Andy Murray Latest and General Tennis Chat

[banana]

5 minutes ago, TheScarf said:

Let's get back to talking about actual tennis.  This Serena stuff is boring.

Would be nice, but totalitarian ideologues do not stop unless stopped.

[ayrmad]

37 minutes ago, AsimButtHitsASix said:

That's the point. Redrawing some old racist tropes, intentionally or not, and throwing it on a tennis court makes it obvious who it was within context given the news of the day. You're kinda agreeing with me here that it was the context of the caricature that identified her and not the caricature itself which is, clearly, just racist drawing of a black woman.

No, I'm saying that anyone knowing what went on would have known, I'd have known regardless as I don't know any other celebrity that I could have mistaken that for.

[AsimButtHitsASix]

Yeah the tennis outfit does help narrow it down :/

[Jamaldo]

That's the point. Redrawing some old racist tropes, intentionally or not, and throwing it on a tennis court makes it obvious who it was within context given the news of the day. You're kinda agreeing with me here that it was the context of the caricature that identified her and not the caricature itself which is, clearly, just racist drawing of a black woman.

How should she have been drawn?

[Bairnardo]

The cartoon isnt racist IMO Absolutely no way.

Despite that, banana is a fanny of the highest order and as a decent poster, AsimButtHitsASix should heed that and argue these points with sensible people who arent fannies of the highest order.

[AsimButtHitsASix]

In a way that didn't hark back to Jim Crow-era "coon" cartoons. In a way doesn't draw comparisons to "Li'l Sambo" style drawings. There is nothing, outwith her outfit, that is parallel to Serena herself. It's just "BIG LIPS AND FUZZY HAIR". It's a golliwog with a tennis racket.

Quote

“While Australia has its own unique colonial history separate from the United States, the Western world, including Australia, share an aesthetic history,

That history includes an effort “to dehumanize Black and brown people by degrading their features into symbols of the subhuman.

Is this cartoon racist? First, what is this cartoon doing? What’s the object? The text is a pretty clear, if flaccid, punch line regarding Serena Williams’s poor sportsmanship. It alludes to Serena being childish and angry (I’d argue that the text relies on racist, sexist tropes, too).

But cartoons are a drawing medium. Now, I don’t want to blindly attribute intent, but setting aside the possibility that the cartoonist is just that poor a draughtsman, the drawings seem to ridicule Serena’s appearance. These aren’t very good likenesses. Mark isn’t using the medium to support his joke by, say, depicting Serena as a baby, in which case the pacifier should have been more prominently featured.

Cartooning uses the shorthand of symbols to depict things. This is our craft. Using symbols. The pacifier is a symbol of immaturity, it alludes to a baby throwing a tantrum. But Mark is also drawing from a different history of symbols here. Racist and sexist symbols. Mark critiques the appearance and performance of Serena’s body in relation to race and sex, not her sportsmanship.

Whether or not Mark intended to draw on the racist history of the symbols, he has. His intent is irrelevant. Either he is a deliberately racist cartoonist — or an incompetent and careless cartoonist.”

Sums it up pretty well from Ronald Wimberley (who, if ye give a quick Google, will show you many different ways of drawing cartoons of black folk without reverting to copying the drawing style of the 1940s). The only thing I'd add to is the artist has came under fire more than once about racism in his cartoons so this shouldn't be viewed as just a one off. He's either racist or is deliberately trying to appear racist to rattle up some controversy. Either way he's a dick.
 

[banana]

3 hours ago, AsimButtHitsASix said:

In a way that didn't hark back to Jim Crow-era "coon" cartoons. In a way doesn't draw comparisons to "Li'l Sambo" style drawings. There is nothing, outwith her outfit, that is parallel to Serena herself. It's just "BIG LIPS AND FUZZY HAIR". It's a golliwog with a tennis racket.

Ooft, you've got some gumption calling anyone racist if that's what you see, Dear Leader.

What we've again seen in this latest in an unending stream of 'Progressive'/Feminist Totalitarianism is  that there are different rules, standards, and treatment that must be applied based on a person's group characteristics, such as race and gender. That features can only be e.g. caricatured depending on certain skin colours and sex.

Black people, for example must be stripped of and protected from their individuality, segregated into a single entity, and treated like snowflakes who need The 'Progressive' Saviour.

[Ira Gaines]

Arguing with banana

[Benjamin_Nevis]

Arguing with banana [emoji38]

Indeed. The spamming melt will probably get emptied at some point, but he's basically the MJC of the non-football threads.

[Buddist Monk]

7 hours ago, Bairnardo said:

The cartoon isnt racist IMO Absolutely no way

Not picking your comment out specifically, as it seems to reflect quite a few people's opinion on this, but I think if people don't see the racial overtones then perhaps you should speak to people who deal with racism on a daily basis, both overt and casual. You can maybe, maybe, make an argument about caricature, the problem is that that caricature is based on classic racist stereotypes. It's "Tin Tin in the Congo" trope territory.

What I would say, before everyone starts piling in on this, is that Williams made a complete fucking tit of herself. She belittled Osaka's success and brought ridicule upon herself. She has come out of this very badly, but taking that cartoon out of the *autistic_screeching* from both sides virtue signalling and being apologists, it is most definitely racist.

Am I saying that those who don't see it as racist are racist themselves? No, that is definitely not what I am saying, and I want to make that very clear. This is not a false dichotomy I am creating. What I would say is that Australia itself has a history of racially stereotyping it's own indigenous people and that populist pseudo-racism still exists within mainstream society.

Edited September 12, 2018 by Buddist Monk

[banana]

3 hours ago, Mayor Wilkins III said:

Arguing with banana

As despicable/brainwashed a character as this Asim chap is, at least he has the balls to get in the ring, petal 

[ayrmad]

1 hour ago, Buddist Monk said:

Not picking your comment out specifically, as it seems to reflect quite a few people's opinion on this, but I think if people don't see the racial overtones then perhaps you should speak to people who deal with racism on a daily basis, both overt and casual. You can maybe, maybe, make an argument about caricature, the problem is that that caricature is based on classic racist stereotypes. It's "Tin Tin in the Congo" trope territory.

What I would say, before everyone starts piling in on this, is that Williams made a complete fucking tit of herself. She belittled Osaka's success and brought ridicule upon herself. She has come out of this very badly, but taking that cartoon out of the *autistic_screeching* from both sides virtue signalling and being apologists, it is most definitely racist.

Am I saying that those who don't see it as racist are racist themselves? No, that is definitely not what I am saying, and I want to make that very clear. This is not a false dichotomy I am creating. What I would say is that Australia itself has a history of racially stereotyping it's own indigenous people and that populist pseudo-racism still exists within mainstream society.

It's nearing the point where you can only joke about your own group, it's getting to ridiculous levels of finding and taking offence.

[The OP]

6 minutes ago, ayrmad said:

It's nearing the point where you can only joke about your own group, it's getting to ridiculous levels of finding and taking offence.

These days, right, if you say you’re English, you get arrested and thrown in jail.

[banana]

8 minutes ago, ayrmad said:

It's nearing the point where you can only joke about your own group, it's getting to ridiculous levels of finding and taking offence.

It's way beyond that. The groupings fracture and sub-fracture and so on and so on, with each sub-fracture and combined sub-fractures vying for the most victimhood. For example, as I mentioned, white women are being pillared by feminism at the moment, while the trans activists in feminism are given more victimhood than women born as women, and so forth. White women < Women < PoC Women < Trans Women.

It's a never-ending scramble for victimhood,the snake eating its own tail.

Edited September 12, 2018 by banana

[Buddist Monk]

6 minutes ago, ayrmad said:

It's nearing the point where you can only joke about your own group, it's getting to ridiculous levels of finding and taking offence.

Remove the screeching around the image, take it into isolation. Ok, sure it's obviously reflecting Williams' childish behaviour so we can't completely remove that context but just for a minute place yourself in a situation where the machinations of idiots on twitter and facebook aren't pouring out ridiculous claims (on either side).

Once you do that, you must find the cartoon racist. I am not intentionally finding offence where there is none. Personally I'm not offended by it, I'm disappointed by it, but I'm not offended by it.

[Buddist Monk]

1 minute ago, banana said:

It's a never-ending scramble for victimhood,the snake eating its own tail.

Not sure if you consider yourself some sort of expert wind up merchant, the profile term "Triggerdaddy" suggests you might, however this sort of rhetoric is pretty self serving.

You might not take offence, you might think it's acceptable, and I would contest that you would be wrong on that. However I don't suggest you do that because you are inherently seeking a racist agenda, so in the same manner you should refrain from suggesting those who object are inherently seeking victimhood.

 

[banana]

35 minutes ago, Buddist Monk said:

Not sure if you consider yourself some sort of expert wind up merchant, the profile term "Triggerdaddy" suggests you might

The phenomenon of how individuals and groups of people operating under orthodoxy respond to alternative information/views/data/etc. is fascinating, and worthy of a whole other thread. This obviously extends way beyond only my targets here, namely 'Progressives', Feminism and related identity ideology that all get an enthusiastic pass under the P&B orthodoxy. Stating opinions (not always mine), provocations (in the de Bono sense) and often just questions trigger a fair number of seemingly intellectually sheltered / brainwashed / fragile people on the site who go off in one huff or another.

35 minutes ago, Buddist Monk said:

You might not take offence, you might think it's acceptable, and I would contest that you would be wrong on that. However I don't suggest you do that because you are inherently seeking a racist agenda, so in the same manner you should refrain from suggesting those who object are inherently seeking victimhood.

I think it's more than just acceptable, I think that freedom of thought and expression, including at the risk of giving offense, is absolutely imperative.

Conceding a small and obvious point to try to force a large concession elsewhere (silencing myself via refrain, no less!) is very naughty indeed! Besides, I'm not saying that all those who object are inherently seeking victimhood (see: white middle-class 'Progressives' who rally behind this kind of thing to feel virtuous, or perhaps to fend off any possible accusations that they too might be a 'racist'). I'm pointing out the methods of use of and pernicious nature of victimhood narratives, such as employed by Serena and those who have rallied behind her.

Edited September 12, 2018 by banana

[k-ton]

6 hours ago, The OP said:

These days, right, if you say you’re English, you get arrested and thrown in jail.

And don’t write “There ain’t no black in the Union Jack” in pen on your passport application photo either.

[Bairnardo]

11 hours ago, Buddist Monk said:

Not picking your comment out specifically, as it seems to reflect quite a few people's opinion on this, but I think if people don't see the racial overtones then perhaps you should speak to people who deal with racism on a daily basis, both overt and casual. You can maybe, maybe, make an argument about caricature, the problem is that that caricature is based on classic racist stereotypes. It's "Tin Tin in the Congo" trope territory.

What I would say, before everyone starts piling in on this, is that Williams made a complete fucking tit of herself. She belittled Osaka's success and brought ridicule upon herself. She has come out of this very badly, but taking that cartoon out of the *autistic_screeching* from both sides virtue signalling and being apologists, it is most definitely racist.

Am I saying that those who don't see it as racist are racist themselves? No, that is definitely not what I am saying, and I want to make that very clear. This is not a false dichotomy I am creating. What I would say is that Australia itself has a history of racially stereotyping it's own indigenous people and that populist pseudo-racism still exists within mainstream society.

Very aware and more than happy to backnout of any arguement where it may appear I am on the same side as actual racist and full on moron banana. 

For me, I am no longer comfortable with the ease at which people are branded racist these days. The cartoon symbology may be the result of decades/hundreds of years of the way black people were drawn influencing the guy. And no doubt there was a time where that symbology was designed specifically to belittle black people. Also no doubt that attitude still exists today. 

That said, to brand someone a racist, I need to see more about their personal prejudices about people based on theor race. 

His cartoon either makes him a bit lazy, or potentially, but not confirmed racist for me. 

I had this conversation with Gaz iirc a while back where I said I wasnt prepared to brand someone a racist based on using the word chinky to describe chinese food. On the basis that its not enough to earn such a horrendous label. 

[Buddist Monk]

11 hours ago, banana said:

The phenomenon of how individuals and groups of people operating under orthodoxy respond to alternative information/views/data/etc. is fascinating, and worthy of a whole other thread. This obviously extends way beyond only my targets here, namely 'Progressives', Feminism and related identity ideology that all get an enthusiastic pass under the P&B orthodoxy. Stating opinions (not always mine), provocations (in the de Bono sense) and often just questions trigger a fair number of seemingly intellectually sheltered / brainwashed / fragile people on the site who go off in one huff or another.

Now to me, that simply sounds like you saying, "I will play Devil's Advocate because I know it annoys people", and whether that annoyance is justified or not is irrelevant. The problem is that in doing so, you open yourself up to the accusation you are using the DA premise because it allows you to say 'questionable' things with a level of impunity. Allow me to be very blunt here, and I mean very blunt, racism through jest or challenge is still racism. Again I want to be very clear I am not accusing you personally of being a racist.

It has been seen all down history that many racists, xenophobes, homophobes and misogynists also use this tactic in order to allow their hateful views to hold some intellectual weight. As if it's a bold and courageous thing. It's not though, it's intellectually bankrupt, and sadly all too transparent. Am I saying you are a racist, xenophobe, homophobe or misogynist? No, at least not based on what I've read of your comments so far. I'd say your stance is anachronous but that is for perhaps for another debate as you say.

11 hours ago, banana said:

I think it's more than just acceptable, I think that freedom of thought and expression, including at the risk of giving offense, is absolutely imperative.

That is a classic trope used by racists. It says if you find offence in this you are impeding on my freedoms. The thing is you will have a line yourself of where offence is taken. For example if someone put up roadside billboards of child pornography you'd naturally be offended and wish for those things to be removed. It's an outlandish suggestion of course, but that is the point. Using your argument, anyone wishing to remove those things would go against the freedoms of the "artist" and that the offence generated is in your own words "absolutely imperative".

So, in short, you claim it's not offensive because you don't find it offensive, and things you don't find offensive are entirely allowed because it's about freedom of expression. Those billboards would (I hope!) cross your line of what is offensive. The thing is, you are not the sole arbiter of what is offensive, and I would content that as you are not black, you are in a position where your experiences are limited in regard to this. Don't try and wrap it up in the metaphorical flag of freedoms, when those freedoms are not the ones laid out by you but by the social norms of the society you live within.

11 hours ago, banana said:

I think it's more than just acceptable, I think that freedom of thought and expression, including at the risk of giving offense, is absolutely imperative.

Conceding a small and obvious point to try to force a large concession elsewhere (silencing myself via refrain, no less!) is very naughty indeed! Besides, I'm not saying that all those who object are inherently seeking victimhood (see: white middle-class 'Progressives' who rally behind this kind of thing to feel virtuous, or perhaps to fend off any possible accusations that they too might be a 'racist'). I'm pointing out the methods of use of and pernicious nature of victimhood narratives, such as employed by Serena and those who have rallied behind her.

I'm sorry but your statement was considerably absolute. However you rolling back on that, as you have done here (and I would contend you are doing so because you realise the inaccuracy of that premise), is obviously a good thing. The problem that it's pernicious is simply saying that "I don't see offence so you have no right to see it and I'm worried what other things may be effected in the future". It's not a justifiable position to claim that something that people find abhorrent shouldn't be considered abhorrent because of some unknown and ambiguous existential threat further down the line.

This whole thing has been discredited by history. For example people said at the time that Love Thy Neighbour was acceptable television in the 70s. However the racism within it is seen pretty much universally as being unpalatable in modern society. The argument at the time as to why it shouldn't be considered as such? The same as the one you are using now.

Your victimhood claim, btw, is not addressing the issue, it's addressing the person. Play the ball not the man. I would also counter that not being black puts you at a disadvantage in judging what a section of society finds offensive. That works both ways, though, and I should point out I am not creating a false dichotomy here, or giving a blank cheque to anyone to claim offence simply because they (or their culture/creed) are the subject of the work.

 

Edited September 13, 2018 by Buddist Monk