Teague wrote:
Yes, the points are classic demonisation.

Demonization. It's a thing, isn't it? Or is it just a process? And what happens at the other end? Is somebody turned into a real, live demon? This I'd like to see.

Teague wrote:

Mike_L wrote:

Teague wrote:Just one question though, how many unrelated points do you need to make to try and demonize someone?

The points are not unrelated. Serena Williams is the common demonator ...er... common denominator.

So you agree with the video?

Would you try to demonize anyone if they did?

Mike_L wrote:

Teague wrote:

Mike_L wrote:

Teague wrote:

So you agree with the video?

The points made are mostly valid, but the delivery is dire, IMO.

Yes, the points are classic demonisation. Pick out some clips proving your point but don't show the entire clip to see what the context was. Classic rascism really. You don't even question it.

Classic racism? There's no race angle in the video at all.

I mean, how would we detect a 'racist' angle, unless we, like, needed racial categories to right historical wrongs?

If you unquestioningly watch that video and are persuaded by it then I'm going to assume you have a bias, racial and sexual perhaps. Did any of you even bother checking into any of those incidents? Because I can take a video of any person alive and make them into a demon if I bastardise their clips - worked on you guys though, did it?

Teague wrote:If you unquestioningly watch that video and are persuaded by it...

Persuaded of what, exactly? Whatever demonization is rockin' around inside your head? And you suggest it's going to prove something to me? You can watch this stuff 100 times and conclude one way or the other. That's why some folks like watching that kind of porridge for the brain.

Cito di Pense wrote:

Teague wrote:If you unquestioningly watch that video and are persuaded by it...

Persuaded of what, exactly? Whatever demonization is rockin' around inside your head? And you suggest it's going to prove something to me? You can watch this stuff 100 times and conclude one way or the other. That's why some folks like watching that kind of porridge for the brain.

Persauded to believe the video, obviously.

Teague wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:

Teague wrote:If you unquestioningly watch that video and are persuaded by it...

Persuaded of what, exactly? Whatever demonization is rockin' around inside your head? And you suggest it's going to prove something to me? You can watch this stuff 100 times and conclude one way or the other. That's why some folks like watching that kind of porridge for the brain.

Persauded to believe the video, obviously.

In your own words, Teague, what factual statement in the video am I being persuaded to believe? If there aren't any factual statements in the video, what lies am I being sold? In the video I watched, I saw examples of the way Serena Williams was behaving, and I can draw my own conclusions from those, regardless of the voice-over.

The way she was behaving is really no different than many male athletes who coincidentally rarely if ever get political cartoons drawn about them. It’s okay for men to show anger and outrage at bad calls by refs but when a woman does it it’s just improper.

willhud9 wrote:The way she was behaving is really no different than many male athletes who coincidentally rarely if ever get political cartoons drawn about them. It’s okay for men to show anger and outrage at bad calls by refs but when a woman does it it’s just improper.

How often do male athletes have 15 minute rants and threaten to end the career of an official for correctly enforcing the rules in tennis?

Thommo wrote:

willhud9 wrote:The way she was behaving is really no different than many male athletes who coincidentally rarely if ever get political cartoons drawn about them. It’s okay for men to show anger and outrage at bad calls by refs but when a woman does it it’s just improper.

How often do male athletes have 15 minute rants and threaten to end the career of an official for correctly enforcing the rules in tennis?

I'm having trouble finding one threatening to end their career, but here's a list of players yelling at refs, spitting, physically assaulting them, and in one case repeatedly calling the ref "an abortion". It also lists their fines they received or, in some cases, didn't receive. Wasn't able to find any poorly drawn political cartoons about them, though.

https://people.com/sports/male-on-court ... s-history/

I don't know, maybe. I'm not going to defend the cartoon, but Williams was so far out of line it seems a poor example of anything really. She certainly wasn't using her position as a mother as anything more than an excuse for inexcusable behaviour.

Threatening to get people earning a few hundred bucks for a day's work permanently fired when you're earning tens of thousands isn't ok.

As far as I'm concerned it's not about simply showing anger, it's that like Kyrgios or McEnroe her behaviour is unacceptable. If we want an example of sexism to rally around, we had one just the previous week. The treatment of Alizé Cornet was despicable, she was a victim. Serena Williams was the perpetrator. Some people may think that she was treated worse than male perpetrators (although, generally society treats male perpetrators worse, in general), and they may be right, but nonetheless, she's not the victim here. She just made a lame excuse.

SafeAsMilk wrote:

Thommo wrote:

willhud9 wrote:The way she was behaving is really no different than many male athletes who coincidentally rarely if ever get political cartoons drawn about them. It’s okay for men to show anger and outrage at bad calls by refs but when a woman does it it’s just improper.

How often do male athletes have 15 minute rants and threaten to end the career of an official for correctly enforcing the rules in tennis?

I'm having trouble finding one threatening to end their career, but here's a list of players yelling at refs, spitting, physically assaulting them, and in one case repeatedly calling the ref "an abortion". It also lists their fines they received or, in some cases, didn't receive. Wasn't able to find any poorly drawn political cartoons about them, though.

https://people.com/sports/male-on-court ... s-history/

What about this one of Nick Kyrgios?



It's a Mark Knight cartoon just days before his (ignorant) Williams piece.

OlivierK wrote:

SafeAsMilk wrote:

Thommo wrote:

willhud9 wrote:The way she was behaving is really no different than many male athletes who coincidentally rarely if ever get political cartoons drawn about them. It’s okay for men to show anger and outrage at bad calls by refs but when a woman does it it’s just improper.

How often do male athletes have 15 minute rants and threaten to end the career of an official for correctly enforcing the rules in tennis?

I'm having trouble finding one threatening to end their career, but here's a list of players yelling at refs, spitting, physically assaulting them, and in one case repeatedly calling the ref "an abortion". It also lists their fines they received or, in some cases, didn't receive. Wasn't able to find any poorly drawn political cartoons about them, though.

https://people.com/sports/male-on-court ... s-history/

What about this one of Nick Kyrgios?




It's a Mark Knight cartoon just days before his (ignorant) Williams piece.

Here's a picture of Nick....



Perhaps Mark Knight is just shit at art.

Teague wrote:Perhaps Mark Knight is just shit at art.

one of the main reasons why „artists“ do political cartoons, I suspect:
if it‘s so shit that it doesn‘t sell for anything else, add politics.

Skinny Puppy wrote:

Infowars! I thought I recognized that dude from somewhere.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Paul_Joseph_Watson
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Joseph_Watson

He is the editor-at-large of InfoWars.com, a publication that promotes conspiracy theories and fake news about American and international politics, and a contributor to Infowars' talk radio programme The Alex Jones Show, where he occasionally either hosts or co-hosts. Watson has been working on Infowars.com since October 2002.[12] As of August 2017, he has over one million subscribers on his political YouTube channel.

That's a good spot, Seabass.

Agi Hammerthief wrote:

Teague wrote:Perhaps Mark Knight is just shit at art.

one of the main reasons why „artists“ do political cartoons, I suspect:
if it‘s so shit that it doesn‘t sell for anything else, add politics.

I kinda feel bad for him now, looks like he wasn't just having an off day.

Thommo wrote:I don't know, maybe. I'm not going to defend the cartoon, but Williams was so far out of line it seems a poor example of anything really. She certainly wasn't using her position as a mother as anything more than an excuse for inexcusable behaviour.

Threatening to get people earning a few hundred bucks for a day's work permanently fired when you're earning tens of thousands isn't ok.

As far as I'm concerned it's not about simply showing anger, it's that like Kyrgios or McEnroe her behaviour is unacceptable. If we want an example of sexism to rally around, we had one just the previous week. The treatment of Alizé Cornet was despicable, she was a victim. Serena Williams was the perpetrator. Some people may think that she was treated worse than male perpetrators (although, generally society treats male perpetrators worse, in general), and they may be right, but nonetheless, she's not the victim here. She just made a lame excuse.

While I agree that her bad behavior does not make her a good rallying point, and that she's clearly just trying to justify her bad behavior, I don't think this really changes the point. I mean, when Trump said cops should feel free to smack arrested MS-13 members heads against their car's door frames, the fact that they were MS-13 members doesn't change that it was a horrible thing for Trump to say. MS-13 gang members aren't the best people to make the case about police brutality, sure, but pointing this out doesn't mean one is saying gang member crimes are acceptable.

In terms of sexism, Cornet is certainly a cleaner example, but the Serena case also has the cartoon, so it's not a surprise to me that it got more traction.

Cito di Pense wrote:I mean, how would we detect a 'racist' angle, unless we, like, needed racial categories to right historical wrongs?

We wouldn't. Next question: Who created racial categories? Racists, or opponents of racism?

Who created racial categories? Racists, or opponents of racism?

I believe everyone created racial categories. When different populations encountered each other they all recognised the difference because it was a clearly defined boundary involving nationality and culture as well as the inherited characteristics that made the distinction visual.

The problem is that there hasn't been progress in dissolving those lines in proportion to the actual decrease in any practical distinction that might have seemed valid before. What keeps racism alive is that some people will always want to feel superior and some people will always want to play the victim card. One can only hope that the growing population between those two extremes ends up as a bulging bell curve that squeezes them towards vanishing point.

zulumoose wrote:

Who created racial categories? Racists, or opponents of racism?

I believe everyone created racial categories. When different populations encountered each other they all recognised the difference because it was a clearly defined boundary involving nationality and culture as well as the inherited characteristics that made the distinction visual.

That is not racism in terms I understand the word. People have always fought and massacred others they knew to be different. They have always enslaved others outside their own society without a moment's thought about whether that is OK. It was simply what conquerors could - and usually did - do with impunity.

Today's racism includes the notion that other races are genetically inferior, subhuman, untermenschlich. To enslave them, rob them of their Lebensraum, wipe them out, do whatever one felt like doing to them was not a crime against humanity because all of a sudden other races were not bona fide members of Homo sapiens sapiens. They lacked the genetic wherewithal. Nothing to do with being an enemy as such, and there now is nothing than can be done to get rid of that inferiority.