Best Political Cartoons

[Ultimate Paragon]

On the comic itself, I will point out the difference is that the one with the white guy getting murdered would end in everyone calling for the black groups heads, the other scenario would likely result in the white guys getting off scott free as they were simply defending themselves against the negro menace.

Did you come out of a time warp from the 1970s?

[I am lizard]

On the comic itself, I will point out the difference is that the one with the white guy getting murdered would end in everyone calling for the black groups heads, the other scenario would likely result in the white guys getting off scott free as they were simply defending themselves against the negro menace.

Did you come out of a time warp from the 1970s?

Yes, but I'm not sure why this has to do with my bitterness over the Trayvon martin case and about a half-dozen other cases of black guys getting killed and the murderer getting away shit-free because he/she (okay, he) was simply defending himself from the scary unarmed black teenager.

[Ultimate Paragon]

On the comic itself, I will point out the difference is that the one with the white guy getting murdered would end in everyone calling for the black groups heads, the other scenario would likely result in the white guys getting off scott free as they were simply defending themselves against the negro menace.

Did you come out of a time warp from the 1970s?

Yes, but I'm not sure why this has to do with my bitterness over the Trayvon martin case and about a half-dozen other cases of black guys getting killed and the murderer getting away shit-free because he/she (okay, he) was simply defending himself from the scary unarmed black teenager.

I think George Zimmerman is a brute, but I don't think he's a racist.  It seems likely that racism played a role in getting him off, but it also helped this guy:


Anyway, that kind of thing doesn't happen nearly as often as it used to.  True, it still happens too much, but it's far from a common occurrence.

[I am lizard]

On the comic itself, I will point out the difference is that the one with the white guy getting murdered would end in everyone calling for the black groups heads, the other scenario would likely result in the white guys getting off scott free as they were simply defending themselves against the negro menace.

Did you come out of a time warp from the 1970s?

Yes, but I'm not sure why this has to do with my bitterness over the Trayvon martin case and about a half-dozen other cases of black guys getting killed and the murderer getting away shit-free because he/she (okay, he) was simply defending himself from the scary unarmed black teenager.

I think George Zimmerman is a brute, but I don't think he's a racist.  It seems likely that racism played a role in getting him off, but it also helped this guy:


Anyway, that kind of thing doesn't happen nearly as often as it used to.  True, it still happens too much, but it's far from a common occurrence.

BTW, why the 70's? Like, wouldn't a better choice be the 60's or 50's?

[Ultimate Paragon]

On the comic itself, I will point out the difference is that the one with the white guy getting murdered would end in everyone calling for the black groups heads, the other scenario would likely result in the white guys getting off scott free as they were simply defending themselves against the negro menace.

Did you come out of a time warp from the 1970s?

Yes, but I'm not sure why this has to do with my bitterness over the Trayvon martin case and about a half-dozen other cases of black guys getting killed and the murderer getting away shit-free because he/she (okay, he) was simply defending himself from the scary unarmed black teenager.

I think George Zimmerman is a brute, but I don't think he's a racist.  It seems likely that racism played a role in getting him off, but it also helped this guy:


Anyway, that kind of thing doesn't happen nearly as often as it used to.  True, it still happens too much, but it's far from a common occurrence.

BTW, why the 70's? Like, wouldn't a better choice be the 60's or 50's?

I chose it because reasons.

[fancy_kitten]

Calling a group of black people killing a white person based on race racism ignores the power imbalance between people of any non-white race and white people in this country.  It doesn't help when someone reduces mentioning a centuries-long history of racial oppression that America is still reeling from to "Your point is invalid because SLAVERY!!!!!1."  There are a million reasons why that comic is too ignorant for words but I don't think I even have the energy to go into detail about them all right now.

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sw6ndZNLYUA" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sw6ndZNLYUA</a>

Do I really have to explain why that makes you sound like an SJW?

-sigh-  Is that really the one you're going to use?  Okay man, how about this: According to people who donate to and volunteer in soup kitchens, people who can afford to buy their own food cannot experience "hunger."  Yes they're aware that people who can eat at Applebee's on a nightly basis and still pay their bills technically need food and could potentially starve to death if they went long enough without it, but they can't be hungry, because only homeless people and people who otherwise can't even afford instant ramen can truly be hungry.  How is this not classism?  I'm calling it now, there is a war on people who can support themselves financially.  A war, I tell you.

Moving on, I'm well aware that a member of any group killing a member of any other group in cold blood is indeed monstrous and shouldn't be tolerated, but in order for something to qualify as oppression the action has to be taken against a member of an oppressed group.  In most of the world, white people are not an oppressed group.  This doesn't mean that murder or violence is okay in some contexts, it means that there are contexts in which there is a clear link between murder and an oppressive system and contexts in which no such connection exists, because there isn't an oppressive system for it to stem from.

[R. U. Sirius]

Calling a group of black people killing a white person based on race racism ignores the power imbalance between people of any non-white race and white people in this country.  It doesn't help when someone reduces mentioning a centuries-long history of racial oppression that America is still reeling from to "Your point is invalid because SLAVERY!!!!!1."  There are a million reasons why that comic is too ignorant for words but I don't think I even have the energy to go into detail about them all right now.

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sw6ndZNLYUA" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sw6ndZNLYUA</a>

Do I really have to explain why that makes you sound like an SJW?

-sigh-  Is that really the one you're going to use?  Okay man, how about this: According to people who donate to and volunteer in soup kitchens, people who can afford to buy their own food cannot experience "hunger."  Yes they're aware that people who can eat at Applebee's on a nightly basis and still pay their bills technically need food and could potentially starve to death if they went long enough without it, but they can't be hungry, because only homeless people and people who otherwise can't even afford instant ramen can truly be hungry.  How is this not classism?  I'm calling it now, there is a war on people who can support themselves financially.  A war, I tell you.

Moving on, I'm well aware that a member of any group killing a member of any other group in cold blood is indeed monstrous and shouldn't be tolerated, but in order for something to qualify as oppression the action has to be taken against a member of an oppressed group.  In most of the world, white people are not an oppressed group.  This doesn't mean that murder or violence is okay in some contexts, it means that there are contexts in which there is a clear link between murder and an oppressive system and contexts in which no such connection exists, because there isn't an oppressive system for it to stem from.

Except that racism and oppression are, again, related, but not synonymous.

[Ironchew]

Calling a group of black people killing a white person based on race racism ignores the power imbalance between people of any non-white race and white people in this country.

Wait, was that a social justice quote? No? It was posted on FQA, totally without irony or sarcasm?



If you don't think reverse racism is racism, there's a New Black Panther Party for Self-Defense where you'd fit right in. Assuming they don't murder you for being white or being a Jew.

[fancy_kitten]

Calling a group of black people killing a white person based on race racism ignores the power imbalance between people of any non-white race and white people in this country.  It doesn't help when someone reduces mentioning a centuries-long history of racial oppression that America is still reeling from to "Your point is invalid because SLAVERY!!!!!1."  There are a million reasons why that comic is too ignorant for words but I don't think I even have the energy to go into detail about them all right now.

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sw6ndZNLYUA" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sw6ndZNLYUA</a>

Do I really have to explain why that makes you sound like an SJW?

-sigh-  Is that really the one you're going to use?  Okay man, how about this: According to people who donate to and volunteer in soup kitchens, people who can afford to buy their own food cannot experience "hunger."  Yes they're aware that people who can eat at Applebee's on a nightly basis and still pay their bills technically need food and could potentially starve to death if they went long enough without it, but they can't be hungry, because only homeless people and people who otherwise can't even afford instant ramen can truly be hungry.  How is this not classism?  I'm calling it now, there is a war on people who can support themselves financially.  A war, I tell you.

Moving on, I'm well aware that a member of any group killing a member of any other group in cold blood is indeed monstrous and shouldn't be tolerated, but in order for something to qualify as oppression the action has to be taken against a member of an oppressed group.  In most of the world, white people are not an oppressed group.  This doesn't mean that murder or violence is okay in some contexts, it means that there are contexts in which there is a clear link between murder and an oppressive system and contexts in which no such connection exists, because there isn't an oppressive system for it to stem from.

Except that racism and oppression are, again, related, but not synonymous.

In layman's terms maybe.  Much like a typical creationist might claim that evolution doesn't have a stronger foundation of evidence than creation because evolution is, as we all know, just a theory, people who don't understand racism will use the term in ways that aren't equivalent at all.  What creationists really mean to say is that evolution is a hypothesis, what people who don't like prejudice, -i.e. everyboydy- but misunderstand the relationship between racism and systematic oppression really mean to say is prejudice.  There is a nuanced difference but it's there.

Calling a group of black people killing a white person based on race racism ignores the power imbalance between people of any non-white race and white people in this country.

Wait, was that a social justice quote? No? It was posted on FQA, totally without irony or sarcasm?



If you don't think reverse racism is racism, there's a New Black Panther Party for Self-Defense where you'd fit right in. Assuming they don't murder you for being white or being a Jew.

 

Oh boy, it's the big one.  Okay, so you use the term 'reverse racism' and criticize me for not thinking that reverse racism is racism.  If they were the same thing you wouldn't need a special word for it.  If you throw a bucket of elephant diarrhea at somebody, you really shouldn't be getting upset if some of it hits you as they frantically try to get it off.  Then you talk about the Black Panther Party, a group who was formed in part to fight against the KKK, whose idea of a good time up until that point was murdering families for fun.  Forgive me if I don't shed a tear for them.  I won't try to excuse their anti-Semitism, but get out of here with that 'they try to kill white people' crap.  I'll buy that when I see a news story about a white dude's family being forced to watch him get humiliated and lynched, but not a moment before.

[Ironchew]

You're defending an absurd hypothetical. It's already been established that a group of black people hypothetically kills a white person because he's white. To me, calling that anything other than a disgustingly racist hate crime, much less trying to excuse them and say it's not actually racist, is beyond the pale.

[I am lizard]

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

[Askold]

I'm hoping that last one is a joke.

Close but not exactly. It is parody that was made to highlight how stupid it is to try to rebrand racism into "power+prejudice."

And really, this rebranding is not helping anyone. By claiming that person X cannot experience racism SJWs are simply ignoring some peoples suffering but not really doing anything that would help the others who face racism either.

Why can't we just accept that all racism is bad and that depending on the location there are ethnic groups that face more racism than others. In fact I am not even denying that some ethnic groups have less power and face institutional racism and opression that other groups don't (depending on the location of course.) It is just that claiming that "group X can not be racist because blah" is derailing the conversation and is just an argument over semantics.

Yes, in USA (or at least parts of USA) a black person A still faces institutional racism while a white person B does not face the same hurdles, but that does not mean that A shouting that "all white people are subhuman mutants, whose low melanin numbers are a clear indication of their inferiority, need to be shot" would not be racist. (It also does not mean that mere racist remarks would be as bad as being jailed for petty crimes when someone of different skin colour would be treated more leniently by the courts.)

This (much like many other cases) is not a zero sum game and the fact that even the opressed ethnic groups can be racist does not mean that they aren't opressed. In fact, any person being a racist is a minor problem and a thought crime at most unless they commit opression or hate crimes due to that racism. If a group of black people and a group of white people both hold racist ideas but don't act on it no harm is done. If those groups both kill a member of a different ethnic group due to their racism then it is just as bad. AND if one of those groups get away with murder because the society and the law do not care for one of the victims then THAT is the real problem but it won't go away by claiming that one of those murders wasn't as bad because the killers can't be racist.

[I am lizard]

I'm hoping that last one is a joke.

Close but not exactly. It is parody that was made to highlight how stupid it is to try to rebrand racism into "power+prejudice."

And really, this rebranding is not helping anyone. By claiming that person X cannot experience racism SJWs are simply ignoring some peoples suffering but not really doing anything that would help the others who face racism either.

Why can't we just accept that all racism is bad and that depending on the location there are ethnic groups that face more racism than others. In fact I am not even denying that some ethnic groups have less power and face institutional racism and opression that other groups don't (depending on the location of course.) It is just that claiming that "group X can not be racist because blah" is derailing the conversation and is just an argument over semantics.

Yes, in USA (or at least parts of USA) a black person A still faces institutional racism while a white person B does not face the same hurdles, but that does not mean that A shouting that "all white people are subhuman mutants, whose low melanin numbers are a clear indication of their inferiority, need to be shot" would not be racist. (It also does not mean that mere racist remarks would be as bad as being jailed for petty crimes when someone of different skin colour would be treated more leniently by the courts.)

This (much like many other cases) is not a zero sum game and the fact that even the opressed ethnic groups can be racist does not mean that they aren't opressed. In fact, any person being a racist is a minor problem and a thought crime at most unless they commit opression or hate crimes due to that racism. If a group of black people and a group of white people both hold racist ideas but don't act on it no harm is done. If those groups both kill a member of a different ethnic group due to their racism then it is just as bad. AND if one of those groups get away with murder because the society and the law do not care for one of the victims then THAT is the real problem but it won't go away by claiming that one of those murders wasn't as bad because the killers can't be racist.

TL;dr, racism is bad, and no Rush Limbaugh, white people aren't oppressed.

[fancy_kitten]

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?

[Damen]

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.