[Non-US] News That Makes You laugh/cry/neither...

[TiaC]

I was talking about visual representation in general.

So yeah, if you think a visual representation of a human being is inherently racist, then the problem is with you.

Fuck you, it's really clear that you aren't interested in anything except making up strawmen that are unconnected to anything I'm saying.

Look, I can do it too.

So yeah, if you think there's no problem with drawing black people as monkeys if you can't come up with another way to show their race, then the problem is with you.

[Eikre]

my own wife

ok,

but don't use your girl to go fishing like that, my man. it's not chill.

[Kaelik]

Fuck you, it's really clear that you aren't interested in anything except making up strawmen that are unconnected to anything I'm saying.

Dude, you specifically just said that all visual depictions of minorities which are recognizably minorities are racist.

I don't know how I could even begin to strawman that.

[Prak]

On the subject of depicting Native Americans, wouldn't drawing them something like Ken Hotate from Parks and Rec get the idea across without being racist?

New media dresscode for native americans- ponytail and western jewelry

For depicting a muslim or jew, unless you're talking specifically about people who actually are middle eastern/Israeli, the idea that comes to mind is to just draw a person, and then give their outfit a Crescent and Star or Star of David pattern to indicate you're talking about a person from the religion.

Something like this-

But it occurs to me that maybe someone would consider that offensive, I don't know.

[Kaelik]

On the subject of depicting Native Americans, wouldn't drawing them something like Ken Hotate from Parks and Rec get the idea across without being racist?

Almost certainly not for comics. There is a very good reason that Comics use elephant people for republicans. Because the art style is not conducive to excessive detail.

Now, I personally wouldn't recognize that guy as native american if I ran into him on the street either, but even if other people did, I doubt it would be as effective in a comic.

[Prak]

Ok, that's fair, I suppose.

[TiaC]

Fuck you, it's really clear that you aren't interested in anything except making up strawmen that are unconnected to anything I'm saying.

Dude, you specifically just said that all visual depictions of minorities which are recognizably minorities are racist.

I don't know how I could even begin to strawman that.

No, I said that it's a problem if the only way you can make them recognizably minorities is offensive. It's fine that you can draw black people by just giving them darker skin. If the only way you can draw a Native American is by giving them a headdress, that's bad, but it's not really your fault. The problem is that we don't really have any symbols for Native Americans that are not offensive.

So, quote me where I said "all visual depictions of minorities which are recognizably minorities are racist".

[Prak]

It's fine that you can draw black people by just giving them darker skin.

um...

That idea, that black people just have darker skin, is itself kind of racist. And super ignorant. For... a number of reasons.

[TiaC]

It's fine that you can draw black people by just giving them darker skin.

um...

That idea, that black people just have darker skin, is itself kind of racist. And super ignorant. For... a number of reasons.

In that if you are making a drawing that's half-a-dozen lines, the only visible difference between a black person and a white person that should appear at that level of detail is their skin color. There is nothing inherently offensive about drawing a black person to have dark skin. In fact, it would generally by more offensive to do otherwise.

[Prak]

Even at the Charlie Hebdo level of detail, you can differentiate a black person through non-exaggerated features. I'm not talk giant lips and ears, I'm talking about paying attention to the differences in facial features and giving them a hairstyle that would be reasonable for whoever you're portraying.

Also

a drawing that's half-a-dozen lines

Unholy crap, you have no idea what you're fucking talking about.

[Korwin]

My opinion really boils down to "how about we not shit on the law abiding Muslims just because the fundamentalist ones piss us off and and we can because freedom of speech?" I mean, fuck, yeah, freedom of speech, nothing's stopping you. But it's kind of dickish, and there's kind of plenty of dickishness in the world already, especially targeting Muslims in the US and France.

From an practical (survival oriented) point of view, I would say it's more important not to piss of the fundamentalist*, because they might actually go out and kill you.

*regardless of the which religion we are talking about.


On the other hand, if everybody gives the fundamentals what the wanted, europe might still be dominated by the vatican.

More like we would be still worshiping animals and abstract gods of nature.

Fucking monotheistic youngsters. How dare they suggest that there's not dozens of gods and that we shouldn't perform human sacrifices in bloody altars?

Ahem, anyway religion can be a pretty dangerous thing. Fundamentalists need somewhere to rally recruits from.

Making people able to laugh and make fun about their own religion should make them a lot less prone to blowing themselves up in the name of said religion. If you're laughing and making fun of it, you're not considering it super serious business worty-dying-and-killing-for.

Yea, was making the point about the catholic church because Prak seems to hate christians, while he seems to tolerate muslims (probably because he interacted more with christians than with muslims?).

[TiaC]

Even at the Charlie Hebdo level of detail, you can differentiate a black person through non-exaggerated features. I'm not talk giant lips and ears, I'm talking about paying attention to the differences in facial features and giving them a hairstyle that would be reasonable for whoever you're portraying.

So, you're saying that cartoonists should draw black people with white skin because it would offend people if black people were black? Hate to break it to you, but most people would actually find your whitewashing to be worse.

[Koumei]

So more than half a million people in the UK signed a petition* to ban Trump from entering the country. Parliament actually debated it. There was no vote, but even the people opposed to a ban weren't nice to him: "You can deny entry to people for inciting violence, but not just for being an idiot" and "Let him come here if he wants, and state his opinion, and then challenge[ that opinion and mock him and let him flee with his tail between his legs"

So parliament had the chance to gather and talk shit about Trump. That must have been a great day there (for once).

*This is less funny than the petition to bring David Bowie back from the dead, but seriously, do these things ever do anything?

[nockermensch]

I'm advocating polite consideration of the beliefs of one's fellow citizens, your saying that's super unreasonable, and I'm the dumbest of the dumb?

It's the sincere belief of several of my fellow citizens that homossexuals and trans people shouldn't be depicted on media or be allowed to marry. It's the sincere belief (of a thankfully much smaller set) of my fellow citizens that homossexuals and trans people shouldn't be allowed to exist.

Where do you draw the fukken line, Prak?

[Kaelik]

I'm advocating polite consideration of the beliefs of one's fellow citizens, your saying that's super unreasonable, and I'm the dumbest of the dumb?

It's the sincere belief of several of my fellow citizens that homossexuals and trans people shouldn't be depicted on media or be allowed to marry. It's the sincere belief (of a thankfully much smaller set) of my fellow citizens that homossexuals and trans people shouldn't be allowed to exist.

Where do you draw the fukken line, Prak?

Well based on his previous post, it comes down to a balancing where no one could ever have any possibly important reason to draw mohammed, so they shouldn't be allowed to. But not putting Caitlyn Jenner on Time Magazine is denying Caitlyn Jenner's identity.

You know... just like my identity is denied by not being on Time Magazine.

Because you know, generalized statements about what content is and isn't important has never been completely bullshit.

[Leress]

Well to be fair consideration != obligation so just because I considered a position/point of view doesn't mean I have to go along with it.

[Kaelik]

Well to be fair consideration != obligation so just because I considered a position/point of view doesn't mean I have to go along with it.

That's a bullshit argument.

He was explicitly criticizing Hebdo for being offensive with the same argument that would have applied to Time Magazine.

The only way you can argue any difference (and they way he choose to) is that showing Caitlyn Jenner on Time is more important than drawing Muhammad.

But that can't be true because she's is being denied her identity, so it can only be true because the goal of showing her "transgender rights" is more important than the goal of drawing Muhammad "asserting an unwillingness to be bullied by threats of force" which amounts to...

WTF how can you say that one of those is important enough to not be criticized and the other is?

Saying "I was just talking about consideration" is bullshit, because either you should give in to consideration, in which case Fuck Time Magazine, or you shouldn't, in which case criticism of Hebdo (on the issue of Muhammad covers) is bullshit.

[Prak]

Even at the Charlie Hebdo level of detail, you can differentiate a black person through non-exaggerated features. I'm not talk giant lips and ears, I'm talking about paying attention to the differences in facial features and giving them a hairstyle that would be reasonable for whoever you're portraying.

So, you're saying that cartoonists should draw black people with white skin because it would offend people if black people were black? Hate to break it to you, but most people would actually find your whitewashing to be worse.

No you false-equivocating fuck, I'm saying that there is more to "being black" than just dark skin, and to say otherwise (unless you're talking about race is a cultural concept and not in any real way biological) is ignorant and would probably offend a lot of people.

Well based on his previous post, it comes down to a balancing where no one could ever have any possibly important reason to draw mohammed, so they shouldn't be allowed to. But not putting Caitlyn Jenner on Time Magazine is denying Caitlyn Jenner's identity.

Actually I was arguing that people shouldn't do it, not that they shouldn't be allowed to. My point was "yes, if you're not muslim, you can draw Muhammad. But putting him on a magazine cover (that I was under the impression had a much higher circulation) is rather impolite to your muslim neighbors who believe the prophet should not be depicted, and thus it would be polite to not do it." At no point did I argue that periodicals shouldn't be allowed to put crap drawings of Mohammad on their covers.

And there is a line, a couple in fact. Self-censoring and not putting Mohammad on your cover because it would offend people is different from putting Caitlyn Jenner on your cover because Mohammad is a part of the religion in question, and so it's reasonable for Muslims to not want to see depictions of their prophet who they believe should not be depicted. LGBTQIA people are not part of Christianity, just something Christianity objects to, so Christianity cannot make demands about the depiction of LGBTQIA with the same legitimacy.

Christians being squicked out over LGBTQIA people is a prejudice they need to get over. The belief that their prophet should not be depicted is a perfectly reasonable tenet for Muslims, or any religion really, and it's not unreasonable to ask people be polite and at least not put him on the covers of magazines.

Again, I'm not saying they shouldn't be allowed to, I'm saying that there's no reason for periodical editors to not be polite and not put Mohammad on covers that will be seen on newstands.

But, fuck, Charlie Hebdo has a circulation of less than 300,000 so probably the only time most French Muslims "have" to see Chebdo's depictions of Mohammad is when bigger media reports on it.

[Leress]

Okay, Prak how should they do a depiction of black people in a cartoon to show that a person is black? For more clarity someone who is African-American, born and raised in America.

[Occluded Sun]

Christians being squicked out over LGBTQIA people is a prejudice they need to get over. The belief that their prophet should not be depicted is a perfectly reasonable tenet for Muslims, or any religion really,

It's supposed to be a belief that Muslims shouldn't depict their prophet. The idea that other people shouldn't do it is pretty clearly a "prejudice they need to get over".

And technically any representation of any living thing is forbidden under Islam... which would abolish most of the world's art, and television as well. The preservation of ancient Greek knowledge which Arabia is famous for was only possible because the Islamic societies of the time didn't actually follow the rule.

I think we can reasonably say that this is a point that followers of Islam are going to have to compromise on if they want to be part of the modern world.

[Kaelik]

And there is a line, a couple in fact. Self-censoring and not putting Mohammad on your cover because it would offend people is different from putting Caitlyn Jenner on your cover because Mohammad is a part of the religion in question, and so it's reasonable for Muslims to not want to see depictions of their prophet who they believe should not be depicted. LGBTQIA people are not part of Christianity, just something Christianity objects to, so Christianity cannot make demands about the depiction of LGBTQIA with the same legitimacy.

1) Caitlyn Jenner is a Christian, where is your fucking outrage at Time Magazine for being impolite?
2) Genderfluidity and Transgender not being real is an explicit tenet of Christianity which demands that people conform their lives to explicit gender roles. It's a universal application that they demand of all people.

Christians being squicked out over LGBTQIA people is a prejudice they need to get over. The belief that their prophet should not be depicted is a perfectly reasonable tenet for Muslims, or any religion really, and it's not unreasonable to ask people be polite and at least not put him on the covers of magazines.

Muslims being squicked out over other people not being muslim is also prejudice that they need to get over.

The Muslim belief (that only extreme muslims have) that people who aren't muslim can't break the rules of their own religion is bullshit and shouldn't be acknowledged ever.

The Christian belief (that most Christians have) that people (in or out of their religion) can't be transgender or genderfuild because God Himself choose their gender and assigned to them specific gender based duties which they must now carry out, is also bullshit that shouldn't be acknowledged ever.

They are identical. Because all claims by anyone that their religion requires people who disagree with them about what God wants to still comply with what they say God wants is just fucking bullshit.

The entire reason you oppose drawing Muhammad is because you personally don't (currently) have a reason to draw Muhammad, and you are stupidly incapable of seeing that obeying the religious tenets of a religion is BAAAAAADDD and harmful, especially when they threaten to murder you if you don't abide by them and then you do. Whereas you have a personal immediate interest in transgender issues.

But guess what fuckface, you are wrong. Your system of logic would dictate that I whine about being offensive to Time because transgender issues aren't personal for me, therefore I should demand that Time be polite to Christians.

That's dumb. And you are (still) dumb.

[Username17]

Christians being squicked out over LGBTQIA people is a prejudice they need to get over. The belief that their prophet should not be depicted is a perfectly reasonable tenet for Muslims, or any religion really, and it's not unreasonable to ask people be polite and at least not put him on the covers of magazines.

No. It isn't. It is completely unreasonable and unacceptable to tell people what symbols other groups can and cannot use.

Imagine for the moment that you're a Jew and find the Swastika very offensive. Not because it's a completely arbitrary piece of religious bullshit you happen to believe in, but for the entirely reasonable reason that within living memory people conducted a genocidal campaign of aggression killing millions of your people under the banner of the Swastika. Now, let's say a Hindu wants to put a Swastika on something, because they've been doing that for thousands of years. Does being a Jew and being offended by the Swastika entitle you to tell the Hindu what symbols they can and cannot use? Of course not!

The prophet Mohamed is a historical figure. And people are entitled to discuss him in any context they fucking want. And people saying that he can't be discussed in drawn form are completely unreasonable. Way more unreasonable than Jews who want Hindus to put their Swastikas away, and with less cause. And the Jews who want the Hindus to put their Swastikas away are already on the wrong side.



Jews have pretty good reason to not like this. And they have to fucking put up with it anyway because a secular society does not give you the right to not be offended by the actions of other people. The end.

-Username17

[Leress]

Well to be fair consideration != obligation so just because I considered a position/point of view doesn't mean I have to go along with it.

That's a bullshit argument.

Slightly confused, are you saying that my argument itself is bullshit or just when you apply it to Prak's statements? If the former I don't how it is, if the latter then that was the whole point of it.

[nockermensch]

Does being a Jew and being offended by the Swastika entitle you to tell the Hindu what symbols they can and cannot use? Of course not!

This goes for the Japanese too, for whose the swastika works as a shortform for "buddhist temple", as seen in the spoilered pictured, courtesy from google maps:

Not pictured: Hitler Youth Centers

[Kaelik]

Well to be fair consideration != obligation so just because I considered a position/point of view doesn't mean I have to go along with it.

That's a bullshit argument.

Slightly confused, are you saying that my argument itself is bullshit or just when you apply it to Prak's statements? If the former I don't how it is, if the latter then that was the whole point of it.

Both.

Claiming that "it's different because I'm only saying you should be polite instead of saying that you should be arrested" is always bullshit.

Either you are saying they shouldn't do it, in which case all the arguments against it being against the law also apply, or you are are saying that they should do it, in which case, well let's be honest, no one has ever argued that something is "polite" for any reason other than to prevent people from doing something.