Why is it OK to make caricatures of Trump, but not blacks, Mexicans or Chinese?

Like thinking "orange" is a race?

 

That's only the tip of the iceberg. You also were not taught anything. The promised instruction did not take place. You paid your "tuition" in advance and received nothing in return. The whole school was a complete fraud.

 

They think caveat emptor is ALL THEY DESERVE. And they are ruining any consumer protections, to prove it.

 

Where did you hear this? I read the wiki article about it, and there's no mention of people paying tuition and not receiving anything in return.

 

Obama had a small face with big ears, drawing him as a chimpanzee is not automatically racist.

 

Why is it okay to make a caricature of the president, but not an entire ethnicity?

Is that a serious question?

 

Yes, it was because for many years blacks were depicted as monkeys. It was used to demean blacks....and it is racist.



Is ANYTHNG racist to you? Do you really think racism doesn't exist?

 

Were there any as cover pages on magazines?

 

I don't know but magazines have every right to free speech and expression....so maybe they didn't hate Obama like they hate the President Oinky

 

Why is anything people 100 years ago did revelant to my intent in the here and now?

Granted, there certainly are racists out there who would use such caricatures for racist purposes and they should be called out, I dispute the hidden assumption that anyone who isn't racist wouldn't draw such a caricature out of deference to the wrongs of the past.

The desire to abolish context is strong.

 

Why is it OK to make caricatures of Trump, but not blacks, Mexicans or Chinese?

Please type in "Obama Cartoon" in your search engine. You can also replace the word Obama with Vicinte Fox. Mao, Kim Jun Un....pick anyone you wish.

 

Racism didn't end 100 years ago....and how blacks were treated throughout this country's history IS relevant to today.

Just excuses...

 

It is certainly relevant, but there are clearly contexts in which expression YOU consider racist is not intended to be so. Intent matters. Context matters.

I know verifiable non-racists who have gone to fancy dress parties in full blackface. Went as Nelson Mandela in fact. The year before he went as Dolly Parton, complete with a dress and blonde hair.

Before he went I told him about the history of blackface and his response was thats not at all what he's intending. He simply wanted to play the part to a T.

Maybe one should abandon such good intentions out of deference to the horrors of the past. He disagreed. But it's not enough for him to simply disagree that it's on him to be sensitive, you need to ascribe the malicious intent to him.

Translation: "you're a racist and are just using this to provide cover"

Since I know myself, and know that I am innocent of what you imply, it's difficult for me to take you seriously.

 

UH, NO, the victims and targets of racism get to decide, not the person who has never faced the horrors of racism and so blows it off....

Slave owners couldn't see what they were doing wrong either.

Perfect translation.

Then you could always quit responding...

Lots of racist don't know when they are being or expressing racism...

 

Well you certainly have a valid point LMFAO

 

Anyone can claim whatever they like. You don't get to decide my intent. Maybe I'm lying about my intent, so there should be healthy debate. Your skin colour does not enshrine your opinion in truth.

There is no context in which slavery is permissible. There are contexts in which drawing caricatures is permissible.

So quick to move to the ad hominems and libel. That says more about you than I.

No thanks, I reserve the right to calmly discuss issues in a respectful manner with someone who is maliciously slandering me.

Sadly, the same is not true for those who make defamatory statements. You know what you're doing.

Hit me with a reply when you're ready to talk like an adult.

 

No one? Prove it.

 

NO, I do not have to prove it, the ones claiming he was criticized because of his race need to prove it. They haven't.

 

Uh, weren't we discussing your "friend" ?

No, but it does give them a much more accurate idea of racism than someone who hasn't been discriminated historically and continually as they have.

What? I never mentioned whether slavery was permissible or not...why are you going off on that?

I stated ""Slave owners couldn't see what they were doing wrong either."""

I think you should re read that sentence and find the word "permissible" if you can....

YUP, if it's not racist .

I AGREE with you and you're offended? WTF....I guess you just must want to be offended...

Oh BTW, who decides if you should be offended or not? Me or YOU? ( trick question )

"Hit me with a reply" when you can address:

Lots of racist don't know when they are being or expressing racism...

 

When you think the intent is racist there is a debate and nobody is assumed to be correct because of their skin colour, wherein the burden of proof is on the person making the claim.

Much like how I think you were maliciously fabricating ad hominem attacks. We discuss it on equal terms and reach consensus or irreparable disagreement and that is that.

 

Oh BTW, who decides if you should be offended or not? Me or YOU? ( trick question )




My statement : """Lots of racist don't know when they are being or expressing racism..."""

stands firm and true .

 

I'd like to hear the answer.

 

I think she has made his/her point perfectly

 

I took offense because I considered your position secretly malicious. We then have a discussion over whether it is on equal terms. I don't get to claim truth because I am me and have the most experience of when people are being slanderous towards me.

We either reach consensus, or, as we did, irreparable disagreement.

I agree that people who are being racist don't always admit that they are being racist. When we think this is the case, there is a discussion on equal terms. One side makes a claim, the other retorts with a different claim, and each side makes their case based on the facts at hand.

Having certain physical characteristics doesn't make or break your claim. Its veracity under scrutiny does.

___________________

So for instance, those slave holders who back in the day thought that slavery was benevolent. I would say that that's bullshit and that they harbour malicious intent.

They would presumably defend themselves and I'd point out that freedom is an ideal which cannot be sacrificed for utilitarian notions of bread and games. I'd then point out that the slaves they own are routinely treated in the most horrible of ways and that even absent their right to liberty, the institution is not in their interests.

At no point would my race have anything to do with the veracity of my claims. That I'm right does.

 

Of course they don’t. It takes self proclaiming libs like yourself to tell other people (who you do not know from Adam) what they are saying, thinking, etc.

What would we do without you?