Okay, fine. I’ll spot you the point. How then do you reconcile the hammer and sickle “C” in Obama Care? It is a non-sequitor in that it does not have anything to do with the image. The image portrays the President as an aboriginal person, which offends people who share his color. It’s one thing to criticize him for his ideas; it is quite another to criticize the one thing he can do nothing about.
Not being a black man in America, I also find it offensive.

Well, it certainly wouldn’t make sense, if that’s your point.

I saw this picture a while ago, probably sometime in February. I’m losing my sense of outrage anymore. It seems the few bad apples make up the majority of the crop.

I just did.

Sheesh.

You’re on! You first!

Yeah, I’ll stack the substance of my comments up against yours.

Oh. My bad. Forgive me, you were being substantive? Never before made with such detail and care? Please continue. We eagerly await your insightful comments.

No. For wanting to talk about race like a complete idiot.

Sean, context counts in representations of this kind.

A swastika spray painted on the side of a synagogue means one thing while a swastika spray painted on the side of catholic church means another.

Indeed, in the latter case, most people’s first response might be, “Uh?”

Clinton with a bone through his nose would trigger the same response: “Uh?” There’s no context for the associations because the immediate target of this particular poster is not, actually, Obama’s health care proposals. It’s Obama himself.

The plan is being attacked through Obama by casting him as a racial caricature.

That you feel the need to raise this question out of some kind of need to be “fair” or “moderate” or whatever position it is that you concern troll from, is just moronic.

But then, when shown a photo of Obama I typically think “That’s the President” instead of “That’s that black guy.” I guess that makes me racist?

Because he’s as much of an “I don’t want to see the point and you can’t make me” idiot as you are.

I guess in my head it’s a matter of degree. I’m aware of the thin end of the wedge, the slippery slope, the disengenuous “But I’m just using his real full name.” when clearly an implication is trying to be made. But I’ve also seen occasions when more is being made of something than is really there, when offense is really in the eye of the beholder.

And while I’d agree the particular photo is a poor effort, the first thing that struck me was a comment on Obama’s plan and not on his race. Had the person who made it showed it to me I may have told them they’re skating very close to a line and some will take it the wrong way, are they sure they want to risk burying their point by presenting it badly. But, again, to my eye I saw it initially as a comment on the President, and not on a black man.

I don’t know, why don’t you ask Supreme Republican Leader Rush “Take the bone out of your nose and call me back” Limbaugh?

No, silly, for being an idiot. Sheesh.

Yeah, but that’s the difficulty, isn’t it? How do we move past the history? Two identical people doing identical things. I can portray one as money grubbing but not the other because the second is Jewish. Because of the disparities in how the two people would have been treated historically, I have to continue to treat them differently. Albeit in a somewhat reversed manner.

How long does the “reverse discrimination” have to go on before I can actually view people equally? Doesn’t continuing to focus on the stereotypes prolong them?

For wanting to actually talk about race? OK, gotcha. Thanks.

Yeah, I know. And I’ve been fairly accused of it before. But I do see in several recent events an eagerness in those on the left to declare victimhood. There’s also such a thing as seeing offense when none exists.

So what should we call folks who want to call names instead of get into a substantive discussion of race?

Or is that a twofer?

No. Of course not. Racism by its nature is specifically tailored to the stereotypes associated with a particular ethnic group. It wouldn’t make any sense to stick a bone through Clinton’s nose, which is why — and here comes the clue train, feel free to hop aboard — nobody ever made such a picture.

Sean again: [I]sn’t treating folks equally being held up a bit because I have to treat the black guy with kid gloves?

Kid gloves? No. He’s the president, and thus the fairest target for satire you’ll ever get. And you don’t have to treat him any way at all, not even with basic respect. FSM knows I’ve made my share of disrespectful comments about the previous president. However, if you engage in racist tropes in in the pursuit of your satire, be prepared to be called out as a racist.

Perhaps more to the point: if you have a legitimate satirical point against a public figure like the POTUS, you shouldn’t have any need to resort to racism to make it. The presence of racist imagery is an indication not only of poor social graces, but of a weak argument. In a word: pathetic.

Oh, wake the fuck up. Anyone of any race can do just about anything they want to in modern day America.”

Weird. Another one has appeared.