OP
OP
briantrumpet
Timewaster
Haha. Good trolling.
BRFR Cake Stop 'breaking news' miscellany
- Thread starter briantrumpet
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
OP
OP
briantrumpet
Timewaster
Re his nose, it's not that big, and definitely not hooked, which is very much a recognised trope, and if you don't want to get into hot water, wise to avoid it, especially if the target *hasn't got one*.
Anyway, as I say, Brookes (at least) has form (see the octopus for Richard Sharpe), so it'll be interesting to see how the complaint lands with the Times. The best excuse is probably carelessness, but it's not much of a defence when the tropes are so well known, and you've been hauled up before for using them.
First Aspect
Legendary Member
Honestly, I don't see this going anywhere.
Have you got cartoons by the same guy of other people?
Have you got cartoons by the same guy of other people?
First Aspect
Legendary Member
First Aspect
Legendary Member
OP
OP
briantrumpet
Timewaster
Seriously, if you're not able to see that there is a long history of antisemitic tropes in cartoons, then there's no point in arguing about this. It would be difficult to use an antisemitic trope against Johnson as he's a Roman Catholic.
If Brookes caricatured Badenoch like Epaminondas's mum, I think Badenoch would rightly be outraged, as I would be, despite thinking she's a wally too.
OP
OP
briantrumpet
Timewaster
I think you've not quite grasped how antisemitism works.
First Aspect
Legendary Member
I am understanding how accusations of it work. But there is a danger that if you give everything a wide berth, it means you can't go anywhere. I'm not arguing that the trope doesn't exist, but you are now accusing me of not really accepting that. it's a little bit of mission creep already, isnt it?
My point is that the cartoonist is probably being even handed. You are arguing that this nonetheless singles someone out. Can both be true?
First Aspect
Legendary Member
What I do think is that even though almost certainly there's no case to answer, shoot will stick to the cartoonist merely by virtue of the accusation.
OP
OP
briantrumpet
Timewaster
As I say, it'll be interesting to see what The Times says.
First Aspect
Legendary Member
I've been wrong before. But in the game of public relations, what The Times says is probably what we scientists would call a null result either way.
If they defend the cartoonist, which on the basis of the other images I posted intbink they will, it will be interesting how far the Greens push it.
OP
OP
briantrumpet
Timewaster
We're not going to agree on this, as I think he is either knowingly or carelessly using the sort of well-worn trope that doesn't have a parallel for white western men. You don't think that, quite obviously.
First Aspect
Legendary Member
Perhaps I'm more pragmatic. Remember the outcry a few months ago from comedians about the Scottish definition of hate crime? I'm kind of driving at that issue.
Your "trope exclusion zone" means the end of Spitting Image as far as I can tell, for example.
OP
OP
briantrumpet
Timewaster
No, it doesn't: exaggerate physical features to your heart's content, unless they have a history of being used as tropes inciting racial or religious hatred. Hence the effective ban on blackface imagery: you'd only use that if you positively wanted to offend on the basis of race.
I suspect the Spitting Image puppet of Leon Brittan would be very carefully thought about now, though I think it might just squeeze through as it doesn't excessively exaggerate his physical appearance.
First Aspect
Legendary Member
The eyebrows?
