GA Bar Owner Sells Shirts Depicting Obama as Chimp

B_jacknapier

Experimental Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Posts
672
Media
0
Likes
3
Points
103
Location
Pittsburgh
Sexuality
80% Straight, 20% Gay
USA deserved 9/11. deserved every bit of it.

You sound like Obama's reverend- bitter.

It's easy to forget that though it is considered an attack on America, it was thousands of REAL PEOPLE who died, leaving their families in mourning. Do you think those innocent businessmen and women deserved to be crushed and burned and thrown to death?
 

HyperHulk

Experimental Member
Joined
May 12, 2007
Posts
825
Media
1
Likes
14
Points
163
Location
Sydney, Oz
Sexuality
50% Straight, 50% Gay
Gender
Male
The problem is, even if they are ignored by those outside of the racist set, there is still tons of support from other people who find racist humor amusing. I don't think this guy is doing it to make people angry- I think he wanted to amuse the racist patrons of his bar.

Interesting perspective and I think you're right. Although considering this guy has been doing this for years and puts signs in his window, I think he's rather comfortable knowing that he is pushing buttons and pissing off some people while amusing others.
 

B_becominghorse

Sexy Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2006
Posts
1,111
Media
0
Likes
32
Points
183
Location
new york city
Sexuality
50% Straight, 50% Gay
Gender
Male
sorry if i dont sound to patriotic but i dont really have to much respect for the "american dream/way" and the american flag. and i am certainly gonna get killed for this one. but oh well here goes. USA deserved 9/11. deserved every bit of it. you cant do shit like what the pilgrims and 16th century euro's did and expect to get awat with it. USA deserved the first wtc attack in 94. deserved the oklahoma city bombong. columbine. all that shit.

You're 'gonna get killed for this one?' What a loss that would be, with all your shit wisdom!
 

B_becominghorse

Sexy Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2006
Posts
1,111
Media
0
Likes
32
Points
183
Location
new york city
Sexuality
50% Straight, 50% Gay
Gender
Male
You sound like Obama's reverend- bitter.

It's easy to forget that though it is considered an attack on America, it was thousands of REAL PEOPLE who died, leaving their families in mourning. Do you think those innocent businessmen and women deserved to be crushed and burned and thrown to death?

Why shouldn't he? Ward Churchill already got richer and more famous by calling the 9/11 victims Little Eichmanns. Of course Mistah Gichee has to get him a gimmick like Rev. Wright did, i.e., knowing somebody famous or whatever else so he can milk the publicity.
 

B_dxjnorto

Expert Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2006
Posts
6,876
Media
0
Likes
206
Points
193
Location
Southwest U.S.
Sexuality
69% Gay, 31% Straight
Gender
Male
Well, Bush looks as much or more like a monkey than Obama. Since we share 98-99% of our DNA with bonobos and chimpanzees, I don't find it very surprising that some people bear a resemblance.
 

DC_DEEP

Sexy Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2005
Posts
8,714
Media
0
Likes
97
Points
183
Sexuality
No Response
Well, Bush looks as much or more like a monkey than Obama. Since we share 98-99% of our DNA with bonobos and chimpanzees, I don't find it very surprising that some people bear a resemblance.
Part of a point I've made, repeatedly, in this thread. George looks more "monkey-like" than Barrack. George has been repeatedly compared to, and depicted as, a chimp many many times over the last 6 or so years, Barrack once.

But I'm a heartless racist bastard for pointing that out. And I'm stupid, because I "just don't get it" (actually, I do get it, but that's another issue).

I guess my worst offense, though, is ignoring the fact that everyone has a constitutional right to be protected from anything deemed offensive.
 

rob_just_rob

Sexy Member
Joined
Jun 2, 2005
Posts
5,857
Media
0
Likes
43
Points
183
Location
Nowhere near you
I guess my worst offense, though, is ignoring the fact that everyone has a constitutional right to be protected from anything deemed offensive.

So far as I can tell, it's not "everyone" - only certain groups have that right.

(On that note, I'm still waiting to know why it's acceptable to call Hillary Clinton a "bitch", but it's not acceptable to call Barack Obama a "nigger".)
 

B_becominghorse

Sexy Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2006
Posts
1,111
Media
0
Likes
32
Points
183
Location
new york city
Sexuality
50% Straight, 50% Gay
Gender
Male
I guess my worst offense, though, is ignoring the fact that everyone has a constitutional right to be protected from anything deemed offensive.


I've nothing to add, except that I think it possible that there are new forms of PC filths that are pissing me off, that have come up in the last couple of weeks and months and I hadn't been aware of it. I think it is worse than it was even a little while back, and that it now seems to matter more that the slightest thing considered possibly offensive is the most important matter in the entire world. There is extreme censorship of an unofficial sort growing into a huge tumour.
 

ballsaplenty2156

Sexy Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2007
Posts
815
Media
0
Likes
32
Points
163
Location
long island, new york
Sexuality
50% Straight, 50% Gay
Gender
Male
yea thats true. this is america we're talking about. not like its some moral country. hell it was built on hypocritical pilgrims who bit the hand that fed them when they killed the indians. then had the nerve to impose their own laws on teh indians lands and tell the indians where they can live and what customs are suitable. shit, you think 9/11 happened because of bin laden and the middle east? nah, that was karma for slavery and the hostile takeover of america. sorry if i dont sound to patriotic but i dont really have to much respect for the "american dream/way" and the american flag. and i am certainly gonna get killed for this one. but oh well here goes. USA deserved 9/11. deserved every bit of it. you cant do shit like what the pilgrims and 16th century euro's did and expect to get awat with it. USA deserved the first wtc attack in 94. deserved the oklahoma city bombong. columbine. all that shit. hell, USA should be thankful that no one decided to give this country a taste of its own medicine and come take this bitch over again and spread smallpox and measles and all that shit. the more i realize what this country is about and how is was REALLY built, i cant salute the stars and stripes. and i feel especially deeply for the families of the soldiers that had to lose their loved one's because of the sins of their fore-fathers and current leaders. nearly 4100 as of today. a dam shame.

this country is pretty much based on racism.

but i dont see the big deal about white boy or black person or none of that shit. i label myself black so i dont care if anyone else does. its when i start hearing blue gums and shit about mississippi wind chimes that gets me pissed. and i dont understand why some white people get offended when someone says white boy. its not like white people are opressed in this country or have it so bad.



Dude, you are just to damned ignorant to deal with. You are so ignorant, you can't even spell correctly. Just proves the point that people who are uneducated are racists, no matter their color.
If you're so ashamed of this country and of being American, Why not just pack your stuff and move to some place you think would be a better place for you.
 

B_becominghorse

Sexy Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2006
Posts
1,111
Media
0
Likes
32
Points
183
Location
new york city
Sexuality
50% Straight, 50% Gay
Gender
Male
Dude, you are just to damned ignorant to deal with. You are so ignorant, you can't even spell correctly. Just proves the point that people who are uneducated are racists, no matter their color.
If you're so ashamed of this country and of being American, Why not just pack your stuff and move to some place you think would be a better place for you.

Yeah, this guy takes the cake for degenerate stupidity and total ignorance. I don't think I have ever heard anything more touchingly pitiful than that 9/11 was 'karma for slavery and the hostile takeover of America'. Maybe he went to Joan Baez's flower-child school back in the 60's (Joan Didion wrote that up the 'Slouching Toward Bethlehem'; her early writing assignments are funny, because she is forced to cover all these insanely backward situations, and you can almost physically experience it when her revulsion sets in. She had to take a combo of ups and gin to write about the Haight-Ashbury acid-'n'-macrobiotic scene. Great woman.)
 

dong20

Sexy Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2006
Posts
6,058
Media
0
Likes
28
Points
183
Location
The grey country
Sexuality
No Response
It seems like what you are talking about here would remove the context that this "humor" occurs in. When someone compares Bush to a monkey, it's a statement about Bush's intelligence; if you are comparing Obama to a monkey, it's not about his intelligence because that's never been questioned, it's about his looks and the cultural stereotypes that affiliates people of African descent with monkeys. But for that affiliation, there would be no humor here. So to get the joke, you have to know the subtext and context of the stereotype. There is no assumption, the intent is clear.

Yes, that's a part of it certainly - although I'd argue that the reaction in this case is entirely based on assumption, albeit one of a different nature.

The other thread in my thinking and one I was trying to get across (not very well, I know - usually I can do better) was my concern at a seemingly automatic hostile reaction (I hesitate to use knee jerk) whenever a black person is disparaged by a white person based on an assumption that the attack is racially motivated,- yet such a reaction seems far less prevalent in other 'circumstances'.

Is this because the assumption isn't made, or merely that it isn't articulated? I believe it's an important and potentially worrying distinction; assuming an honest response by all, could one not therefore conclude that only one group is capable of racially motivated acts, at the expense of another? I'm sorry but I'm not sold on such a conclusion so there must be another reason. At least one other poster has expressed such a opinion, one did so in a rather less than subtle manner to be sure, but the response afforded them was largely unwarranted.

It is the inherent danger in such assumption of motivation without 'objective' proof (white skin is not proof) that concerns me. I'm sure that you're right in this case, this is intended as a racially demeaning cartoon, but it is so in large part because it plays on a flawed association dating back centuries, a association that has no place in a civilised society - (a theme I attempted to elucidate to Rubi, very poorly as I was nodding off!!). I was really more trying to explore a broader theme as opposed to the specifics of this incident.

But, ask yourself this question; had the bar owner been black, what do you imagine would the reaction had been, and if you think it would be different why is that? That's a far more revealing question, IMO. Sometimes it's necessary to step outside the wood, to see the trees.

One final comment, one notable exception aside, it's refreshing to see a racially themed thread remain mostly civil. Perhaps there's hope for us yet.:smile:
 

B_becominghorse

Sexy Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2006
Posts
1,111
Media
0
Likes
32
Points
183
Location
new york city
Sexuality
50% Straight, 50% Gay
Gender
Male
Is this because the assumption isn't made, or merely that it isn't articulated? I believe it's an important and potentially worrying distinction; assuming an honest response by all, could one not therefore conclude that only one group is capable of racially motivated acts, at the expense of another? I'm sorry but I'm not sold on such a conclusion so there must be another reason. At least one other poster has expressed such a opinion, one did so in a rather less than subtle manner to be sure, but the response afforded them was largely unwarranted.

It is the inherent danger in such assumption of motivation without 'objective' proof (white skin is not proof) that concerns me. I'm sure that you're right in this case, this is intended as a racially demeaning cartoon, but it is so in large part because it plays on a flawed association dating back centuries, a association that has no place in a civilised society - (a theme I attempted to elucidate to Rubi, very poorly as I was nodding off!!). I was really more trying to explore a broader theme as opposed to the specifics of this incident.

Agree, and think it important to note that Marxists and hard leftists think black racism doesn't exist, women spouse abusers are not important because a smaller percentage. They always think in statistics and 'kollektive', and nevermind that the individual situation was exactly the same. Black racism obviously exists, and it is not only a reaction to white racism. Most of the bigotries throughout history have to do with dominance and greater economic and other success.. Christianity is 'successful' on a worldwild scale right now, while polytheism is not, Haitian vodoun is strictly limited in sway to one third of an island, the nation of Guinea, and parts of New Orleans. So life goes on. Hard leftists also say race does not exists. Therefore, racism was just pulled out of thin air, based on nothing. Racism is normal, though not admirable. The sooner people realized that racism is normal, that narrowmindedness and pettiness and shittiness are normal human stupid attributes, the fewer tragedies would occur and better harmony produced. At least it couldn't be any worse than it is with everybody denying they have any racism, sexism, homophobia. As for 'if a black person had been the owner', that's like been blacks call each other 'nigger' and gays call each other 'bitch' and 'faggot'. Some super PC types think this is still terrible, but people do it, and that's what's interesting. It's interesting what people do, not what they should do.
 

HaagenDazs

Experimental Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2007
Posts
496
Media
0
Likes
24
Points
163
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
I try not to get offended by shit like this. You have to remember that people who are racists are so primitive, backwater, and Neanderthal-esque that such basic and primitive differences as skin color and location of origin determine the quality of human being to them. They are primitive, primal human beings who have not evolved yet. You handle them with kid glove, and hope they'll kill themselves or die quickly, one of the two.

Slowly we're making progress. People like him are a dying breed. And for that we can all be thankful.
 

ManlyBanisters

Sexy Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2007
Posts
12,253
Media
0
Likes
58
Points
183
So far as I can tell, it's not "everyone" - only certain groups have that right.

(On that note, I'm still waiting to know why it's acceptable to call Hillary Clinton a "bitch", but it's not acceptable to call Barack Obama a "nigger".)

Is that a serious question?

One word is far more loaded than the other for a start. 'Bitch' is a nasty, bad, mean woman - but it does not imply that all women are nasty, bad or mean. 'Nigger' is a black person - the word itself carries the implication that all black people are bad and/or inferior. Can you not see the difference? Calling a woman a bitch is not saying you are bad because you are a woman - it is using a feminized insult on a female subject. Calling a black person a nigger is saying that being black is the 'problem'.

Which is why it would not be such an issue if a black person uses the term 'nigger' for Obama - because the implicit badness is lessened (mitigated to a point of inoffense?) when the speaker is included in the group to which they are referring.

Personally I think calling Clinton a bitch is counterproductive for the person using it. There's plenty to attack about her without stooping to namecalling. Calling Obama a nigger would be just plain old-fashioned shit stirring.
 

B_jacknapier

Experimental Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Posts
672
Media
0
Likes
3
Points
103
Location
Pittsburgh
Sexuality
80% Straight, 20% Gay
I try not to get offended by shit like this. You have to remember that people who are racists are so primitive, backwater, and Neanderthal-esque that such basic and primitive differences as skin color and location of origin determine the quality of human being to them. They are primitive, primal human beings who have not evolved yet. You handle them with kid glove, and hope they'll kill themselves or die quickly, one of the two.

Slowly we're making progress. People like him are a dying breed. And for that we can all be thankful.

As someone with an extremely intelligent and refined but inactively racist grandmother, I can assure you that your sweeping generalization is not entirely correct.
 

rob_just_rob

Sexy Member
Joined
Jun 2, 2005
Posts
5,857
Media
0
Likes
43
Points
183
Location
Nowhere near you
Is that a serious question?

Yes.

One word is far more loaded than the other for a start.

Why? Women and black people are both groups that have been historically oppressed.

'Bitch' is a nasty, bad, mean woman - but it does not imply that all women are nasty, bad or mean. 'Nigger' is a black person - the word itself carries the implication that all black people are bad and/or inferior. Can you not see the difference?

Nope. It sounds like you're picking and choosing your definitions of the two slurs.

Calling a woman a bitch is not saying you are bad because you are a woman - it is using a feminized insult on a female subject. Calling a black person a nigger is saying that being black is the 'problem'.

See above.

Which is why it would not be such an issue if a black person uses the term 'nigger' for Obama - because the implicit badness is lessened (mitigated to a point of inoffensiveneess?) when the person is included in the group they are referring to.

Oh. The "that's our word" argument. I have trouble buying into that one.
 

B_becominghorse

Sexy Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2006
Posts
1,111
Media
0
Likes
32
Points
183
Location
new york city
Sexuality
50% Straight, 50% Gay
Gender
Male
I try not to get offended by shit like this. You have to remember that people who are racists are so primitive, backwater, and Neanderthal-esque that such basic and primitive differences as skin color and location of origin determine the quality of human being to them. They are primitive, primal human beings who have not evolved yet. You handle them with kid glove, and hope they'll kill themselves or die quickly, one of the two.

Slowly we're making progress. People like him are a dying breed. And for that we can all be thankful.

I don't know if you were referring to my previous post, so I should clarify. I meant that if you can't see your racism, you can't even make efforts to avoid its harmful effects, starting with the most harmful. To pretend race does not exist seems to me as ridiculous as saying racism could exist without it. People's value is not based on their skin colour, but their race and their place of origin are part of their culture. Otherwise, no point in talking about Black Culture, Eastern Culture, Japanese culture, and the rest. But I think the ravages of all racisms would be more likely minimized if we all realize that we are somewhat racist. We are not all like George Wallace , nor are we all like Louis Farrakhan. Anybody knows that denial of something primitive and backward usually makes it go in deeper.
 

DC_DEEP

Sexy Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2005
Posts
8,714
Media
0
Likes
97
Points
183
Sexuality
No Response
So far as I can tell, it's not "everyone" - only certain groups have that right.

(On that note, I'm still waiting to know why it's acceptable to call Hillary Clinton a "bitch", but it's not acceptable to call Barack Obama a "nigger".)
Easy answer (and I'll wait for the challenge on this before I bring up the quote that proves my point...) just call Hillary a nigger and call Barrack a bitch. Then everyone's happy.

Yeah, this guy takes the cake for degenerate stupidity and total ignorance. I don't think I have ever heard anything more touchingly pitiful than that 9/11 was 'karma for slavery and the hostile takeover of America'. Maybe he went to Joan Baez's flower-child school back in the 60's
Even Joan Baez would have been disgusted by that post. It would seem that mista geechee is a follower of either Louis Farakhan and the Nation of Islam, or Fred Phelps and the Westbro Baptist Church... but I'm guessing Nation of Islam. Those are the only two groups I know of who love to bray about how we "deserved" the 9/11 attacks, and claim the terrorists are heros.

How anyone can harbor that much hatred without spontaneously combusting is anybody's guess.
 

B_becominghorse

Sexy Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2006
Posts
1,111
Media
0
Likes
32
Points
183
Location
new york city
Sexuality
50% Straight, 50% Gay
Gender
Male
Is that a serious question?

One word is far more loaded than the other for a start. 'Bitch' is a nasty, bad, mean woman - but it does not imply that all women are nasty, bad or mean. 'Nigger' is a black person - the word itself carries the implication that all black people are bad and/or inferior. Can you not see the difference? Calling a woman a bitch is not saying you are bad because you are a woman -

That's mostly the way I see it, but the American use of 'bitch' has taken on all these 'female dog' things and they have adopted it as being a deep sexist insult. There's been some recovery, and I would only agree that people don't find 'bitch' as insulting as 'cunt'. Didn't you mention you lived in France? i lived there a year myself, and they don't concern themselves with every petty little worry about a slightly offensive word.