In which a black guy is accused of being a white racist. I guess that’s one of those things that white people like.
Me, I didn’t see it as being about Obama. He didn’t write the bill, after all. The cartoon was obviously about Nancy Pelosi. So I guess it’s sexist. Or botoxist. Or something.
Rand, I found this controversy baffling, and then later frustrating. I agree the cartoon wasn’t about Obama. I was surprised when people told me that it “obviously” was. But I’m also surprised to read that you think it is “obviously” about Pelosi. How could it be? She didn’t write the stimulus bill either!
I think think controversy should remind us is that what is “obvious” to some of us isn’t obvious to the rest of us… … no surprise there!
But I’m also surprised to read that you think it is “obviously” about Pelosi.
It was a joke, Bob. But it’s more about Pelosi than it was about Obama, since she played more of a role than he did.
For what it’s worth, I assumed that the cartoon was actually about the whole goat show on the Hill and the White House.
Sorry to miss the humor, you sexist pig. 😉
Given your clarification, I completely agree with you. How about that!
Sorry to miss the humor, you sexist pig.
Given your clarification, I completely agree with you. How about that!
Rand has a flight?
The Left only has itself to blame. For the last 8 years we’ve been treated to Bush the chimp jokes. The people who associated this with The Big Zero did so because they’ve been indoctrinated to instantly think “President’ when they see a chimp.
I saw it brouhaha the same way as Raoul. No problem calling Bush “Chimpy McHitler”, but use a chimp in an op-ed cartoon when Bush is gone? Racist. I can’t take anybody who argued that was the only interpretation seriously.
Leland, I don’t know if you know this or not but there is a long history of depicting African-Americans as apes. So, while the cartoonist probably wasn’t depicting Obama, it was that history of expressing bigotry that way that came to mind among the people who saw racism. Calling Bush a chimp isn’t really the same thing as calling an African-American an ape. It would be nice if we already lived in a time when it was the same thing, a time when racism was so far in the past that chimp references were obscure, but we aren’t there yet. None of what I just said takes away from Raoul’s rather funny comment.
Actually, blacks have historically been slanderously depicted as monkeys, not apes…
To be honest, I had never heard of the blacks/monkeys thing – I’m still not totally sure where that comes from, but I’m pretty sure I don’t want to know.
Racism is folly. Any modern non-racist society will outperform a modern racist society, fortunately.
One google search of “blacks” & “apes” reveals otherwise.
(http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/americans-still-linking-blacks-apes-15428.html)
Of course, most people don’t really understand the distinction, but I’d guess that drawings of the sort we are talking about will show a simian that looks more like a goriila or a chimpanzee than any monkey.
What a distasteful subject! Maybe we should go back to talking about fascists!
Look at any drawing: the tail tells the tale.
Maybe you’re just not racist enough to be a progg. 😉
The cartoon was unfair. Chimps aren’t greedy megalomaniacs.
> Leland, I don’t know if you know this or not but there is a long history of depicting African-Americans as apes. So, while the cartoonist probably wasn’t depicting Obama, it was that history of expressing bigotry that way that came to mind among the people who saw racism. Calling Bush a chimp isn’t really the same thing as calling an African-American an ape.
If you buy that line of thinking, calling Bush a chimp was calling him an African-American AND saying that being an AA is a bad thing.
Gee that guy seems urbane, sincere and fair. How did he end up on Kos?
Andy sees it the way I did. Seriously, it’s not like Daily Kos doesn’t have a history of calling a President a chimp. Since we are talking about the Daily Kos, that history is far more relevant.
Leland, your logic completely escapes me. Premise 1: African Americans were depicted as chimps. Premise 2: Bush was depicted as a chimp. You can not conclude from these two premises that Bush was depicted as an African American because “depicted as a” is not commutative. You might as well say “all men are mortal”, “Marilyn Monroe is a mortal”, therefore Marilyn Monroe is a man.
McGehee, I know you’re just kidding around, but in fairness, I don’t think the problem here is that (most of) the people outraged by the cartoon are racists. I think the problem is that (most of) the people outraged by the cartoon don’t understand how government works, and genuinely think that this was President Obama’s bill. Or, alternatively, I’ve seen it proposed that the people believed that the cartoonist saw it as Obama’s bill, regardless of their own personal understanding of how laws get made. And of course, it isn’t wrong to say “it is Obama’s bill” – he is putting his reputation on the line with it and is the single person most associated with the bill, which explains the widespread outrage.
Whoops! My lesson in basic logic should have been directed to Andy, not Leland. My apologies.
> My lesson in basic logic should have been directed to Andy, not Leland. My apologies.
The problem with Bob’s argument was not who he addressed it to, but his reasoning.
Insults aren’t “logical” in the sense that Bob is arguing (which is actually simplistic to the point of uselessness). Consider the “chimp/ape” insult. No one actually believes that Bush or AAs are chimps or apes.
> You might as well say “all men are mortal”, “Marilyn Monroe is a mortal”, therefore Marilyn Monroe is a man.
“Nazis are right-wing”. “Republicans are right wing”. -> “Republicans are Nazis”.
Bob may argue that that is “illogical” (and others will point out that Nazis were left-wing, and so are some Repubs), but ….
And then there’s the small fact that Bob isn’t nearly the “fair referee” that his argument requires. Goose, gander and all that.
Bob,
You suggest that referring to Bush as a chimp was ‘in bounds’ (not that you approve of it), but that making the same comment about Obama(PBUH) is ‘out of bounds’ on the basis of historical racial slurs.
With this in mind, could you provide us with an acceptable list of slurs for Obama? I am not being entirely facetious here, as it would seem that almost any less than adulatory reference to “The One” can be attacked as racist by those very people who felt absolutely no inhibition whatsoever in making any number of comments about the previous guy in the Oval Office.
It is almost as if the real purpose of this is to stilfe ANY criticism of Obama. Obviously that isn’t the case though…is it?
Andy, your logic continues to completely bewilder me. That’s right, Republicans aren’t Nazis! It is hard for me to think of an example of the Republicans actually acting like the Nazis. People do call them Nazis, but those people are stupid and wrong.
Also, logic doesn’t require a fair referee, that’s one of the reasons it is so useful.
Scott,
President Bush was called a chimp, I think, because he occasionally inadvertently made faces that struck people as funny, and because his name was “George” which enabled people to make rather gentle “Curious George” jokes early in his presidency. Later in his presidency, the jokes got nastier: Chimpy McHitler, etc. Calling the president Hitler is perfectly legal, thankfully, but you can’t be all that surprised if someone (say, someone who was involved in WWII) gets offended by it. I think making fun of the President’s appearance is childish, but it seems harmless, and maybe it is even helpful in the sense that if you give someone that much power, it is healthy to rib him a bit.
So, isn’t addressing Obama’s status as an African American just another example of making fun of the president’s appearance? Sure, if you completely ignore the history of African Americans in this country, starting with slavery, continuing with present day discrimination, and ending with the fact that most people thought they wouldn’t see an African American president in their lifetime and take a lot of pride in the fact that the color of Obama’s skin, etc didn’t hold back a majority of the American people from electing him as their President.
So, what slurs are acceptable? Well, you could start with the idea that no “slur” is acceptable. But I know what you’re really asking. And I think you know the answer: attacking Obama on the basis that he is black is going to be judged unacceptable by a lot of people, because it is viewed not just as an attack on Obama but an attack on a large group of people who have had to put up with an awful lot. If you want to make a “slur” against Obama, pick up on his personal
idiosyncracies, such as his thoughtful measured speech pattern that many Obama oponents characterize as “uh uh uh”, or perhaps do as many cartoonists do, and make fun of his ears. In his 2004 convention speech, Obama called himself “a skinny kid with a funny name” — seems like that should get you started.
So, no, the real purpose isn’t to stifle
ANY criticism of Obama. The purpose of people taking offense (however misguidedly in my opinion) is that they don’t like racism. Steer clear of racism (and the appearance of racism, which might require knowing the history of racism) and you’ll be fine. Inadvertently screw up? Just explain what you really meant. I advise focusing on the ears.
Shorter more abstract version: Avoid putting down uninvolved groups of people — focus on either on individual quirks or on group membership when such membership is actually relevant.
logic doesn’t require a fair referee, that’s one of the reasons it is so useful.
It requires someone to actually know what logic is… For example:
This:
That’s right, Republicans aren’t Nazis! It is hard for me to think of an example of the Republicans actually acting like the Nazis.
is followed up by this:
Later in his presidency, the jokes got nastier: Chimpy McHitler, etc. Calling the president Hitler is perfectly legal, thankfully
If it is “legal” to compare the leader of the Republicans to the leader of the Nazis; then it follows that Republicans are Nazis.
If Leader Republicans = Leader Nazis then Republicans = Nazis. LR=LN thus R=N.
Bob said: If you want to make a “slur” against Obama, pick up on his personal
idiosyncracies, such as his thoughtful measured speech pattern that many Obama oponents characterize as “uh uh uh”, or perhaps do as many cartoonists do, and make fun of his ears.
Problem being is that the media will most likely twist the slur to make it seem racist, so it won’t matter. The point to be made is that even though it isn’t right to “call people names” its done all the time. Since it was done to Bush, then Obama is fair game. However, being that he’s the historic first lack president, everyone’s trying to change the rules. People in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.
Historic first black president I meant.
Leland, You are an example of a human being. Bertrand Russell is also an example of a human being. Bertrand Russell is dead, but he was brilliant when he was alive. You are not dead, but you don’t seem to be brilliant.
I have now compared you to Bertrand Russell. That doesn’t mean that you are Bertrand Russell, just as if someone (not me, by the way) compares the leader of the Republicans to a Nazi, it does not mean that Republicans are Nazis. And of course, for that matter, if the leader of the Republicans is X, it does not mean that all Republicans are X.
But by all means, even though we may agree that the cartoon wasn’t racist, please continue to use logic to help you explain why I am wrong about something or other, even if you have a hard time saying exactly what I’m wrong about.
Yes Bob, you have compared me to Bertrand Russell. That is called a comparison. There is no logic involved in that.
All you have shown is that you don’t have a clue what logic is.
Bob,
Should you find yourself without employment, I suggest that you consider looking for a position as a contortionist, you clearly have what it takes…
With that said, let me first congratulate you for a truly heroic attempt to find some distinction here regarding the comments made about Bush vs those made about Obama, but in the end I remain unconvinced. The notion that because some people (who will conveniently find ANY criticism of Obama to be racist) will argue that this or that characterisation is racist (irrespective of the intentions of those making it) means that we should rule out some elements of discourse is a quick road to the extinction of the first ammendment via a heckler’s veto. At some point, the phrase ‘lighten up Francis’ (with apologies to Warren Oates) comes to mind…
Since you point out the historical context of Chimp remarks, lets remember that Lincoln (a hero of Obama’s) was referred to by McClellan as ‘the original Gorilla’ (and McClellan himself pointed out in his private letters that this was about Lincoln’s build, not any racial animus), and GWB (whitebread if there ever was one) was the target of similar slurs.
Simply put, there is not a shred of evidence that the cartoonist had any intention of using that cartoon to make a racial slur, and that what we really have here is the grievence industry swinging into action. There is a First Ammendment right to free speech, there is no constitutional right that I am aware of that defends one’s purported right to censor based upon overly developed sensitivity.
Slurs and caricatures are part of politics, and those with thin skins (of whatever color) are best advised to find another line of work. As was pointed out long ago…Politics ain’t beanbag…
Leland, every conversation I have with you seems to go the same way: I have to remind you what you said. You said “if it is “legal” to compare the leader of the Republicans to the leader of the Nazis; then it follows that Republicans are Nazis.” I showed you why comparisons don’t work that way.
–
Scott,
Obama gets criticized constantly, and it was only this reference to an ape that led to widespred cries of racism.
As I said above, I don’t think the cartoonist meant for the chimp to represent the President. But lets say he did. Lets say he had drawn a big scary ape and put a sign on it that said “President Obama!”. Even then, I thinlk you would indeed still have a case that this wasn’t racism. You could legitimately say that there are lots of reasons to call someone an ape that are non-racial. But a lot of people, in my estimation (for what that’s worth) the majority of Americans, would interpret such a cartoon as racist, so why do it? Why not find another way to criticize Obama? If I say “Obama is a tax and spend liberal”, and someone says “that’s racist!”, well, to hell with them. But if I say “Obama is a big scary ape”, and someone says “given the history of racial slurs in this country, I think you’re being racist”, and then lots of other people loudly agree, why not say “oh, well, look, I’m racist, but I’ll find another way to express myself”?
And if you’re questioning whether apes in particular have special status when it comes to racial slurs, look at your own story about McClellan. According to you, he had to explain that that he wasn’t making a racial slur. Why do you suppose he felt he had to do that? What possible slur could there have been? Do you think he, a white guy, was assuring his white readers that he wasn’t saying something bad about white people? Don’t you think that your own story indicates there is a history of using apes to make racial slurs against African Americans?
Also, Leland, I have no idea what your overall point is. Of course many people call the Republicans Nazis. I said they are wrong. What are you trying to say?
Scott, the words I was putting in your mouth should have read ““oh, well, look, I’m NOT racist, but I’ll find another way to express myself”?
“Calling Bush a chimp isn’t really the same thing as calling an African-American an ape.”
Of course, but the cartoon didn’t call any African America an ape did it?
And yes, we are all aware of that “long history”
In case you forgot to read the headline, the guy who made the cartoon is black.
> People do call them Nazis, but those people are stupid and wrong.
While they may be stupid and wrong, calling Republicans Nazis isn’t where they’re stupid and wrong.
Insults aren’t logic-chopping. They’re persuasive devices. That’s the standard by which they’re evaluated.
As one of the best formal logicians I know put it when someone pointed out that he wasn’t using a logical argument, “Of course it’s ad hominem, I’m not addressing dogs or logicians.”
> Also, logic doesn’t require a fair referee, that’s one of the reasons it is so useful.
Actually, logic does require a fair referee. In fact, that’s the whole point, that the rules and interpretation are not driven by the participants or the desired conclusion.
Also, Leland, I have no idea what your overall point is. Of course many people call the Republicans Nazis. I said they are wrong.
Well, my first comment was a joke about your claim that you and Rand agree, while you called him a sexist pig. My first point was that Kos kids are a bit hypocritical in assuming “calling a President a chimp is racist”, when they already been there and done that.
My second point is that you don’t keep using the term “logic”, but I don’t think that words means what you think it means.
Oh, and this is funny;
You could legitimately say that there are lots of reasons to call someone an ape that are non-racial. But a lot of people, in my estimation (for what that’s worth) the majority of Americans, would interpret such a cartoon as racist, so why do it?
Because the cartoonist is black, and probably figured in this post racial era that people wouldn’ t assume a chimp = black. Apparently, he didn’t count on the Bob’s of the world hanging around to remind us that racism still exists.
Leland,
Why do you think Sean Delonas is black? Could it be that you didn’t click on the link Rand provided? Or maybe you clicked, but you didn’t understand what you read. I wouldn’t mention it, but in the past, you’ve been quite nasty in your criticism when others didn’t read the article Rand was writing about.
I don’t think the cartoonist’s background matters at all, nor does it matter what the race is of the people who see (or don’t see) racism in the cartoon — work should be judged independently, and as you’ll see, that’s kind of the point of Rand’s link.
Andy, that’s an interesting position on referee. I thought a conclusion’s truth value would be independent of the reader. So how can we determine who is a fair referree? And by saying a fair referee is required , are you saying that biased people can not ever judge the logic of a simple classical syllogism? If that were true, syllogisms would have pretty limited usefulness in a one-on-one conversation when both parties had strong opinions on the matter at hand. But in practice you can often change quickly someone’s mind with a syllogism (although probably not here.)
work should be judged independently
Then why do you see it as racist? I don’t think even you believe what you write.
I don’t see it as racist! I think you don’t pay attention to what you read!
work should be judged independently
I don’t see it as racist!
Then why the history lesson?
Leland, I don’t know if you know this or not but there is a long history of depicting African-Americans as apes.
Sounds like you wanted to invoke an external concept and make the cartoon dependent on this viewpoint. That concept was racial and derogatory. You saw that connection, and you insisted that I see it too. I refused to go down that road with you, because Andy was right:
If you buy that line of thinking, calling Bush a chimp was calling him an African-American AND saying that being an AA is a bad thing.
That’s the line of thinking you are going down, Bob. Your contortions don’t work when all anyone has to do is scroll up.
> And by saying a fair referee is required , are you saying that biased people can not ever judge the logic of a simple classical syllogism?
I’m saying that logic doesn’t let you apply a syllogism wrt one set of participants yet deny it in another, as Bob does. Yes, I realise that his schtick is “above it all”, but he’s deluded.
I note that we didn’t get to Bob’s amusing belief that “logic” is well-defined.
I meant that the work should be judged independently of the artist, not of history. Many works of art don’t make sense unless you consider art history. But for that matter, many works of art don’t make sense unless you do consider who the artist was, so I over-reached.
So, lets back up. Andy, it turns out that you and I agree about logic after all — I definitely agree you need to be able to apply syllogisms evenhandedly. So I have two questions: 1) what syllogism am I not employing even-handedly? 2) what is the syllogism in question tht, if true, would lead you conclude that Bush was depicted as an African American when people called him a chimp?
> 1) what syllogism am I not employing even-handedly? 2) what is the syllogism in question tht, if true, would lead you conclude that Bush was depicted as an African American when people called him a chimp?
It’s unclear if Bob can’t remember the conversation or is demonstrating an illogical double-standard. Or, maybe he’s going back to double-standards are not illogical.
However, it’s also uninteresting. The fact that Bob is just another partisan hack is not news.
Andy, you’re not answering at all. Scroll back up and read the thread. I did. I don’t understand your reasoning. What syllogism am I not employing even-handedly? What is the syllogism in question that, if true, would lead you conclude that Bush was depicted as an African American when people called him a chimp?
Since I’ve answered before to no effect, it’s unclear to me why answering again will produce a different result.
However, I’ll summarize the conclusions from this thread.
(1) Bob doesn’t understand logic.
(2) Bob doesn’t understand rhetoric.
(3) Bob is a partisan hack.
You don’t want to admit you are wrong, but you can’t answer my questions, so you resort to insults and name calling. You said: “I’m saying that logic doesn’t let you apply a syllogism wrt one set of participants yet deny it in another, as Bob does.” But you never showed where I did any such thing.