Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The End of Political Cartoons at The New York Times

chappatte.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 196 posts

Re: The End of Political Cartoons at The New York Times

#161

Post by icebraining »

Rebelgecko wrote: post #133
icebraining wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trump did wear one, when he became the first US president to visit the Western Wall: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/trump-becomes-the-first-s...

Obama and Clinton both wore yarmulkes when they visited the Western Wall— Obama actually complained about how he felt that Arab media used pictures of him in a yarmulke for propaganda purposes. I personally doubt that the reason that the cartoonist put a yarmulke on Trump is because he wore a yarmulke one time back in 2017.

Neither Obama nor Clinton wore it as presidents. The cartoonist finds that a relevant fact.

Re: The End of Political Cartoons at The New York Times

#162

Post by blueboo »

dlivingston wrote: post #7

"We are in a world where moralistic mobs gather on social media and rise like a storm, falling upon newsrooms in an overwhelming blow. This requires immediate counter-measures by publishers, leaving no room for ponderation or meaningful discussions. Twitter is a place for furor, not debate. The most outraged voices tend to define the conversation, and the angry crowd follows in." This is a significant problem, not ju…

> From the Salem witch trials to the Red Scare to the Harry Potter book burnings

some how a master of nuance missed that one of these things is rather not like the other...

Re: The End of Political Cartoons at The New York Times

#163

Post by blueboo »

unreal37 wrote: post #68
NE2z2T9qi wrote: post #27

I think this piece is a great example of smug, establishment romanticism which grossly overvalues form over function. A political cartoon hasn't made me laugh, think deeply, or--most importantly--change my worldview in years. It's the most self-satisfied, pretentious, and outdated medium I know of. The author's notion that the loss of political cartoons is a serious loss of visual political culture is a self-absorbed…

"Political memes" is the new "political cartoon". And now anyone can be a cartoonist.

anyone can be a writer; abolish media

Re: The End of Political Cartoons at The New York Times

#165

Post by seventhtiger »

Chris2048 wrote: post #159
seventhtiger wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't have specific parts of the US or stereotypes in mind. It is well documented that hate crimes against Muslims happen in the US including murder. This is well documented. It's not a stretch to think a hate crime would happen in response to a flag burning, since they already happen unprovoked.

What is the cause of those crimes? You are switching from incidents of violence arising entirely from some specific incident, to those cause by sentiment, e.g. 9/11 caused an increase in anti-Muslim violence.

I don't see the difference between incident and sentiment and why 9/11 isn't an incident.

Re: The End of Political Cartoons at The New York Times

#166

Post by awithrow »

Hoasi wrote: post #75
mevile wrote: post #23

Political cartoons are, in my opinion, reductionist garbage that fail to take into consideration nuance and complexity and context. The caricature that inflate the size of ears and chins and lips and noses is not dignifying and doesn't add any value to whatever argument is being made, and can sometimes even be racist. There's no rebuttal to a political cartoon, there's no dialogue. They're cheap and easy to make and…

> Political cartoons are, in my opinion, reductionist garbage that fail to take into consideration nuance and complexity and context. Not the good ones. As with everything, the good ones are rare and difficult. On occasions, the form even raises to an art form. Also, the point of a good political cartoon is usually not to influence of skew your opinion.

Do you have some examples of good ones? I tend to agree with the parent but would like to see examples of the contrary.

Re: The End of Political Cartoons at The New York Times

#167

Post by Chris2048 »

seventhtiger wrote: post #165
Chris2048 wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is the cause of those crimes? You are switching from incidents of violence arising entirely from some specific incident, to those cause by sentiment, e.g. 9/11 caused an increase in anti-Muslim violence.

I don't see the difference between incident and sentiment and why 9/11 isn't an incident.

No one walked up to a Muslim that was otherwise non-combative with them, and did a 9/11 in front of them to start a fight.

Re: The End of Political Cartoons at The New York Times

#168

Post by derivagral »

seventhtiger wrote: post #148
marcosdumay wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was mocking that rule prohibiting images of their god. Mocking a stupid rule is not the same as mocking an entire religion.

The rule is forbidding idolatry which is one of the defining differences between Catholicism and Protestantism.

I'm not sure what you mean here; do you mean Catholicism and Protestantism don't also forbid idolatry?

Re: The End of Political Cartoons at The New York Times

#169

Post by apexalpha »

kristianc wrote: post #31

> "We are in a world where moralistic mobs gather on social media and rise like a storm, falling upon newsrooms in an overwhelming blow. This requires immediate counter-measures by publishers, leaving no room for ponderation or meaningful discussions. Twitter is a place for furor, not debate. The most outraged voices tend to define the conversation, and the angry crowd follows in." It's strange, and perhaps unfortuna…

Honestly, and I'm not trying to anger people here but. I don't think it's anti-semitic at all. It's a cartoon that encapsulated the fact that Trump(s policies) are guided by Netanyahu and Israeli interests. And that Trump follow this blindly (hence the guidance dog image).

I don't really see anything else other than critique of the current Israel - US leadership relationship.

Re: The End of Political Cartoons at The New York Times

#170

Post by belorn »

praneshp wrote: post #18
hestefisk wrote: post #12

This reminds me of the famous Muhammad drawings in 2005 in Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten (JP). Back then they were seen as a defence of free speech and our democratic rights, a way of mocking the draconian regimes of the Middle East. Had it happened again today, the Puritan twittersphere would have been all over it and JP would likely have had to follow same route as NYT. Very sad.

> Back then they were seen as a defence of free speech and our democratic rights, a way of mocking the draconian regimes of the Middle East Was this an universal viewpoint in the West? As a non-Muslim teen in India I saw it as mocking Islam (I get that others' mileage varies).

Mocking implies that the purpose was to make Muslim people feel bad, and I don't think that is the case. I see it in the context of works like The Demon-Haunted World by Carl Sagan (1995), The Meaning of Life (1983) by Monthy Python, The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins (2006), and South park episode Trapped in the Closet (2006). The point is to illustrate and highlight the superstitious believes of religion in the context of existing culture that gives it enormous power and influence.

Among those four, two use comedy as the medium. Three of them has been banned in various countries. The only exception is the south park episode and I suspect the only reason is because scientology is not the majority religion in any country or state.

Post reply on HN