NBA All-Star starters announced: LeBron voted in; Kyrie and Love not so much
January 22, 2015Browns Pro Bowlers early selections in team drafts
January 23, 2015I am thankful to have this platform and community of people to talk to. It’s my day to talk about what I want and hopefully you want to talk about the same stuff.
Further evidence that football is a TV sport…
The NFL is moving their London experiment further and is going to start all those games at 9:30 AM Eastern. The reason that they are making this move is that they experimented with it last season and the Fox broadcast TV ratings were good. And that’s the thing. It’s another time slot of commercial inventory for one of the league’s broadcast partners to sell. It’s all about creating inventory. That’s what the NFL does best, it seems.
It used to be Sundays, Monday nights and Thanksgiving. Now it’s Thursdays, Sundays, Sunday night, Monday night and three Sunday mornings from London. In a short period of time the NFL has managed to take the same exact number of football games per season and turn it into a large percentage increase in terms of television time slot inventory. Ad in a dedicated NFL network and it’s easy to see that the NFL is barely a live spectator sport at all as much as every stadium in the nation is a glorified television set, perfect for pushing the game out to HD TVs all over the world.
The selective defense of freedom of speech…
I didn’t know if I actually wanted to talk about this because it’s definitely a touchy subject, but I am going to talk about Freedom of Speech. Every time the freedom of speech comes up, there’s a chorus of people who quote the first amendment and then say, “freedom of speech is only talking about government making laws that infringe on a person’s rights” as if there’s not a wider-ranging philosophy or principle that we believe in with regard to this freedom. It’s bigger than just the First Amendment and we all kind of know that, I think, but with the murders that took place in Paris at the magazine Charlie Hebdo, all of a sudden everyone who would normally say “free speech doesn’t apply” are thrust into defending the pure principle of speech because of the heinous acts of some murderers. And that’s great, because in the face of the worst possible reactions to speech we need to remember why it’s so important to us, but what about when the stakes are lower? Shouldn’t we also be protective even when speech isn’t being attacked by murderers?
Talking about freedom of speech in the face of people getting murdered is easy. It’s awful and sad and painful that it happened, but that makes it all that much easier to stand up and say that words should never be greeted with violence the way they were in Paris. It’s all well and good, but words should also never be greeted with threats of any kind. Freedom of speech is a principle that we believe in and it should be used to protect not only Charlie Hebdo, but also the Westboro Baptist Church and political media people you might even disagree with like Bill Maher, Rush Limbaugh or Anthony Cumia, formerly of the Opie and Anthony Show.
I use Rush as an example because he’s said plenty of questionable and offensive things that have bothered a great many people. He’s a great example for me because he’s one of the last people that I want anything to do with defending. I use Anthony Cumia as an example because he said things that I – as one of his biggest fans – was dismayed by and disagreed with as well. Eventually, due to the heat of the angry mob Anthony lost his job and his fans lost access to him – to a large degree – because it was more convenient to silence him and than it was to stand by his right to say what he said, even if it was wrong, or misguided. You don’t have to agree with someone or what they say all the time in order to also think maybe they shouldn’t be fired or otherwise lose their livelihood because of something they said.
Now I can already hear the arguments that calling for someone to get fired or lose sponsors is just more speech, but I disagree. It’s a call for action that will, in effect, silence a person. It’s exactly this type of behavior that chills unpopular or controversial speech. I think we’re much better off hearing it than pushing it into the shadows, no matter how detestable it might be. In the end, only words, right? While it’s legal to call for someone’s job or threaten their sponsors it absolutely flies in the face of the principles of freedom of speech. While it’s nowhere near as extreme as what happened in Paris, I think it’s another inappropriate reaction to speech that you find disagreeable. It’s wrong to work proactively to silence people that you disagree with. Period.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m happy that everyone seems to recognize the value of freedom of speech. I’m saddened that it took a murder of artists by terrorists to make it so obvious. I just hope everyone remembers this the next time there’s a not-so-extreme example like Rush Limbaugh or the next time they want to demand an apology from a comedian like Tracy Morgan. In the end, they’re only words and you don’t have to listen to them. And that’s the only responsible action. Talk more. Speak about why something’s wrong. Stop listening or watching or otherwise partaking. Anything that rises to a threat that seeks to shut someone down and / or lose their job is against the principles as I choose to see them.
In my view, no matter what, I want the world to be filled with people who are entitled to words and they should be protected, not just against the rule of law by the government, but as a part of a wider philosophy and principle that we believe in against actions that attempt to silence people. That includes not only the victims of the awful murders that took place in Paris, but also much smaller examples we come across in our culture every day.
Your weekly moment of soccer zen…
BICYCLES!!!
Support local music: Ohio Sky has a new album…
I was shopping in Sam Ash one day and they were playing this music in the store and I had to stop my conversation and ask who it was. Much to my surprise, it was a local band called Ohio Sky. They’re a great band, but they’re lost in the mix of sounds in Cleveland. They’re not heavy enough to fit in with the scream-heavy metal scene and they’re not chill or organic sounding enough to be a part of the Indie scene. That’s not a knock on them, but their brand of melodic, heavy and sometimes ambient music is outstanding both in that it’s really good, but also in that it doesn’t fit in necessarily.
Give it a listen though. You won’t be disappointed.
Ohio Sky – The Big Distraction BTS from TurnStyle Films on Vimeo.
81 Comments
No. Then I might be tempted to start watching ESPN again, and we can’t have that…
The current actual limits – incitement with imminent threat, fire in a theater, et al – are quite fine, thank you very much.
Well, I guess I just don’t see how you can make a honest attempt at drawing a real person certain race without depicting racial traits. Where does the line is crossed between racist and realistic? I don’t claim to know, but it’s definitely in the eye of the beholder.
As for Muslims believing that depicting the Prophet is disrespectful: I’d say that many religions and peoples hold beliefs about what is disrespectful (homosexuality, uncovered women). When these things run contrary to explicit Western norms, there is conflict. Personally, I don’t feel that people need to cater to those beliefs. Their beliefs do not supersede those of the rest of society.
This whole conversation was about your claim that CH is explicitly racist. I have seen no evidence that it is. I appreciate that you feel that it is, but ultimately it is your opinion
Which goes to my larger point: I do not want you or anyone else deciding what is decent or in-bounds when it comes to speech. I understand and agree that there is a need for a society/government to decide what is criminal in terms of speech (fire in a theater, actively fomenting people to commit crimes), but after that I prefer the option to make the value judgement on decency myself.
As a non-ESPN watcher/listener, I enjoy a smug satisfaction when people complain about how bad it is. You don’t have to watch or listen, dude.
Do you feel there is no qualitative difference in the depictions of African Americans in these two pictures? Would one or both cross a line of indecency in the contemporary United States? Or is it just in the eye of the beholder?
http://images.sodahead.com/polls/000871741/obama_spider_man_xlarge.jpeg
http://www.c-carey-cloud.com/books/sambo/sambo-cover.jpg
Obviously there is. But there’s also about a million iterations between them and some of them are not so black or white.
Well, some may share your strong feelings with regard to the more extreme depictions of Arab/Islamic iconography
I thought the goalie did fine. He played the angle, covered the short side so as not to make it any easier. If he’d taken a slightly better angle, maybe he makes the save, but overall not a bad set of steps from my vantage point even though he gave up a goal.
When did I ever detail my feelings about specific depictions of Arabs?
All I’m saying, and I don’t think this is a controversial point but I guess I’m wrong, is that there is a wide range of ways people of different races are depicted. Some are obviously respectful and some are racist (and intended to be so). And some are not so clear cut and require context and critical thinking skills to evaluate. I reserve the right to decide about such pictures on my own.
I certainly have no issue with the common exceptions like “fire” in a crowded theater. It’s interesting to think about your point with regard to hate speech and genocide. I was certainly guilty of painting with an American brush on this one. Also, I put it largely in trivial media terms.
Where did I ever say you didn’t deserve the right to decide on your own?
I just tried an experiment with you: I showed you 2 images and asked if there were qualitative differences between them. You seemingly expressed that the more extreme and racist representation of black people – as embodied by Sambo – was different. My argument is that a large portion of people feel that same emotional response to Charlie Hebdo’s ongoing orientalist/pornographic depictions of Muhammed.
In these instances, decent people can speak up and say these sorts of images are not appropriate. That isn’t to say they should be banned by the government, but that there is little wisdom in those who choose to traffic in them.
All of which I agree with.
Again, this whole strain of the conversation was about your claim that CH is explicitly racist. Some people think so, but I have yet to see evidence to prove that claim is anything other than opinion.
You claim the debate isn’t about free speech, yet I cannot see how it is not. Yes, there are other serious issues in play here that need to be considered, but if people getting murdered for publishing a cartoon is not about free speech then what is? The debate should not be, as you originally suggested, about artists self-censoring to avoid insulting the sensibilities of irrational people.
Their depictions of Muhammed/Arabs are racist, yes. I have provided my own reasons, as well as the informed argument of a professional art critic who compared CH depictions of Muhammed to Nazi caricatures of Jews, demonstrating that the same anti-Semitic imagery is at play in both instances. You seem to not accept that line of reasoning, although no substantive counter-argument has been offered.
It is thus incumbent on you to establish why the images of Muhammed are not racist. Since you seem to feel Black Sambo is racist, I’m puzzled as to why this same logic isn’t extended to an orientalist Muhammed, but perhaps you have your own reasons. I await your defense of the images as “non-racist” with bated breath.
[Note: I am not sharing the most graphic images out of respect for WFNY’s policies]
http://www.barenakedislam.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/image2.jpg
http://thedailybanter.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Screen-Shot-2015-01-07-at-8.28.59-AM.png
An appeal to authority is not proof. I’m too lazy to look, but I’m sure there’s some “professional art critic” somewhere who has a contrary opinion.
My argument is that racism is not a physical thing to be measured. There’s no thermometer for it. As disturbing as it might be to you and me, there are people who do not find the images of sambo or Wahoo racist in the least. I believe that the issue is by its nature subjective and I don’t think there’s an empirical truth to be verified one way or the other.
Now, we as a society might come to some general consensus amongst the majority about if an image is racist, but I guarantee you there will be some honest, well-intended people who will ultimately disagree. Maybe the opinions on CH cartoons have achieved that consensus. I don’t know. But, personally, I’m in the group that disagrees.
Of the images you posted, I agree that they’re offensive, intentionally disrespectful, confrontational, etc. but I honestly do not see how they are racist.
Another point: if you want to draw a cartoon about an Arabic person, how do you do it without conveying some sense of race? I’m sure some artists are skillful enough to do so, but it’s not like you can make the cartoon blue eyed and blond haired. When does that cross the line to racist? I don’t know though it’s probably different for everyone.
I’d strongly suggest you read about the long tradition of Orientalism, a concept largely developed by Edward Said. It may give you a more nuanced interpretive lens with which to evaluate the images.
Two places to start:
http://www.arabstereotypes.org/why-stereotypes/what-orientalism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orientalism_%28book%29
Tell me if you see any differences here:
http://cartoonstylist.com/cartoon_samples/images/arab_cartoon.jpg
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_vWNwQecD15Q/SbQZFoGvyKI/AAAAAAAAAAM/oAd4bbwgSOc/s320/cagleDanishCartoons.gif
http://vignette4.wikia.nocookie.net/aladdin/images/c/c3/Aladdin.png/revision/latest?cb=20120320185508
http://www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/2812d7dd439f7e16e699ca39510d61ec49d56182/c=183-148-414-458&r=183&c=0-0-180-238/local/-/media/USATODAY/test/2013/11/06/1383795549000-110613arab-mascot1.jpg
I’m familiar with Said. And still have the opinions that I do. For what that’s worth.
Are you demanding that all political cartoons adopt photo realism?
That’s a dodge
I’m afraid your opinion on this issue may be irredeemable then :/
No, it’s not. It’s an honest question. What I personally find racist in the second image has nothing to do with how the people look and everything to do with what they’re doing and how they’re presented.
I was about to say the same thing to you 🙂
Again, I’ve offered criteria to evaluate racist/orientalist depictions of Arabs: “long nose; thick, fleshy lips; large, bulging eyes; and copious facial hair”. If you elect not to use that criteria to evaluate the images above it’s your choice, but most of civilized society considers them racist in the same way Sambo is racist.
You know, it’s strange, in this country we tend to be highly sensitive to racist depictions of African-Americans and Jewish people, but far more casual towards caricatures of Arabs and American Indians. You are existing proof of this bizarre disconnect.
Glad to help.
Just because I don’t find every caricature of Arabs racist, doesn’t mean I don’t find some. And the opposite is true: just because I find some caricatures of African Americans racist (like Sambo), doesn’t mean I find all to be so. (Not to mention, it’s interesting that you assume to know my sensitivities towards depictions of Jews.)
All I’m saying is that not every image is made equal. I don’t think that position is really that radical. I also don’t think that every instance of depicting physical characteristics of certain races and peoples is inherently racist, especially when you’re talking about caricatures.
And finally, even if I concede that CH is racist – why is that an issue that needs to be brought up in regards to the shooting? When a husband beats his wife, no civilized person judges what she did that made him hit her. Even if it was egregious, we’re wise enough not to judge the victim. I’m not sure why the same doesn’t apply in this case.
Generally agree with Craig and Ezzie. I would rather err on the side of freedom and permit speech that may be over the line than on the side of restraint. Without freedom there can be no justice – just look at all the countries where the people have no freedom. They are generally not permitted to criticize their leaders. I don’t subscribe to the concept of hate speech just like I don’t subscribe to the concept of hate crimes. Some European countries have made it a crime to deny the Holocaust. This is wrong. The deniers will only make fools of themselves in the marketplace of ideas. If you think you are correct in your point of view, you should not be afraid to defend it. If you have to resort to restraint or punishing those you disagree with for the “consequences” of their speech it is more a reflection of your own inability to persuade. Having said all that, all of us need to act with more self restraint in our speech and treat those we disagree with, with respect and courtesy. There are many hot button topics that generate comments directed toward the speaker rather than the topic itself. Comments such as – you are a bigot, anti-science, ignorant, a hater etc. only serve to shut down dialogue and drive us further apart. One of my life long friends is the polar opposite of me on the political scale, yet we have great discussions without rancor on all the controversial subjects. The vast majority of comments on this site also represent an honest attempt at dialogue and I am grateful for all of you for that. The vast majority of sites I visit, by the time I get to the 3rd comment, I simply stop reading because they have devolved into invective.
I recall you condemning Wahoo on Frowns’ site, which makes this all the more peculiar to me. Will try one more time: how can you hold a position that the first picture below is racist, and the second one isn’t? They are so frighteningly similar in their caricatured features as to be nearly indistinguishable (other than head dress vs turban/beard).
And you can’t seriously believe that this is a “victim blaming” exercise, right? It’s a debate about the appropriateness and decency of using certain types of racially inflected imagery in public discourse. To understand why people may be upset about a certain type of image is not to condone the malicious actions of a radicalized few.
http://content.sportslogos.net/logos/53/57/full/720.gif
http://www.barenakedislam.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/image2.jpg
The legal limits or the implied limits is the question that Craig brought about in the article above though.
There are implied consequences that limit much of what some may say in a public setting (especially in youth).
For instance, you don’t see American fans throwing bananas onto the NBA court or NFL field as the consequences of such actions would be swift and severe (both in the legal aspect of getting thrown out of the stadium and the illegal aspect of potential retribution if/when your name & picture get released virally). Yet, in Europe:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/codeswitch/2014/05/01/308408903/european-soccer-tackles-racism-but-slips-on-a-banana-peel
So, the question is if it should be allowable and without consequence to go through such actions?
The keeper did freeze up a bit and get caught watching, but he also got short side to make it a tougher angle regardless of how it would be taken–probably a step too close to the near post, but not terrible. In fact, if the guy hitting the shot catches the ball flush, it’s probably a more powerful one–but right at the keeper. I’ve watched it a couple dozen times now, and I still can’t figure out if the shooter intended to strike it the way he did (more off the outside of the foot, pushing it toward the far post and taking some power off) or not. If he did manage to put that sort of thought into the strike AND pulled it off, I’d be genuinely amazed. As it is, it’s still impressive.
Been there, my friend. My travel team coach back in junior high would have us practice jumping back favoring the side of the non-striking foot, rather than straight back. That way, you’re coming down more toward your shoulder and able to use your arm to help break the fall. So long as you fought the urge to fully extend that arm, it was much more pleasant than having the wind knocked out and cracking the back of your head on the ground. This clip of Clint Dempsey, as the title of the video says, is just about ideal form.
http://www.mlssoccer.com/video/2014/08/03/bicycle-kick-clint-dempsey-perfect-form-bike-goes-just-high