i asked you to find and adhere to your own definition, perhaps you can find one for "set" and "standard" that applies to me allowing you to explain yourself.

so what i'm getting from your explanation, is that you think Beo is wrong about the cartoon being racist, but is not being racist.

i'm just confused why you would call him a racist. unless you were making a joke, falsely calling him a racist on purpose because he was falsely calling someone else a racist, in your opinion. Maybe you should claim that's what u meant.

ironically it seems that you've gone snowflake and are calling anyone u disagree with on terms of race a racist, the thing you claim you're against.



1. does he even know the race of the author?
2. he said it was the imagery, and not the authors race in question

try again genius.

This post was edited by thesnipa on Sep 10 2018 09:05am

I know more than you do about it buddy boy. What sort of topics do you think my early American history classes delved into?



No I actually think Beowulf is a racist. I apply that term towards his nuance and definition of racism, and by his own definition and sense of self it indelibly makes him racist.
Also, especially since he is of Native American origins, his hatred towards the white man and its culture, and exponentiation how it causes all the problems of all of the other cultures is almost by definition of my sense of racism.

I mean I think a lot of people have a bit of racism in themselves, and it has to do with their experiences and way of life. I don't really think its a bad or evil thing as long as it doesn't effect the life of others.
If anything, then at least everyone has a bit of prejudice in them. Only people who are on the level of Ghandi lack that.

This post was edited by ChrisKz on Sep 10 2018 09:07am

I didn't attack the artist I know literally nothing about them

I don't know intent only the history and I think it's something to learn from



I don't blame the sins of the father on the son

but I do hold people responsible for their actions and policies and art that carry on those same damaging views and actions

There is nobody I've ever known that I dislike for being white or any color. Only care who they are and how they act

he quoted the picture's exact place of origin dummy, try calculating the likelihood of him knowing or not based on that

or grow a brain and figure out the other possibility, of him not knowing the race of the author, is even worse for your piss-poor argument because it is a scenario where the author can be a person of color, which by your regressive standards - means the author cant possibly be racist.

ahh the old meta argument.



if you think what you're claiming to think now why not have said "you're racist, and you see racism where there is none", instead of specifically saying that thinking something in a specific situation made him racist, presumably in that situation, without mention to his overall racism.

i'd respect u a bit more if you just admit you got snowflake triggered into alleging racism where it wasn't really specifically merited, but my guess is you'll write another boring essay about how even though you were not clear at all you're actually right for a reason you didn't express but were thinking about all along.

race issues these days aren't factual, they're both sides alleging racism in an attempt to weaponize shame, you're no better than any loony lefty that screams racist at a Trump rally protest.



so because the author is in all likelihood white, you feel the specific label of "jim crow artistry" doesn't apply? he said straight out what he thinks is racist, the Australian part is clearly context and at most a tangential reference to the racism involved.

then again if you were able to identify the direct stated reasons and not go digging for horseshit narratives in memes you wouldnt be able to post here.

if i quoted an article and said "kentucky man attacks blacks on public bus and calls them Nigger" all you'd think is important is "kentucky"?

This post was edited by thesnipa on Sep 10 2018 09:19am

being transparent

actually the opposite of what you're claiming because it gives an out as they may not even be fully aware of why it could be seen as offensive and racist art

caricatures are meant to be offensive

the claim that Osaka is depicted to be a white blond woman is #FakeClaim, referee's skin is white and her is darker, a dyed blond hair ponytail thing is accurate to her actual hair during the match

the only claim you are left with to try support the racism accusation, is that a white cartoonist dared to paint a caricature of a black woman - which is ridiculousness to anyone with a brain

This post was edited by HeLiCaL on Sep 10 2018 09:32am

I don't know the skin color of the artist or the sex or the age

wouldn't have changed my posts if I did

I didn't have an agenda I have an opinion and you're welcome to yours that's why I posted it.

whatever u need to make up to fit your narrative. as per usual.

you trying to dispute he is white?

your argument of this cartoon being racist crashed and burns regardless of his race