Comments on: DJ @DeeJayNDN Says Charlie Hebdo Is Racist, and So Are You If You Disagree #JeSuisCharlie

By: kris

kris — Mon, 04 Sep 2017 02:25:35 +0000

He means the same as Pijokela

By: shintakezou

shintakezou — Mon, 10 Aug 2015 17:03:53 +0000

I’d like your opinion about a recent pic (you can see it here http://media.meltybuzz.it/pmedia-2741013-ajust_640-f1439030687/la-vignetta-ritirata.jpg ) —made by a local administration of a political party (“M5S”). It’s a political attack (satire, if you concede it) to the italian Democratic Party (PD) —the party who currently runs Italy—, accused to exploit immigration to increase the number of membership cards (the text of the post says “membership campaign”, the text inside the pic says “membership cards [tessere]: discount for castaways”).
The pic was described as racist (needless to say, not by authors nor by non-opposing electorate) and so was retreated (with excuses that opened another political case…) to avoid further “embarrassment” and to avoid to give unfriendly parties a “lever”. This is my own translation of an excerpt of an italian huffingtonpost article used by many PD’s sustainers to “mock” M5S and label it as racist (according to them, just a confirmation of something whey already knew as true): “[…]The three immigrants […] are represented with somatic traits that resemble the apes, as in old posters of the fascism”.
On a Twitter conversation I tried to explain that, in the “worst” case, it’s how the authors of the pic want you to think that PD sees those immigrants (hence, in the “worst” case, it’s also an accuse of racism against PD). If we have to use words to translate the picture, the PD woman at the desk would be saying “come on, you ape-like human beings! subscribe! there’s a discount for you!”. Since I dared to explain this view in a tweet, I was labelled myself as racist who was trying to justify the unjustifiable racist picture (2days of bullying…). My point of view could be biased (I voted for M5S), though I think my rationality is clean and sharp, and I can’t see how whatever is represented in that picture could be twisted and become a “fault” of the pic’s authors (and then of the whole party). On second thought, I even find rather hard to see clues of an attempt to make a resemblance with apes (beyond those common to any human being, I mean): somatic traits may be stereotyped, but not to the point of mocking them for themselves — on the other hand, white european faces with totally black skin would be a lot strange and unreal…
Of course, the main issue became the supposed racism of the authors (and of the whole M5S party), and nobody talked about the supposed exploitation of immigrants made by PD. And this is my interpretative key: the “you represented them as apes!racist!” was instrumental to divert the attention and bite back in the ass the “attacking” party.
Enough of context, I hope! 😀 …
Do you think the picture is really problematic or, rather, your article could fit “my” case too?

By: ClearlyAbsurd (@ClearlyAbsurd)

ClearlyAbsurd (@ClearlyAbsurd) — Sun, 05 Jul 2015 05:55:41 +0000

“If you’re CREATING racist depictions of a demographic to showcase the racism of someone else, that makes you racist.”

I might have helped to ask this guy what he thinks the word “racist” means. At some point when 2 people are talking past each other, it’s evident that one of them either doesn’t get what a word means, or is intentionally trolling. In this case I think it’s the former, but it ends up resembling the latter.

I also think he didn’t understand his own argument. Maybe he felt on some intuitive level that he had a valid point, but he couldn’t verbalize it, so he ended up saying something really silly while feeling really right. If he was trying to say that using racist depictions to mock racism can be almost as harmful as actually being racist, then he would have a point. A tiny, irrelevant point. Yes, something can be “racist” even if you don’t intend it as such. But that point wouldn’t have fit his agenda, so he stuck to the absurd script that “mocking racism means you are racist”.

By: drm321

drm321 — Sun, 17 May 2015 13:54:19 +0000

This twitter exchange and the whole ridiculous “is charlie hebdo racist?” debate in general has made me think of what Slavoj Zizek has said about how best to combat racism.

By: PEN Six vs. Charlie Hebdo: The “Conditionalists” Betray Free Speech | Arguments Worth Having

Mon, 04 May 2015 13:10:44 +0000

[…] Adam Gopnik at The New Yorker “The Wrong Kind of Free Speech” – 33 Revolutions “Dee Jay NDN Is a Racist Hypocrite” – GSpellchecker “Hebdo Turds That Won’t Flush” – […]

By: Godless Spellchecker

Godless Spellchecker — Sun, 03 May 2015 20:14:47 +0000

Sure, but experiences are subjective, the intent here was objective, and an inability to recognize this shouldn’t lead to Charlie Hebdo being denigrated as racist

By: Pijokela

Pijokela — Sun, 03 May 2015 15:55:10 +0000

“That the cartoons were not intentionally racist does not preclude their being experienced as racist.” — http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/02/opinion/why-were-honoring-charlie-hebdo.html

Where I come from I think that many people would consider that image racist. That said, I do understand that it is an satirical imagined political poster for a racist party. It really depends on the culture of the reader, how they interpret that image.

Time to move on, I guess.

By: ksaw

ksaw — Sun, 03 May 2015 10:11:21 +0000

I’m never really sure as to whether they in fact do understand satire yet pretend they don’t just because calling things racist on Twitter is a fun pass time and an opportunity to signal their virtue, or just don’t understand satire.

By: Godless Spellchecker

Godless Spellchecker — Sun, 03 May 2015 05:38:05 +0000

What do you mean?

By: feistycoyote

feistycoyote — Sat, 02 May 2015 23:07:00 +0000

Move on dude.