people know what's racist to a black person. That really is laughable.




I said Black people are more qualified than white people to know the above, if you disagree, you are sadly ignorant, I'm not sure if it's upbrining, the area you live in, or the extreme prejudice you have already demonstrated.




If you said: "nobody can tell a black person (or any other person) what's offensive to them", you'd be right. But once again you're confusing offensiveness with prejudice.






I am not, Clever provided definition and I agreed, YOU are the one who repeatedly avoids the argument that there is a nuanced difference between what is racist, homophobic and what is offensive. BUt after reading your posts, nobody expects you to understand Nuance.




I'm done with you kid. You're a lost cause.

And it's funny how you can't argue your point so you try to deflect the argument toward semantics. Most people just run away from a losing argument just like yourself, but hey, most of us thank you.

http://www.duke.edu/~mre6/PWNED!.JPG


I'm still hoping for you to try the exercise I suggest, which you have conveniently tried to avoid.

[Vong]

It's interesting how this thread has turned into an argument on the nature and etymology of "racism", but sad how it's turned out so ugly.

Gayzilla (fantastic choice of nickname btw), I want to understand your excercise alittle more.

Go up to an African-American person. Any African-American will do and ask them this question. "Do you accept the fact that I as a white person can dictate what you as a black person may find racist"?

When you say that a white person is not capable of suggesting to a black person what is racist to them, are you suggesting that White People are incapable of understanding or empathizing with Black people of what is racist to them? If that's the case, you would be at fault.

Take for example an Irish White person. Black people may have had a shitty history, but so did the Irish. Now let's introduce into your excercise a White Irish person asking a Black person if they can suggest what they may find racist to a black person. Since the Irish has experienced racial hatred just as badly as Black people in the past, surely they can understand what it feels to be treated unfairly.

My point is that people who understand racism can understand what is racist to a different group because they have experienced the same kind of hardship and mistreatment as the other group. And I can bet you anything that if a White Irish man were to meet a Black person for the first time during the years of slavery, I wouldn't put it past the mind of the Irish man to know why that Black person was being mistreated unfairly. But this point is only used if you believe we (as White people) cannot understand what is racist to black people. If not, you may disregard it.

[gayzilla]

When you say that a white person is not capable of suggesting to a black person what is racist to them, are you suggesting that White People are incapable of understanding or empathizing with Black people of what is racist to them? If that's the case, you would be at fault.


No, that's not what I'm suggesting at all, as your analogy on the irish is valid. As many people can empathise, especially those of another minority. But if you do a focus group with 5 white people and 5 black people and present different scenarios and ask them to say which are racist. The group of 5 black people should carry much more weight than what the group of 5 black people say. White peoples knowledge of racism can usually only be secondary as they have not themselves experienced it. As far as I am concerned, the group that has experienced something is far more qualified to judge it then a group who just may have heard about something.

THe only way to fully understand something is to actually go through it. its why we have the phrase "...walk a mile in their shoes" . And the word Fully is very important above. A white person can presume to understand racism, but believe me, there is no way a white person can FULLY understand racism and how it feels unless they went through it. I understand prejudice as I have experienced it, which makes me aware that I can only fully understand homophobia, I am not jewish so I have no place defining anti-semitism. A black person can understand racism, but many are guilty of spreading homophobia and anti-semitism. But because i have experienced prejudice I can empathise with others who have experienced racism, but my life experiences, and those of everyone else who is not black, do not give us the tools to FULLY understand how it makes one feel.

IF you think you do, let me inform you, you are wrong. You can only understand such as an abstract until you've actually been through it.

But my main point is that it's not the place of white people to tell black people that they can't see something as racist, and I bet every black person would agree, hence the suggestd exercies.




Take for example an Irish White person. Black people may have had a shitty history, but so did the Irish. Now let's introduce into your excercise a White Irish person asking a Black person if they can suggest what they may find racist to a black person. Since the Irish has experienced racial hatred just as badly as Black people in the past, surely they can understand what it feels to be treated unfairly.

My point is that people who understand racism can understand what is racist to a different group because they have experienced the same kind of hardship and mistreatment as the other group. And I can bet you anything that if a White Irish man were to meet a Black person for the first time during the years of slavery, I wouldn't put it past the mind of the Irish man to know why that Black person was being mistreated unfairly. But this point is only used if you believe we (as White people) cannot understand what is racist to black people. If not, you may disregard it.

Again, to go back to my main point, if a group of black people go "yo, that's some racist shit man", it's inappropriate for a white guy to go, no you people are wrong, that is not racist" as the group of black people are more qualified to judge such.

[Pentangeli]

Gayzilla, I don't mean any offense by this, but you mentioned you're Italian and so I was wondering if English was your first language?

[gayzilla]

Gayzilla, I don't mean any offense by this, but you mentioned you're Italian and so I was wondering if English was your first language?

I am a former writer for a major weekly magazine and newspaper in New York and San Francisco. And I'll state again that I don't think there is a bigger waste of time than arguing semantics which is what you seem prone to do. English is my first language, do you live in the USA?

[Pentangeli]

It's not a matter of semantics.

Here are a few quotes from Gayzilla:
There's not a straight person alive who can tell me what is homophobic and what isn't.
it should be agreed that the opinion of white people as to what is racist to a black person should carry considerably less weight.
Though [prejudice is] related, [it is not] the same as racism and homophobia.
So, if your not jewish, you have no business trying to define anti-semitism to somebody who is.
When it comes to racism, black people are far more qualified than any white person to decide what is racist to a black person.

You actually believe all that. Some people here were even nice enough to offer you a way out of this, but you didn't take it.

Of course non-Jews can define anti-semitism. Everyone is equally able, irrespective of their race, to know the definition of anti-semitism, and what constitutes anti-semitism.

Only a homosexual will know what it's like to be subject to homophobia, and individual gays will react differently to it. But the rest of us still know the definition of homophobia. A homosexual might feel it's homophobic if they don't get a specific job, but they're not necessarily correct, there might be other reasons. The definition of homophobia is not something an individual can make up as they go along. The definition of homophobia is simply any proven act (verbal or physical) of prejudice towards homosexuals, and, or homosexuality. That definition is something we all have the ability of knowing.

I'll give you another way out of this:

* Do you agree that everyone, regardless of sexuality, are equally able to understand the definition of homophobia?
* Do you agree that everyone, regardless of race, are equally able to understand the definition of anti-semitism?
* Do you agree that anti-semitism and homophobia are forms of prejudice?

[gayzilla]

* Do you agree that everyone, regardless of sexuality, are equally able to understand the definition of homophobia?
* Do you agree that everyone, regardless of race, are equally able to understand the definition of anti-semitism?
* Do you agree that anti-semitism and homophobia are forms of prejudice?

Dude, I'm not the one who needs a way out of this, besides, I thought you were done with this conversation several posts ago. I guess we can add self-contradicting to your set of qualities.

*everyone regardless of sexuality is NOT EQUALLY able to understand the definition of homophobia. As you yourself are probably not ready to admit the blatant homophobia you have displayed in other threads.

*Everyone regardless of race is NOT EQUALLY able to understand racism as somebody who has experienced it is far more qualified than somebody who hasn't.

And yes, anti-semitism and homophobia are examples of prejudice though their definitions are far from interchangeable.

Maybe if you watch Deep Impact it will help paint a clearer picture for you. The young pilots can fly all the flight simulations in the world, but it will NEVER give them the same experience as the old Veteran who actually landed on the moon.

If you are white and think you are equally capable of defining racism for someone who is African-American you are wrong and should learn to accept that. (though I have a strong feeling you never will) it's OK the world needs ditch-diggers too.

Ofcourse white people can indentify racism and even sometimes recognize it, but somebody who has experienced it is far more qualified. How do you not understand that...Hello, is this thing on, it feels like I'm typing to a brick wall, but I guess that part is my fault for trying to illuminate.

BUt dude, seriously, you need to learn how to argue a point better. I've counted 4 times in this thread where you attempted to attacked me personally and (as you have said to others) that is definitely worthy of a warning if not banishment.

[Preston_79]

Of course white people can indentify racism and even sometimes recognize it, but somebody who has experienced it is far more qualified.


Wait one cotton pickin' minute. White people have the same ability to identify and recognize racism as anyone else.

[gayzilla]

Wait one cotton pickin' minute. White people have the same ability to identify and recognize racism as anyone else.

Thanks for illustrating my point.

[Preston_79]

Thanks for illustrating my point.

Yeah that was a joke Gay.

Seriously though, you think no one discriminates against a white person? Shit I've been discriminated against plenty. What world do you live in where white people only read things in books, but haven't experienced it in real life, cuz it's not Earth?

[gayzilla]

Oh yeah your 100% right, the flipside is completely true. Like I mentioned when I lived in the bronx. Nobody would sell me a bag of weed on the street, they all thought I was a cop. That is racism against a white person. And I am more qualified than a black person in that instance. Though we can all commiserate and empathise, but you never really know until you walk a mile in someone elses shoes.

Also, I've been overweight and thin. I gotta say the prejudice against big people is far more rampant and less subtle than the homophobia I have experienced.

[the clever guy]

I'm just gonna step in here really quick and say that a lot of things being said between everyone regarding the situation needs to "simma down now." Although I'm not the mod of this thread, I think we all can agree on one thing: this thread has gone WAY of track. I don't want to see any of you getting banned over some stupid shit being said in this thread. I'm not pointing any fingers at anyone at all, but a finger might be pointed later on if someone says something they're not supposed to to someone else and they say something, and the next thing you know, we have a banning on our hands. So please, as a mod and friend, I ask 'can't we all just along?'


Seriously, though...this is going to be an endless argument that can end in one of 3 ways: thread closed, just stop arguing over it all together, or someone saying some stupid shit and not being able to post anymore.

[Preston_79]

Fuck. Let's try not to make any personal attacks or be insulting so this thread doesn't get closed. Were all adults. Even if we can't come to an agreement doesn't mean we can't debate sensitive issues right? I fucking hate it when a moderator shuts down a thread because of peoples feelings so let's have thick skin and carry on.

[The Postmaster General]

It's a lot like saying that people who have never been the victims of home invasion can never understand what it's liked being robbed. At the same time though, someone who's never had their home invaded might be fearful of having their home invaded. While they will never understand the actual fear of being victimized, they surely understand "a" fear. In the same way, I think being a victim of racism is just that - being a victim. Sure, only a victim knows what it's like to be victimized, but that doesn't mean people surrounding them can't empathize and have fears and opinions derived from their experiences.

I think this concept is pretty simple and is being overcomplicated here through exaggeration and blanket statements.

gayzille - someone not selling you weed is a racist act? Are you fucking serious, man? Maybe it wasn't so much that you were white, but that you looked like a narc. Just a thought. I've never in my entire life have heard of street dealers being racially elitist. That's probably the most ridiculous drug anecdote I've ever heard. Seriously. Even if they did flat-out tell you it was because you were white, I'm going to take the step here and presume they were trying to be polite.

[the clever guy]

gayzille - someone not selling you weed is a racist act? Are you fucking serious, man? Maybe it wasn't so much that you were white, but that you looked like a narc. Just a thought. I've never in my entire life have heard of street dealers being racially elitist. That's probably the most ridiculous drug anecdote I've ever heard. Seriously. Even if they did flat-out tell you it was because you were white, I'm going to take the step here and presume they were trying to be polite.

I'm with Bubba on this one, Gayzilla. When you mentioned that, I honestly couldn't find any racial connection whatsoever. Maybe just a flat-out fear of being caught would be the best and possibly only way to explain that situation.

[gayzilla]

"They won't sell to white people in this neighborhood" is what I was told by a friend who was kind enough to hook me up.

I was denied something simply because of my race...sounds racist to me. But it didn't bother me or offend me though either. You usually get screwed buying bud off the street. I was only half way serious about the analogy and displayed it mostly as a joke.

[gayzilla]

I think this concept is pretty simple and is being overcomplicated here through exaggeration and blanket statements.



And yes, I am very guilty of using absolutist language and blanket statements. I am quite prone to hyperbole and exaggeration. Isn't that what the internets are for? :p

Sorry if it clouds an issue, that's why I push for arguing the point and the meaning and not the words and language used, that just wastes time.

[The Postmaster General]

"They won't sell to white people in this neighborhood" is what I was told by a friend who was kind enough to hook me up.

I was denied something simply because of my race...sounds racist to me. But it didn't bother me or offend me though either. You usually get screwed buying bud off the street. I was only half way serious about the analogy and displayed it mostly as a joke.


So wait, was your friend told this, eg "No whites allowed to buy drugs here"? If they are only presuming that as being the case, that could be seen as an equally racial comment.

I mean, this just sounds totally insane the more I think about it. The drug dealers are racist. They don't harass you, don't take your money and run, don't rob you after you let them know you have money, they let you walk around the neighborhood where they do business, they let you talk to them about them selling drugs, they let you stand around them while you do business --- but fuck man, will the drug dealer sell you drugs? No way! They are too racist to do that!!!

With all due respect, I hope you understand my skepticism here.

[gayzilla]

So wait, was your friend told this, eg "No whites allowed to buy drugs here"? If they are only presuming that as being the case, that could be seen as an equally racial comment.

I mean, this just sounds totally insane the more I think about it. The drug dealers are racist. They don't harass you, don't take your money and run, don't rob you after you let them know you have money, they let you walk around the neighborhood where they do business, they let you talk to them about them selling drugs, they let you stand around them while you do business --- but fuck man, will the drug dealer sell you drugs? No way! They are too racist to do that!!!

With all due respect, I hope you understand my skepticism here.

First off, your confusing kids selling weed with thieves and thugs, they are not the same. And if a restaurant puts up a sign that says whites only, they don't have to rob black people, stop them from walking around the neighborhood or infringe apon their business to be racist.

I don't know if you ever bought weed off the street, but there's not much talking that goes on. Sometimes none, but as you require more details, here they are. I used to live on 167th and Tremont in the Bronx, almost no other white people around. I complained to my roommate (a dominican) that the guys selling bud on the corner wouldn't even look at me and I couldn't score a bag. He said "Dude, you can't do that, your a white guy, they won't sell to a white guy in this neighborhood". We then made a joke how atleast I didn't have a Yankees hat or shirt on as almost all undercover in NY sport Yankess stuff. So he called his friend and gave me a hook-up.

Call it what you will, but isn't the fact that I was denied something because of my race the definition of racism? And they don't have to be racist themselves to commit a racist act. atleast I think. If a waitress works in a whites only rest. and wants to serve black people but can't because of the rules, is she a racist. I'm not sure, what do you think on that one?

[Preston_79]

It's a lot like saying that people who have never been the victims of home invasion can never understand what it's liked being robbed. At the same time though, someone who's never had their home invaded might be fearful of having their home invaded. While they will never understand the actual fear of being victimized, they surely understand "a" fear. In the same way, I think being a victim of racism is just that - being a victim. Sure, only a victim knows what it's like to be victimized, but that doesn't mean people surrounding them can't empathize and have fears and opinions derived from their experiences.

I think this concept is pretty simple and is being overcomplicated here through exaggeration and blanket statements.

gayzille - someone not selling you weed is a racist act? Are you fucking serious, man? Maybe it wasn't so much that you were white, but that you looked like a narc. Just a thought. I've never in my entire life have heard of street dealers being racially elitist. That's probably the most ridiculous drug anecdote I've ever heard. Seriously. Even if they did flat-out tell you it was because you were white, I'm going to take the step here and presume they were trying to be polite.

This is right along with what I was thinking. You don't need to be discriminated against to feel shame, anger, embarrassment. All of us have felt these emotions. You don't have to walk in another man's shoes to understand what that's like. How those emotions come about is something different entirely, but the end result is the same.

[Preston_79]

First off, your confusing kids selling weed with thieves and thugs, they are not the same. And if a restaurant puts up a sign that says whites only, they don't have to rob black people, stop them from walking around the neighborhood or infringe apon their business to be racist.

I don't know if you ever bought weed off the street, but there's not much talking that goes on. Sometimes none, but as you require more details, here they are. I used to live on 167th and Tremont in the Bronx, almost no other white people around. I complained to my roommate (a dominican) that the guys selling bud on the corner wouldn't even look at me and I couldn't score a bag. He said "Dude, you can't do that, your a white guy, they won't sell to a white guy in this neighborhood". We then made a joke how atleast I didn't have a Yankees hat or shirt on as almost all undercover in NY sport Yankess stuff. So he called his friend and gave me a hook-up.

Call it what you will, but isn't the fact that I was denied something because of my race the definition of racism? And they don't have to be racist themselves to commit a racist act. atleast I think. If a waitress works in a whites only rest. and wants to serve black people but can't because of the rules, is she a racist. I'm not sure, what do you think on that one?


Ahhhhh, weed. We should talk more about our mutual love for the gonj, something we could probably all agree on.

[gayzilla]

Sure, only a victim knows what it's like to be victimized, but that doesn't mean people surrounding them can't empathize and have fears and opinions derived from their experiences.



Then wouldn't you agree, that if somebody was doing a study on victimization, they would get a clearer picture if they spoke with an actual victim as opposed to somebody who just empathised and imagined what it was like to be a victim?

[The Postmaster General]

First off, your confusing kids selling weed with thieves and thugs, they are not the same. And if a restaurant puts up a sign that says whites only, they don't have to rob black people, stop them from walking around the neighborhood or infringe apon their business to be racist.

I don't know if you ever bought weed off the street, but there's not much talking that goes on. Sometimes none, but as you require more details, here they are. I used to live on 167th and Tremont in the Bronx, almost no other white people around. I complained to my roommate (a dominican) that the guys selling bud on the corner wouldn't even look at me and I couldn't score a bag. He said "Dude, you can't do that, your a white guy, they won't sell to a white guy in this neighborhood". We then made a joke how atleast I didn't have a Yankees hat or shirt on as almost all undercover in NY sport Yankess stuff. So he called his friend and gave me a hook-up.

Call it what you will, but isn't the fact that I was denied something because of my race the definition of racism? And they don't have to be racist themselves to commit a racist act. atleast I think. If a waitress works in a whites only rest. and wants to serve black people but can't because of the rules, is she a racist. I'm not sure, what do you think on that one?

I've only bought weed off the streets in Miami and I'm sure it's a lot more laid back that it is in New York City. We don't need to swap spit-stories here. Your more details told me the same thign you already had - you tried to buy weed on the street, they wouldn't sell to you, and your roommate (not African American) said it was because you were white. Okay.

I'm not confusing thieves and thugs with kids. If drug dealers work openly in a neighborhood, they have familiarization with that neighborhood. You are telling me the drug dealers are racist, and I'm pointing out to you that they aren't that racist if you made it in and out of their area without getting shit on about your race.

Obviously you aren't going to agree with me, because you've invested too much weight into your story about being the victim of racism during a dime bag buy, but whatever man. I think you and your Dominican friend are making unwarranted conclusions, which also seem to defy the better sense, and if I were going to bet money, it had more to do with them thinking you were trouble than it had to do with you being white. If you being white was what they thought caused the trouble, that makes no difference, it isn't the same thing as racism.


Then wouldn't you agree, that if somebody was doing a study on victimization, they would get a clearer picture if they spoke with an actual victim as opposed to somebody who just empathised and imagined what it was like to be a victim?

Why wouldn't I agree with that? You were the one initially seeming to deny that there were no levels of perceived offense by people not being targeted by prejudice.

[gayzilla]

I've only bought weed off the streets in Miami and I'm sure it's a lot more laid back that it is in New York City. We don't need to swap spit-stories here. Your more details told me the same thign you already had - you tried to buy weed on the street, they wouldn't sell to you, and your roommate (not African American) said it was because you were white. Okay.

I'm not confusing thieves and thugs with kids. If drug dealers work openly in a neighborhood, they have familiarization with that neighborhood. You are telling me the drug dealers are racist, and I'm pointing out to you that they aren't that racist if you made it in and out of their area without getting shit on about your race.

That area I made it in and out of was my own neighborhood, as I lived there too. And you can be in a racist situation without getting shit on about your race. That proves my whole point, while anybody can easily tell the most blatant obvious forms of racism, it also rears its ugly head in many subtle nuanced ways that people who are victims of will recognize long before anybody else.

My roommate and the drug dealers and most everyone in the neighborhood are Dominican, (which contains african descendancy, but that is neither here nor there) he was told they won't sell to white people by the dealers who are his friends. It's not what we are making of the situation, it's what we were told. and i never said it was an extreme form of racism. Granted, it's probably the most mild form of racism, but if you are denied something because of your race, I count that as racism.