Best Political Cartoons

[Askold]

Okay, let's backtrack a little bit here and put things into more practical terms.  So, the specific but hypothetical situation we're talking about here is a group of black people killing a white person and the reverse of that.  So let's say each case is brought before a judge, who statistically speaking is most likely going to be white, and a jury, who are also fairly likely to be mostly white.  Which group do you think this judge would hand out more death sentences to?  Which group do you honestly think is going to end up worse off?  If one of them tried to say something akin to "Okay, we admit we were going to rough him up a bit and that was wrong, but we didn't have any intentions of killing him until he fought back!  It was practically a complete accident and we should get involuntary manslaughter at worst!" form whom do you think the argument would hold more weight?

I specifically said that if one group can get away with crimes due to racism while others are judged unfairly then that is a REALLY bad thing and true opression.

That still does not mean that person A killing person B due to racism would not be a hate crime. Neither does it mean that A insulting B due to B's race wouldn't be racism. Or that A thinking quietly in his head that B is inferiour due to his race wouldn't be racism. Some of those are worse than the others, but it does not mean that changing the ethnicity of A and B would make any of those NOT be racism.

[fancy_kitten]

No one is talking about sentences or guilty/not-guilty verdicts; they're talking about how saying "it's not racist when non-whites do it" is a load of shit.

Okay, but without discussing actual results and what causes them the term 'racism' kind of loses its meaning.

Okay, let's backtrack a little bit here and put things into more practical terms.  So, the specific but hypothetical situation we're talking about here is a group of black people killing a white person and the reverse of that.  So let's say each case is brought before a judge, who statistically speaking is most likely going to be white, and a jury, who are also fairly likely to be mostly white.  Which group do you think this judge would hand out more death sentences to?  Which group do you honestly think is going to end up worse off?  If one of them tried to say something akin to "Okay, we admit we were going to rough him up a bit and that was wrong, but we didn't have any intentions of killing him until he fought back!  It was practically a complete accident and we should get involuntary manslaughter at worst!" form whom do you think the argument would hold more weight?

I specifically said that if one group can get away with crimes due to racism while others are judged unfairly then that is a REALLY bad thing and true opression.

That still does not mean that person A killing person B due to racism would not be a hate crime. Neither does it mean that A insulting B due to B's race wouldn't be racism. Or that A thinking quietly in his head that B is inferiour due to his race wouldn't be racism. Some of those are worse than the others, but it does not mean that changing the ethnicity of A and B would make any of those NOT be racism.

That's the thing though, language is important.  If A is a person being on the receiving end of a negative action in an environment in which other members of group A have no history of being oppressed in both the public and private sectors, and in which the majority of wealthy people and people in government positions, and B is a person experiencing a negative action in an environment where those things are true, A does not logically equal B. 

Yeah, it's one thing to say white people aren't nearly as badly discriminated against as black people, it's another to say black people killing white people based purely on the fact they're white isn't racism is another.


#CancelFancy_Kitten

I swear you people are kinder to actual hateful fundies than you are to supporters of social justice.

[R. U. Sirius]

No one is talking about sentences or guilty/not-guilty verdicts; they're talking about how saying "it's not racist when non-whites do it" is a load of shit.

Okay, but without discussing actual results and what causes them the term 'racism' kind of loses its meaning.

Okay, let's backtrack a little bit here and put things into more practical terms.  So, the specific but hypothetical situation we're talking about here is a group of black people killing a white person and the reverse of that.  So let's say each case is brought before a judge, who statistically speaking is most likely going to be white, and a jury, who are also fairly likely to be mostly white.  Which group do you think this judge would hand out more death sentences to?  Which group do you honestly think is going to end up worse off?  If one of them tried to say something akin to "Okay, we admit we were going to rough him up a bit and that was wrong, but we didn't have any intentions of killing him until he fought back!  It was practically a complete accident and we should get involuntary manslaughter at worst!" form whom do you think the argument would hold more weight?

I specifically said that if one group can get away with crimes due to racism while others are judged unfairly then that is a REALLY bad thing and true opression.

That still does not mean that person A killing person B due to racism would not be a hate crime. Neither does it mean that A insulting B due to B's race wouldn't be racism. Or that A thinking quietly in his head that B is inferiour due to his race wouldn't be racism. Some of those are worse than the others, but it does not mean that changing the ethnicity of A and B would make any of those NOT be racism.

That's the thing though, language is important.  If A is a person being on the receiving end of a negative action in an environment in which other members of group A have no history of being oppressed in both the public and private sectors, and in which the majority of wealthy people and people in government positions, and B is a person experiencing a negative action in an environment where those things are true, A does not logically equal B. 

Yeah, it's one thing to say white people aren't nearly as badly discriminated against as black people, it's another to say black people killing white people based purely on the fact they're white isn't racism is another.


#CancelFancy_Kitten

I swear you people are kinder to actual hateful fundies than you are to supporters of social justice.

Nobody has claimed that the two are equivalent or would be treated equivalently. Having a cold isn't the same as having full-blown AIDS, but both are still diseases. I've said it before and I'll say it again: Racism is related to oppression, but being in the position of the oppressed does NOT make you immune to being a racist.

[fancy_kitten]

No one is talking about sentences or guilty/not-guilty verdicts; they're talking about how saying "it's not racist when non-whites do it" is a load of shit.

Okay, but without discussing actual results and what causes them the term 'racism' kind of loses its meaning.

Okay, let's backtrack a little bit here and put things into more practical terms.  So, the specific but hypothetical situation we're talking about here is a group of black people killing a white person and the reverse of that.  So let's say each case is brought before a judge, who statistically speaking is most likely going to be white, and a jury, who are also fairly likely to be mostly white.  Which group do you think this judge would hand out more death sentences to?  Which group do you honestly think is going to end up worse off?  If one of them tried to say something akin to "Okay, we admit we were going to rough him up a bit and that was wrong, but we didn't have any intentions of killing him until he fought back!  It was practically a complete accident and we should get involuntary manslaughter at worst!" form whom do you think the argument would hold more weight?

I specifically said that if one group can get away with crimes due to racism while others are judged unfairly then that is a REALLY bad thing and true opression.

That still does not mean that person A killing person B due to racism would not be a hate crime. Neither does it mean that A insulting B due to B's race wouldn't be racism. Or that A thinking quietly in his head that B is inferiour due to his race wouldn't be racism. Some of those are worse than the others, but it does not mean that changing the ethnicity of A and B would make any of those NOT be racism.

That's the thing though, language is important.  If A is a person being on the receiving end of a negative action in an environment in which other members of group A have no history of being oppressed in both the public and private sectors, and in which the majority of wealthy people and people in government positions, and B is a person experiencing a negative action in an environment where those things are true, A does not logically equal B. 

Yeah, it's one thing to say white people aren't nearly as badly discriminated against as black people, it's another to say black people killing white people based purely on the fact they're white isn't racism is another.


#CancelFancy_Kitten

I swear you people are kinder to actual hateful fundies than you are to supporters of social justice.

Nobody has claimed that the two are equivalent or would be treated equivalently. Having a cold isn't the same as having full-blown AIDS, but both are still diseases. I've said it before and I'll say it again: Racism is related to oppression, but being in the position of the oppressed does NOT make you immune to being a racist.

Okay, but calling both ailments 'terminal,' for instance, would make no sense, right?  Running with the metaphor you've presented, I'd say that 'disease' is equivalent to 'prejudiced' but only 'terminal' would be equivalent to 'racist.'  One is bad and deserves attention, while one is extremely bad, deserves immediate attention, and has completely different root causes.

[R. U. Sirius]

By your logic, it would be impossible for a woman to abuse a man in a relationship because of the fact that we still live in a highly patriarchal society where men are largely favored over women in many jobs and institutions. Sure, she might scream at, demean, strike or threaten him with weapons, but it wouldn't be abuse because of the societal power differential between men and women.

[Askold]

Okay, but calling both ailments 'terminal,' for instance, would make no sense, right?  Running with the metaphor you've presented, I'd say that 'disease' is equivalent to 'prejudiced' but only 'terminal' would be equivalent to 'racist.'  One is bad and deserves attention, while one is extremely bad, deserves immediate attention, and has completely different root causes.

No, you see now we get to the point where we disagree. YOU and SJWs and SJAs and whatever different monikers there are, are trying to change the meaning of the word racist.

If we're still using the disease metaphor, in our opinion you are trying to argue that the word disease should be reserved for diseases that cause near certain death and that people who have the flu or diabetes etc. should not count as having a disease. We are not claiming that there aren't terminal illnesses or that some diseases are more dangerous than others, just that all diseases count as diseases wether they are lethal or not.

[Ghoti]

Oi, DOCTAH! Flame war in the cartoon thread!

(Tattling aside, this looks like a job for Aquaman discussion for F&B.)

[fancy_kitten]

By your logic, it would be impossible for a woman to abuse a man in a relationship because of the fact that we still live in a highly patriarchal society where men are largely favored over women in many jobs and institutions. Sure, she might scream at, demean, strike or threaten him with weapons, but it wouldn't be abuse because of the societal power differential between men and women.

 

I think it would be more apt to say that, by my definition, the man in question wouldn't be experiencing sexism, which I honestly don't think he would.

Okay, but calling both ailments 'terminal,' for instance, would make no sense, right?  Running with the metaphor you've presented, I'd say that 'disease' is equivalent to 'prejudiced' but only 'terminal' would be equivalent to 'racist.'  One is bad and deserves attention, while one is extremely bad, deserves immediate attention, and has completely different root causes.

No, you see now we get to the point where we disagree. YOU and SJWs and SJAs and whatever different monikers there are, are trying to change the meaning of the word racist.

If we're still using the disease metaphor, in our opinion you are trying to argue that the word disease should be reserved for diseases that cause near certain death and that people who have the flu or diabetes etc. should not count as having a disease. We are not claiming that there aren't terminal illnesses or that some diseases are more dangerous than others, just that all diseases count as diseases wether they are lethal or not.

Alright, I don't see this conversation going any farther at this point.  I'll just make my closing statement that the point I was trying to make is that while a thing can be bad, it's important to know whether or not that thing has a history and/or an active power structure behind it.

[Sylvana]

If we're still using the disease metaphor, in our opinion you are trying to argue that the word disease should be reserved for diseases that cause near certain death and that people who have the flu or diabetes etc. should not count as having a disease. We are not claiming that there aren't terminal illnesses or that some diseases are more dangerous than others, just that all diseases count as diseases wether they are lethal or not.

Personally, I felt that disease should really only be applicable for medical conditions caused by viral or bacterial micro-organisms. Hence, I am not particularly fond of classifying things like diabetes or cancer as a disease. However, I do agree with the main point you are trying to make. It is just my two pedantic cents.

[Askold]

If we're still using the disease metaphor, in our opinion you are trying to argue that the word disease should be reserved for diseases that cause near certain death and that people who have the flu or diabetes etc. should not count as having a disease. We are not claiming that there aren't terminal illnesses or that some diseases are more dangerous than others, just that all diseases count as diseases wether they are lethal or not.

Personally, I felt that disease should really only be applicable for medical conditions caused by viral or bacterial micro-organisms. Hence, I am not particularly fond of classifying things like diabetes or cancer as a disease. However, I do agree with the main point you are trying to make. It is just my two pedantic cents.

Sorry, I guess I should have used HIV or Ebola or something but I just picked some ailments by random.

[Barbarella]

ALLLLLLLLL-RIGHTY THEN! TIME FOR ANOTHER CARTOON!

[Ultimate Paragon]

[Ironchew]

2. Rich people use money they would have spent on taxes to hire part-time, low-wage workers.

Or the corporation pockets the money and does nothing else with it.

4. Products don't sell because low-wage workers have little money, pension or social security.

The products are selling just fine, but corporations are no longer focused on marketing their products to the middle class in the United States. That's just not where the money is at on a global scope.

If I were a morally-bankrupt corporation, I would figure out how to lend credit to my employees instead of paying them wages. That way I can redeem it all later, with interest.

[R. U. Sirius]

2. Rich people use money they would have spent on taxes to hire part-time, low-wage workers.

Or the corporation pockets the money and does nothing else with it.

4. Products don't sell because low-wage workers have little money, pension or social security.

The products are selling just fine, but corporations are no longer focused on marketing their products to the middle class in the United States. That's just not where the money is at on a global scope.

If I were a morally-bankrupt corporation, I would figure out how to lend credit to my employees instead of paying them wages. That way I can redeem it all later, with interest.

Some companies, particularly mining companies, used to do something very similar. They would have their workers concentrated in small communities that the company owned and ran and paid them in scrip that was only redeemable at the stores within those communities, effectively cutting them off from the outside world. Some would even force their workers to pay rent on their houses with company scrip.

[RavynousHunter]

2. Rich people use money they would have spent on taxes to hire part-time, low-wage workers.

Or the corporation pockets the money and does nothing else with it.

4. Products don't sell because low-wage workers have little money, pension or social security.

The products are selling just fine, but corporations are no longer focused on marketing their products to the middle class in the United States. That's just not where the money is at on a global scope.

If I were a morally-bankrupt corporation, I would figure out how to lend credit to my employees instead of paying them wages. That way I can redeem it all later, with interest.

Some companies, particularly mining companies, used to do something very similar. They would have their workers concentrated in small communities that the company owned and ran and paid them in scrip that was only redeemable at the stores within those communities, effectively cutting them off from the outside world. Some would even force their workers to pay rent on their houses with company scrip.

Which, I might remind everyone, ended with rather a fair deal of bloodshed.  Matewan Massacre, anyone?