Posted: Sep 14, 2018 4:46 pm
SaM, If I thought you were being intellectually honest I would rebut, but as usual we conclude this dance the same as all the rest. Don't mistake "hand-waving" with the shooing of a cloud of gnats.
SafeAsMilk wrote:PensivePenny wrote:SafeAsMilk wrote:
Knight could post a picture of a donut with a broken tennis racket, and you'd say it was a dead ringer. Cuz context! Not very impressive, but at least it tells everyone about intent.
At least this part is on topic!
The donut is an interesting concept. Had Serena been depicted as a donut, the cartoon would have been just as humorous, on point, timely and relevant. Had she been depicted as a cartoon donut, do you think the screams of "She's being dehumanized as having no more value than a giant angry vagina!" would be any less deafening? It's a moot point, granted.Well thanks for making my point for me, at any rate.
Don't co-opt what I said into some fantasy about increasing the number of people who agree with you. You missed my point entirely,
I didn't say you agreed, I said you made my point. Unwittingly, apparently.
but I believe you already know that and are just trolling me. In the event that I'm wrong about that, I'll try to clarify... understanding is up to you, though. You have to be willing to meet half way. Are you?
If you can actually keep the conversation straight and avoid the sorts of ridiculous arguments you've employed so far, sure. Declaring that it's only me whose got the issue with understanding sure doesn't sound like an honest attempt at half way, though. But hey, go ahead.
No one is saying the image is an accurate likeness of her, and I disagree with the notion that it is a "caricature". It's a political cartoon with a representation of her, an 32x32 pixel icon. It could be anything... a donut. A black blob. A white blob. A pink or blue blob. It could be a blob on a stick, or a blob on a cob or a blob on a bob, it could be most any blob at all. The focal point is meant to be the action she is performing. Focusing on her face is like focusing on the poor perspective DaVinci employed on the road behind Mona Lisa.
That doesn't make any sense. Facial features are clearly being specifically exaggerated in this image, and that's what you see in a caricature. Caricatures aren't supposed to be accurate likenesses, they're supposed to exaggerate features specific to the person in order to make it more recognizable as them. It isn't just anything, it's clearly an attempt at a face, you're supposed to recognize the features and the expression. I don't think trying to hand-wave this away by saying it's all about the action is a strong argument, especially when the face is the issue in question. Nobody denies that she threw a fit, it's just not relevant.
Maybe Knight is a big racist. Maybe he's the Grand Dragon of Australia. Good on'ya. Show some convincing evidence beyond "hurt feelings" and I'll happily join your ranks. I've just seen none proffered.
I haven't argued that he's racist, and none of this has hurt my feelings. The "good will" you're offering is diffusing by the moment in your attempts to dismiss points with this sort of distracting nonsense. A person doesn't have to be racist, or have racist intent, to produce a work that comes across as racist. The reasons it comes across this way have been noted, and if you aren't convinced by them, then good on'ya. But the incredibly weak arguments you're offering for your view don't incline me to put much behind it.