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

[TiaC]

@Leress: Oh, I missed that. My point was more that reducing black people to simply a skin color is, well, very reductionist, and pretty ignorant, and the idea that black are "just dark skinned" would probably be offensive to a lot of black people. Because there's a lot more than that, and skin color varies a lot, and there's even a pretty big problem within the black community of prejudice over the tone of one's skin, intertwined to some extent with "passing privilege" stuff.

A political cartoon, admittedly, is going to rely mostly on skin color, and I'm not saying that they should have everyone be the same color, I'm saying that even limiting the discussion to physical characteristics there is more to being black than "just having dark skin."

Goddamn, you missed the entire context of the discussion that line came from. Giving someone dark skin is sufficient to indicate they are black in a simplified drawing. However, the fact that they have dark skin isn't offensive. This was in contrast to a feather headdress, which is sufficient to indicate that the wearer is a Native American, but is also offensive to many people. Of course, if you are not simplifying your depiction so much, then there are more differences that you can show.

So, when I said "you can draw black people by just giving them darker skin" I mean that the skin color is enough to make them recognizably black.

[Leress]

So Prak are you not going to answer my question?

[Prak]

So you are going to keep up that "stupid question" line because... You couldn't come up with an answer?

Your question was

What would an offensive and racist depiction of a caucasian look like to you Prak?

So, first of all, the question was an almost complete non sequitor. What the fuck did it even have to do with the topic of whether Editorial Cartoonists should refrain from putting Mohammad on the covers of their magazines?

Second of all, I could and did answer. I thought a bit hastily, perhaps, because the most visible example of cultural appropriation is shitty white kids wearing war bonnets at Coachella. But that wasn't my sole answer, you could conceivably depict caucasians as "bland" or "neutral baseline."

But third of all, it's a fucking nonsense question, at least in a western context, because more stereotypes are bullshit and based on othering rhetoric. So, fuck, it could be anything. We could be offensively and racistly stereotyped as lazy dumbasses if we were a minority. But most stereotypes of us that exist center on manifest destiny, genocide, and other shit of the sort.

Which, I should say as an aid to Kaelik, who willfully misinterprets every fucking thing I say to further his ad hominems, is not to say that other genocide and land grabbing are uniquely caucasian things.

So, you want an answer to the question? It could be fucking anything if caucasians were a minority/oppressed people. Because racist stereotypes don't have to have any basis in fact or sense.

@Leress: Oh, I missed that. My point was more that reducing black people to simply a skin color is, well, very reductionist, and pretty ignorant, and the idea that black are "just dark skinned" would probably be offensive to a lot of black people. Because there's a lot more than that, and skin color varies a lot, and there's even a pretty big problem within the black community of prejudice over the tone of one's skin, intertwined to some extent with "passing privilege" stuff.

A political cartoon, admittedly, is going to rely mostly on skin color, and I'm not saying that they should have everyone be the same color, I'm saying that even limiting the discussion to physical characteristics there is more to being black than "just having dark skin."

Goddamn, you missed the entire context of the discussion that line came from. Giving someone dark skin is sufficient to indicate they are black in a simplified drawing. However, the fact that they have dark skin isn't offensive. This was in contrast to a feather headdress, which is sufficient to indicate that the wearer is a Native American, but is also offensive to many people. Of course, if you are not simplifying your depiction so much, then there are more differences that you can show.

So, when I said "you can draw black people by just giving them darker skin" I mean that the skin color is enough to make them recognizably black.

Looking back, yeah, I over fucking reacted/thought. I get what you meant. Sorry.

So Prak are you not going to answer my question?

Oh jesus fucking christ why are the people on this site such fucking tools?
To answer your PRECISE QUESTION a black person in an editorial cartoon should be depicted with some level of dark skin, maybe an acknowledgement of different facial structure, and probably hair that acknowledges the styling consequences of the structural and textural differences of black hair.

There, I've answered your VERY SPECIFIC QUESTION. If you want to say some shit about how I haven't still, I kindly invite you to suck a giant barrel of cocks.

[MGuy]

So you call tbe question stupid, question my interpretation of your english, give me a list of bullshit whining about it then confirm that 1 you couldn't answer it ( or at least that the answer you gave was so shitty you are willing to abandon it) and 2 that my assumption that only minorities can be depicted in a racist fashion in your eyes was in fact absolutely right.

[Prak]

Technically, nearly every one of Leress' examples was a minority of "Caucasians." I'd say every one, but I don't care enough to look for population numbers of brits and french vs. total number of caucasians.

Yeah, my first thought was shitty. I admit this. Unlike a lot of people here I try to admit when I was wrong. But you asked for "caucasians" and so I thought you wanted something that could apply to caucasians in general, rather than minority subsets of caucasians, like blonde women and people from the Southern US.

[Leress]

Looking back, yeah, I over fucking reacted/thought. I get what you meant. Sorry.

So Prak are you not going to answer my question?

Oh jesus fucking christ why are the people on this site such fucking tools?
To answer your PRECISE QUESTION a black person in an editorial cartoon should be depicted with some level of dark skin, maybe an acknowledgement of different facial structure, and probably hair that acknowledges the styling consequences of the structural and textural differences of black hair.

There, I've answered your VERY SPECIFIC QUESTION. If you want to say some shit about how I haven't still, I kindly invite you to suck a giant barrel of cocks.

First, stop this we and us shit when you mean White People.

Second my question was before you corrected your mistake about forgetting the context of TiaC's comment.

The reason I asked that specific question was to point out that doing nuance is very difficult and doing so in such a small window of time/space on will have to simplify things a bit of quick understanding.

My main problem is that you wanted to be willfully ignorant of context of something (the french text on the cartoon) while later getting mad at people for doing the same thing (cultural appropriation).

Also you are wrong about the black hair. There are varying degrees of colour there too.

[MGuy]

Technically, nearly every one of Leress' examples was a minority of "Caucasians." I'd say every one, but I don't care enough to look for population numbers of brits and french vs. total number of caucasians.

Yeah, my first thought was shitty. I admit this. Unlike a lot of people here I try to admit when I was wrong. But you asked for "caucasians" and so I thought you wanted something that could apply to caucasians in general, rather than minority subsets of caucasians, like blonde women and people from the Southern US.

You are claiming that since a racial stereo type isn't representative of a whole group of people it doesn't count?

[Kaelik]

Technically, nearly every one of Leress' examples was a minority of "Caucasians." I'd say every one, but I don't care enough to look for population numbers of brits and french vs. total number of caucasians.

Yeah, my first thought was shitty. I admit this. Unlike a lot of people here I try to admit when I was wrong. But you asked for "caucasians" and so I thought you wanted something that could apply to caucasians in general, rather than minority subsets of caucasians, like blonde women and people from the Southern US.

You are claiming that since a racial stereo type isn't representative of a whole group of people it doesn't count?

He's fucking right.

If you make a cartoon that makes fun of "people from the US" or "People from the South of the US" or "People named Donald Trump" then those are not racist in the same way as a cartoon making fun of black people.

Yes really.

If you can come up with a racist stereotype for white people, then that's fine, whatever, one exists. But if no one can come up with one because they can only think of stereotypes for specific small subsets of white people, those specific small subset stereotypes are nor racist against white people.

Anything that some english asshole invented to imply that irish assholes are inferior by definition cannot be racist against the englishman who invented it.

[Prak]

Looking back, yeah, I over fucking reacted/thought. I get what you meant. Sorry.

So Prak are you not going to answer my question?

Oh jesus fucking christ why are the people on this site such fucking tools?
To answer your PRECISE QUESTION a black person in an editorial cartoon should be depicted with some level of dark skin, maybe an acknowledgement of different facial structure, and probably hair that acknowledges the styling consequences of the structural and textural differences of black hair.

There, I've answered your VERY SPECIFIC QUESTION. If you want to say some shit about how I haven't still, I kindly invite you to suck a giant barrel of cocks.

First, stop this we and us shit when you mean White People.

Second my question was before you corrected your mistake about forgetting the context of TiaC's comment.

The reason I asked that specific question was to point out that doing nuance is very difficult and doing so in such a small window of time/space on will have to simplify things a bit of quick understanding.

My main problem is that you wanted to be willfully ignorant of context of something (the french text on the cartoon) while later getting mad at people for doing the same thing (cultural appropriation).

Also you are wrong about the black hair. There are varying degrees of colour there too.

that's fair. I got (...and continue to get) far too involved and worked up in this shit.

Though when I said "black hair," I meant "hair of black people." Which admittedly, I should have said that way.

Technically, nearly every one of Leress' examples was a minority of "Caucasians." I'd say every one, but I don't care enough to look for population numbers of brits and french vs. total number of caucasians.

Yeah, my first thought was shitty. I admit this. Unlike a lot of people here I try to admit when I was wrong. But you asked for "caucasians" and so I thought you wanted something that could apply to caucasians in general, rather than minority subsets of caucasians, like blonde women and people from the Southern US.

You are claiming that since a racial stereo type isn't representative of a whole group of people it doesn't count?

Er, no, what I mean is that "Dumb Blonde" isn't a stereotype applied to all white people (so far as I know), it's a stereotype applied to white, blonde women, for example.

When I first read your question, I took it, obviously mistakenly, now, to be asking for a stereotype of "all white people." Not a stereotype applied to a subset of white people.

Also, I sort of cherish the very rare times when Kaelik says I'm right about something. Especially the times that I refrain from commenting on something because I'm not sure I'm right, and then see a post from him confirming what I wasn't sure of... (obviously not the case here...)

[MGuy]

Looking back, yeah, I over fucking reacted/thought. I get what you meant. Sorry.


Oh jesus fucking christ why are the people on this site such fucking tools?
To answer your PRECISE QUESTION a black person in an editorial cartoon should be depicted with some level of dark skin, maybe an acknowledgement of different facial structure, and probably hair that acknowledges the styling consequences of the structural and textural differences of black hair.

There, I've answered your VERY SPECIFIC QUESTION. If you want to say some shit about how I haven't still, I kindly invite you to suck a giant barrel of cocks.

First, stop this we and us shit when you mean White People.

Second my question was before you corrected your mistake about forgetting the context of TiaC's comment.

The reason I asked that specific question was to point out that doing nuance is very difficult and doing so in such a small window of time/space on will have to simplify things a bit of quick understanding.

My main problem is that you wanted to be willfully ignorant of context of something (the french text on the cartoon) while later getting mad at people for doing the same thing (cultural appropriation).

Also you are wrong about the black hair. There are varying degrees of colour there too.

that's fair. I got (...and continue to get) far too involved and worked up in this shit.

Though when I said "black hair," I meant "hair of black people." Which admittedly, I should have said that way.

Technically, nearly every one of Leress' examples was a minority of "Caucasians." I'd say every one, but I don't care enough to look for population numbers of brits and french vs. total number of caucasians.

Yeah, my first thought was shitty. I admit this. Unlike a lot of people here I try to admit when I was wrong. But you asked for "caucasians" and so I thought you wanted something that could apply to caucasians in general, rather than minority subsets of caucasians, like blonde women and people from the Southern US.

You are claiming that since a racial stereo type isn't representative of a whole group of people it doesn't count?

Er, no, what I mean is that "Dumb Blonde" isn't a stereotype applied to all white people (so far as I know), it's a stereotype applied to white, blonde women, for example.

When I first read your question, I took it, obviously mistakenly, now, to be asking for a stereotype of "all white people." Not a stereotype applied to a subset of white people.

So depictions of black men in "thug" clothing is not racist because that represents only a subset of black people?

[Prak]

I would say not, because the stereotype is commonly applied to all black people. Urban clothing is just an incitement.

But fuck, I'm an idiot, so what do I know?

[Chamomile]

Black women are almost never depicted as gangsters (except by themselves). They get a different stereotype. And of course it is true that every single group of people can be subdivided into smaller groups and placed within larger groups until you get to the extreme ends of "every person" and "a single individual person."

[Prak]

True, I spoke over-broadly. Black women get the stereotype of being hyper-sexual.

However, both are still racist, even though they are typically only applied to respective (rough) halves of the black race.

[nockermensch]

If you guys want to see what "white people" racist caricatures look like, you just need to look to how Europeans where depicted by the Chinese, Japanese or black African populations in the past centuries. So stereotypes of "white people" exist and look like "ogre-like, hairy, nosy barbarians" or "unhealthy, ominous ghost-people".

You can see neither stereotype particularly matters, because "white people" were never subjected to widespread prejudice or pogroms because these. Also, they're kind of centuries old by now.

[Ancient History]

http://tribune.com.pk/story/1027742/set ... shot-down/

[hyzmarca]

http://tribune.com.pk/story/1027742/set ... shot-down/

Child marriages are already illegal in Pakistan. The bill just bumps the minimum age up from 16 to 18 in that regard. It also increases the punishment for entering into a marriage with a minor.

But the severity of punishment wasn't really an issue, it was the lack of punishment at all. Since child marriages tend to occur in impoverished rural shitholes where the national and provencal governments have minimal to no presence.

For this reason, the bill also moved jurisdiction for child marriage cases from criminal courts to family courts, but I'm not sufficiently well versed in the Pakistani legal system to speculate on how effective that move would be.

Considering that the major cause of child marriage is poverty, in the sense that most families that marry off their daughters do so simply can't afford to keep them, I really don't think that more legislation is going to solve the problem. The existing child marriage laws already go completely unenforced in these areas. A comprehensive welfare system would do a hell of a lot more to solve the issue than harsher punishments would.

[Kaelik]

While I can't make any specific promises about the Pakistani legal system, Family Courts are usually courts of equity with broad ability to provide remedies, so if the problem is that the legal system doesn't adequately address the issues, and that no one wants to bring criminal prosecutions, family court is almost certain to be an improvement. How much of one, or enough of one, would be impossible for me to say.

[sendaz]

http://www.theguardian.com/science/brai ... piracy-bob

[Maj]

Tila Tequila was going off about flat earth a couple weeks ago. I think this is part of a bigger prank.

[Longes]

Uninvited to Talks due to Turkey's protests, Syrian Kurds Leave Geneva

[Stahlseele]

Yeah, also Erdogan threatened to shoot down syrian and russian jets that go into the turkish airspace. And asked NATO for help as well. Still getting closer and closer to an actual WW3 scenario there <.<

[Leress]

http://news.sky.com/story/1640766/athei ... has-stroke

[maglag]

Crowd at beach kills baby dolphin to take selfies.

[Josh_Kablack]

http://hyperallergic.com/274635/artists ... ee-online/

[Ancient History]

This pissed me off: http://www.redflagnews.com/headlines-20 ... ed-instead

Okay, so a young woman wanted to show that not all people were bad, knee-jerk conservatives assholes declare she must be a liberal for trusting other people and call her an idiot. Why would you blatantly spin a tragic event as an excuse to support a hateful ideology? You think this asshole is going to pipe up when a hitchhiker is murdered or raped in a red state, and say "just goes to show that you can't trust Christians, they have an ideology of hate!"? Fuck, no. He's a hypocritical bastard.