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

141–150 of 196 posts

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

#141

Post by prepend »

nerpderp82 wrote: post #45
mAEStro-paNDa wrote: post #8

Here's an article over the cartoon mentioned here that sparked outrage in April which led to this: https://nypost.com/2019/04/28/new-york-times-condemned-for-a...

Can someone explain how the cartoon is antisemetic? Calling it such doesn't make it so. If I blend Putin into a Cassowary crossed with a Peacock would it not be apropos? Cartoons are supposed to be edgy and uncomfortable. It looks like like the NYT succumbed to the mob whipped up by the Trump administration, it meerly doesn't want the criticism.

I don’t think it is directly anti-Semitic, but is similar to other things that are. So it makes me uneasy that perhaps the author was trying to cloak anti-semitism.

I felt similar when political cartoons were made picturing Obama as a monkey even if the surface was non-racist. I thought I remembered a “see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil” cartoon but could not find it. Even though the cartoon wasn’t technically racist, I didn’t like it because it could easily be cover for genuine racial bigotry.

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

#142

Post by prepend »

ikeyany wrote: post #85
dbcurtis wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What in the world is a crypto-Jew? LMGTFY: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crypto-Judaism Staying out of sight to stay alive, basically.

Oh...I don't think anyone relevant seriously thinks he's a crypto-Jew. People just think he's spineless and is easily manipulatable by Putin/Kim/Netanyahu.

Do you think it is strange how he is so easily manipulated but yet Shumer and Pelosi and his own staff and many others fail to manipulate him?

This seems like such an odd, easily disproved statement that I am surprised when so many repeat it.

I’m not a fan, but it seems more like his regular failure than some manipulation trait.

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

#143

Post by Noos »

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…

Said journalists and publishers try and whip up moralistic mobs in service of their goals, though. Then when it doesn't go their way, the shock and outrage happen.

Everyone is happy when puritanism is what they like...HN's endless preening about riding bicycles, outlawing cars in cities, outlawing sugar, getting rid of facebook, and more are good examples. When their enemies use it though, watch out. Unfortunately the realization that a person themselves can be like that is hard won and hard to counter even when knowing it exists.

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

#144

Post by seventhtiger »

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.

What would happen to a couple of Muslims burning a US flag in some parts of the US? I won't jump straight to murder, but I'll say physical violence would be highly likely.

This is not whataboutism. I'm not saying it's ok because it happens elsewhere. I'm just arguing against the portrayal of it as a uniquely Muslim problem. I think we would be able to find some icon or symbol in every culture which some subset of people consider murder a valid reaction to disrespect of that symbol.

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

#145

Post by antientropic »

vlozc wrote: post #46
cm2187 wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the case of Charlie Hebdo the intention was clearly to mock Islam indeed. But I am mystified that we are questioning in 2019 the right to blasphemy in a modern, western, free, secular society.

We don't have that. October 2018: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/its-not-fr... >On Thursday, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) upheld her 2011 conviction for “disparagement of religious precepts,” a crime in Austria. The facts of what E.S. did are not in dispute. She held “seminars” in which she presented her view that Muhammad was indeed a child molester. Dominant Islamic traditions hold t…

> Europe does not have freedom of speech

What an absurd statement.

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

#146

Post by DiogenesKynikos »

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).

I saw it as right-wing, quasi-fascist xenophobes making a big show of standing up for freedom of speech by mocking a religious minority that they want to kick out of Europe.

They have a right to publish those cartoons. I view them the same way as I'd view an anti-Semite who published cartoons with stereotypical, negative portrayals of Jews, while advocating for kicking Jews out of Europe. I'd hold my nose and believe in their right to free speech, but I wouldn't lionize them.

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

#147

Post by raxxorrax »

mevile wrote: post #132
roenxi wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Standing up for free speech is a great thing to do; to reframe what you are saying we are dealing with one of the mildest outlets for anger that a demographic could possibly express. We want people to do that rather than escalating to, eg, yelling at people in person. People get angry all the time and a lot of them don't know how to deal with it. A political cartoon may not be a shining example of debate but it is a…

A newspaper not publishing political cartoons is not a free speech issue. If the government were banning political cartoons, then it would be. A newspaper can print or not print whatever it wants.

But self-censorship of the press can surely be an issue, no?

A cartoon can only transport so much, but it might give a hint about the bigger picture. Which I think is not taken into account with assertions like yours.

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

#148

Post by seventhtiger »

marcosdumay wrote: post #129
praneshp wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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).

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.

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

#149

Post by threezero »

antientropic wrote: post #145
vlozc wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We don't have that. October 2018: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/its-not-fr... >On Thursday, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) upheld her 2011 conviction for “disparagement of religious precepts,” a crime in Austria. The facts of what E.S. did are not in dispute. She held “seminars” in which she presented her view that Muhammad was indeed a child molester. Dominant Islamic traditions hold t…

> Europe does not have freedom of speech What an absurd statement.

Why is that an absurd statement? If you can’t say something bad about a religion or religious group, you don’t have free speech. And there are multiple countries in Europe that have laws against criticizing certain groups.

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

#150

Post by TomMckenny »

The article raises a very important point but unless I'm missing something, the comments here are identical to the twitter mob being talked about.

Are not statements quickly ripped of in a heat of emotion and consisting solely of impressions, rumors, opinions, hyperbole and intentional bias exactly the problem?

Post reply on HN