|
Wait, that's Mac? Why did I think he was on old "the world is changing and I don't like it" racist? That was almost endearing.
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 22:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 05:30 |
|
|
Coohoolin posted:Wait, that's Mac? Why did I think he was on old "the world is changing and I don't like it" racist? That was almost endearing. No, Mac is this old gently caress:  You know those times when, otherwise fairly moderate, elderly people suddenly come out with some racist remark? Mac's got the opposite of that; moments of sudden compulsion to be slightly less of a racist fuckwit. --- Nuzak's post is showing the young guy that's been named in relation to the racist Chelsea football supporters on Metro, story. The grinning ballsack on the right is some other, more familiar, twat. Pesky Splinter fucked around with this message at 22:38 on Feb 21, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2015 22:30
|
|
|
Party Boat posted:Let's get the Canadian ones in here too and go for a full-blown Commonwealth Cartoons thread. are there any really good Canadian cartoonists about? or would it just be endless JJ McCulloch posts
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2015 01:47
|
|
|
marktheando posted:I kind of miss Thomas to be honest. There was something almost endearing about how awful in every possible way his cartoons were. Oh, it's a relief to find out I'm not alone in guiltily missing Thomas and his really low-effort, bad-at-drawing-humans cartoons.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2015 02:13
|
|
|
Angepain posted:are there any really good Canadian cartoonists about? or would it just be endless JJ McCulloch posts Graeme Mackay is pretty decent as far as I remember? If we go full commonwealth there was also a Jamaican cartoonist who was generally alright apart from being a scorching homophobe, I haven't seen his stuff in the main thread in a while.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2015 08:31
|
|
|
Can someone post a couple of the most racist Mac's cartoons along with the Chelsea fans one to highlight the range of his opinions?
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2015 11:31
|
|
|
nuzak posted:And yet he still imagines the chelsea fans (who afforded paris tickets for an away game) as fat, unshaved (read: w/c) racists https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-0OFHPekUmE Aside from the troglodyte features which are definitely classic Mac working class. Paladinus posted:Can someone post a couple of the most racist Mac's cartoons along with the Chelsea fans one to highlight the range of his opinions?  A Greek and a German are forced to travel with other foreign types:  Much like American racist cartoonists, Mac expects you to hate immigrant children even if they are adorable.    quote:‘It was tragic. Your granny had just become the 77millionth person in the UK, then it sank.' 
Kegluneq fucked around with this message at 12:10 on Feb 22, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2015 11:58
|
|
|
I wonder what Daily Mail readers imagine happens in a "BENEFITS OFFICE" 
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2015 12:07
|
|
|
gorki posted:I wonder what Daily Mail readers imagine happens in a "BENEFITS OFFICE" benefits, obviously.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2015 12:16
|
|
|
gorki posted:I wonder what Daily Mail readers imagine happens in a "BENEFITS OFFICE" Cash is taken in shovel loads from sacks labelled FOR ARE TROOPS and MAGGIE MUSEUM and given to lots of swarthy foreign/deformed unemployed types, with no checks of any kind. Some payments are made in chips. In one dusty corner a man sits with a pile of unconditional job offers. A lone tear rolls down his cheek. A day's pay for a day's hard work can't compete with this. Looking through Mac's back catalogue, he's got a fairly consistent art style that generally doesn't focus on gross caricatures, so you don't see so many of the overtly racist depictions. He's also capable of including black/Asian figures as incidental background characters. Still dark as gently caress at times though, what the gently caress is this?  
Kegluneq fucked around with this message at 12:23 on Feb 22, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2015 12:20
|
|
|
Drawn by a bloke called Larry Pickering. This was one of his efforts from last year.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2015 12:50
|
|
|
Kegluneq posted:what the gently caress is this? gently caress the middle class forever, sitting around politely asking if the rest of the world could just keep it down a bit, all the complaints about horror and injustice are making it harder for them to enjoy the mediocre beige paste that is their lives. Kegluneq posted:‘It was tragic. Your granny had just become the 77millionth person in the UK, then it sank.'
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2015 13:17
|
|
|
Party Boat posted:Graeme Mackay is pretty decent as far as I remember? If we go full commonwealth there was also a Jamaican cartoonist who was generally alright apart from being a scorching homophobe, I haven't seen his stuff in the main thread in a while. I like Mackay but I think that this thread would find him really boring, he doesn't really do caricatures. Picture Mac but in color with a blandly centrist ideology.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2015 17:52
|
|
|
Observer: " A letter to David Cameron from the devil – Chris Riddell on the bishops’ letter to voters" Sunday Telegraph:  Ukraine crisis: Deadly bomb blast hits rally in Kharkiv
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2015 18:03
|
|
|
Cloud Potato posted:
I love the  skull by his right hoof.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2015 18:27
|
|
|
The maggie you mean?
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2015 18:31
|
|
|
now I see it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2015 19:52
|
|
|
Michael Leunig can hit the nail on the head too
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2015 21:44
|
|
|
Angepain posted:are there any really good Canadian cartoonists about? or would it just be endless JJ McCulloch When I have a moment in the next few days I could probably make an effort post about Aislin and Chapleau, two of the better Cartoonists in Quebec.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2015 22:48
|
|
|
Guardian: "Martin Rowson on the Ukraine crisis – Huffing and puffing from both sides one year on from start of crisis" Telegraph:  John Prescott set to return to front-line politics Independent:  Times: 
Cloud Potato fucked around with this message at 02:06 on Feb 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2015 02:01
|
|
|
Guardian: "Martin Rowson on cash-for-access allegations against Jack Straw – An investigation by the Telegraph and Channel 4’s Dispatches alleged that Sir Malcolm Rifkind and Jack Straw, the former Labour foreign secretary, offered to use their positions as politicians on behalf of a fictitious Chinese company in return for thousands of pounds" Telegraph:  Independent:  Times:  Mail: 
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2015 01:57
|
|
|
Literally
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2015 02:45
|
|
|
Guardian: "Ben Jennings on the 2022 World Cup in Qatar – A Fifa task force has recommended November and December for 2022 World Cup in Qatar" Telegraph:  Boris Johnson: I am like Gandalf the wizard Johnson intends to stand for election as MP for Uxbridge; however, with Rifkind's resignation, there's currently no Tory declared for Kensington & Chelsea. Independent:  Sir Malcolm Rifkind steps down as security committee chairman and as an MP Also MPs can't live on £60k a year, says Sir Malcolm Rifkind Times:  Election 2015: Green leader Bennett sorry for 'excruciating' interview Mail: Mac on... Claims that gerbils were the cause of the Black Death 
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2015 01:56
|
|
|
 Just as we're talking about cannibalism in the UK thread too...
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2015 11:30
|
|
|
 
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2015 11:42
|
|
|
Cloud Potato posted:Guardian:
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2015 19:58
|
|
|
Zephro posted:This is really good. It really is absolutely terrible in Qatar in the summer. It get sweltering hot, and if you're in the middle of Doha, or any heavily paved/constructed stretch of land like up in Ras Laffan where all the LNG plants are, you will experience heat that is at least 5-10 degrees above what was forecasted, not to mention the added effects of the sun bearing down constantly combined with a heavy, choking humidity. The night isn't much better either, the humidity makes it feel like you're walking through and breathing treacle. Being a Migrant worker in the middle east is one of the shittiest, least appreciated jobs that I have knowledge of. Rigged Death Trap fucked around with this message at 20:25 on Feb 25, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2015 20:22
|
|
|
Hearing about their labour laws it sounds less like a job and more like, uh, slavery. Unpaid wages and the inability to go back home. Truly terrible.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2015 20:50
|
|
|
Guardian: "Martin Rowson on MPs' outside earnings – Ed Miliband has accused David Cameron of failing to live up to ‘big’ commitments in opposition about limiting the outside earnings of MPs" Telegraph:  Never mind that it was the Green's leader who had the 'brain fade' interview. Ed Miliband! Boogity-boogity-boogity!! Independent: 
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2015 01:37
|
|
|
Guardian: 'Jihadi John' named as Mohammed Emwazi from London; Savile 'abused 63 people at Stoke Mandeville Hospital' Telegraph:  Net migration up to 298,000 as Conservative target missed; Brit Awards 2015: Madonna falls off stage Independent:  Times:  Most British Muslims 'oppose Muhammad cartoons reprisals' Mail: Mac on... A shock and awe deterral for cold callers 
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 01:39
|
|
|
Oh get to gently caress Meanwhile 42% of French people oppose printing cartoons of Mohammed but I don't see any sinister French people glaring from under a beret and twirling baguettes. I searched for 'charlie hebdo poll' to look for a general figure and yep this story comes up and yep the entire media is reporting it as 'British Muslims sympathise with terror atrocity' baka kaba fucked around with this message at 02:19 on Feb 27, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 02:09
|
|
|
baka kaba posted:Oh get to gently caress There are several statements regarding this in the British poll. One of them is 'Organisations which publish images of the Prophet Mohammed deserve to be attacked' and 11% of respondents agreed with this. There's also 'I have sympathy for the motives behind attacks on Charlie Hebdo' with 27% support. Both those statements are not about whether or not cartoons should have been published or not, but about respondents' reaction to the attack. So while I agree that media as always go with sensationalism and the cartoon has a hint of islamophobia to it, there is evidently a certain level of sympathy with terrorists among British Muslims. E: makes me wonder what a similar poll among other religious people might have revealed. I know at least one practicing Christian who would have probably agreed at least with the second statement and in the French poll Sarkozi supporters were more in favour of not publishing offensive cartoons than left-wing voters. Paladinus fucked around with this message at 02:55 on Feb 27, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 02:45
|
|
|
Is that practicing Christian the Pope?
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 03:06
|
|
|
Paladinus posted:There are several statements regarding this in the British poll. One of them is 'Organisations which publish images of the Prophet Mohammed deserve to be attacked' and 11% of respondents agreed with this. There's also 'I have sympathy for the motives behind attacks on Charlie Hebdo' with 27% support. Both those statements are not about whether or not cartoons should have been published or not, but about respondents' reaction to the attack. So while I agree that media as always go with sensationalism and the cartoon has a hint of islamophobia to it, there is evidently a certain level of sympathy with terrorists among British Muslims. Yeah but neither of those questions say "I think they were somewhat justified in what they did" which is what the media is very strongly implying with their reporting. 'Organisations which publish images of the Prophet Mohammed deserve to be attacked' isn't even specifically about Charlie Hebdo or terrorism, and it's very vague - attacked in what way? Protests? Political pressure and sanctions, including by Muslim states? Violence? One of the other statements is 'acts of violence against those who publish images of the Prophet Mohammad can never be justified' and 24% disagreed with that - that bolding is mine because it's an important aspect of the question. It's like that Daily Mail article saying that 'one third of British Muslim students say it's acceptable to kill in the name of Islam', when the actual poll question was about religion in general and the response was 'yes if that religion is under attack', which could mean anything. So 24% are saying that it's not impossible that some unspecified level of violence would be acceptable in some circumstances, which isn't anywhere close to saying "these terrorists were right" And while this is the only one that actually addresses what happened with Charlie Hebdo specifically, 'I have some sympathy for the motives behind the attacks' is completely different from sympathising with the act of terror itself. It's effectively saying 'I can see why they were upset about the cartoons' which is why the French poll is relevant - 42% of people there think these cartoons shouldn't be published (an even stronger position) because practicing Muslims feel attacked or upset by them. If that sense of aggrievance was the motive for the attacks, how is that not a higher level of sympathy for that motive? How many people don't have some level of sympathy for it? It's basically a non-statement, unless you think no Muslim has a reason to be upset in any way by things specifically targetting their beliefs and culture (That's even assuming the Muslims polled believe that personal aggrievance truly was the motive, rather than it being an opportunist political act of terrorism)
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 04:17
|
|
|
baka kaba posted:Yeah but neither of those questions say "I think they were somewhat justified in what they did" which is what the media is very strongly implying with their reporting. 'Organisations which publish images of the Prophet Mohammed deserve to be attacked' isn't even specifically about Charlie Hebdo or terrorism, and it's very vague - attacked in what way? Protests? Political pressure and sanctions, including by Muslim states? Violence? There's a world of difference between understanding motives and sympathising with them. Understanding is a separate question in the poll and even then the majority of respondents apparently can't even fathom terrorists' motives. Many people can understand why someone would kill their unfaithful spouse, for example, not anyone who understands would sympathise with their motives, however. And I'm not sure how you can say that supporting 'unspecified level of violence' towards people who publish any, not necessarily offensive, images of Mohammed is something that is not at all news-worthy. Again, I agree that rags like DM spin it out of proportion, but saying 'oh, that's completely fine that a considerable amount of people see that breaking a tenet of their religion can warrant some beating' simply doesn't follow from there. It's something that most definitely should be addressed, while ignoring the send them back crowd.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 13:32
|
|
|
Paladinus posted:There's a world of difference between understanding motives and sympathising with them. Understanding is a separate question in the poll and even then the majority of respondents apparently can't even fathom terrorists' motives. Many people can understand why someone would kill their unfaithful spouse, for example, not anyone who understands would sympathise with their motives, however. I don't agree at all - why wouldn't people have some sympathy for betrayal as a motive to do something? I'm pretty sure most people do! That doesn't mean they have sympathy for the actual response someone chooses, but they can sympathise with the experiences and emotions that drove someone to react. Especially when the group in question is subject to those same experiences and emotions I understand the motive behind, say, a violent assault by a racist group on someone who's not white walking through their turf. I get why they did it. But I sure as hell don't sympathise with those motives. If nothing else this is a great example of how this poll is incredibly vague about what it's asking and gives no straight answers as a result, which is why it's lovely that the media are cherry picking one particular interpretation to run with Paladinus posted:And I'm not sure how you can say that supporting 'unspecified level of violence' towards people who publish any, not necessarily offensive, images of Mohammed is something that is not at all news-worthy. Again, I agree that rags like DM spin it out of proportion, but saying 'oh, that's completely fine that a considerable amount of people see that breaking a tenet of their religion can warrant some beating' simply doesn't follow from there. It's something that most definitely should be addressed, while ignoring the send them back crowd. Case in point, here's the actual statement: Acts of violence against those who publish images of the Prophet Mohammad can never be justified Disagreeing with that absolute, categorical statement is not the same as supporting 'unspecified level of violence' towards people who publish any, not necessarily offensive, images of Mohammed There are a lot of lines being drawn here on the back of vague questions with many interpretations, and without a general control to compare to. People saying they have 'some sympathy for the motives' behind the Hebdo murders are being painted as supporting the killings themselves, rather than (say) acknowledging the grievances and the political issues surrounding the publication of intentionally inflammatory material targetting a marginalised minority. Same for the 'violence is never ok' one - outside of the perfect academic world of beautiful free speech, minorities can be marginalised and persecuted and even killed when propaganda is employed as a lever on people's prejudice. Sometimes it's not 'just a cartoon', and sometimes people have to actually fight to protect themselves. This is all nuance that may be at the forefront of people's minds, given the daily narrative of Islamification and IslamoTerror we live with (and that they're the victims of), but the question is completely open and the answer tells you next to nothing about their beliefs. How do these responses compare to the population as a whole? Are these statistics even slightly notable? Maybe they're actually lower than average? We don't know do we, because they didn't bother polling anyone else. But we have Numbers and Open Questions to spin a narrative from, what should we go with? Oh I know! It's the same old 'seditious enemy in our midst' bullshit that paints all Muslims as anti-western terrorist sympathisers purely by association, for not jumping up to shout 'oh no, I don't mind how Muslims are treated at all' or rushing out with condemnations every time someone somewhere does a thing citing Islam or western criticism. Any excuse to put a negative spin on things. Winning hearts and minds and all that
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 20:47
|
|
|
baka kaba posted:Acts of violence against those who publish images of the Prophet Mohammad can never be justified It's not particularly "putting a negative spin on things" to say that for people to be able to live in a civil and secular society the only correct answer to this is "yes".
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2015 22:31
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 00:42
|
|
|
Ideal world, no, violence is never the answer. Bigots, criminals, murderers, whatever, violence is not the way to solve the problem. Sure as poo poo doesn't stop people wishing death on them. Sure as poo poo doesn't make it okay either, but the point is that in the real world people justify all kinds of violence for all kinds of reasons. Whether it be wanting to knock some sense into Cameron and his cronies on one end of the scale or torturing and murdering paedophiles on the other, that line gets drawn in a million different places. It doesn't take much consideration to understand the side of people who feel that images of the Prophet Mohammed are utter blasphemy. People who are treated as political punching bags by the media, people who are otherised and perpetually typecast as bomb-wearing infidel-cursing Jihadists. People who might be pissed off about these kind of images and thoughts and reactions, and how it all carries on as if there was never an issue, as if this kind of treatment towards Muslims is not just commonplace but an acceptable norm. Violence isn't the answer. Great. That doesn't change the fact that this survey is just yet another thing that is being trotted out to further demonise Muslims.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 00:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 05:30 |
|
|
FullLeatherJacket posted:It's not particularly "putting a negative spin on things" to say that for people to be able to live in a civil and secular society the only correct answer to this is "yes". Well the poll question everyone's focusing on is the one about having 'some sympathy for the motives behind the attacks', ignoring everything else in the survey that counters the picture they're trying to paint, and that's the negative spin. Hey a poll of British Muslims came out! What can we cherry pick today? Oh ho looky here As for the never ever violence thing, are we living in that perfect civil and secular society yet? I'm thinking no, and until we are, I'm not going to be particularly surprised if a non-zero fraction of a marginalised and demonised minority is reluctant to 100% rule out the possibility that a violent response could ever, ever be pragmatically necessary. I doubt that's exactly an anomaly when it comes to minorities and the methods employed to attack them! Even if it is hella rude and gauche to reject the primacy of grand absolute principles in the face of real-world concerns
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2015 03:04
|
|