[arista]

[The Guardian apologises after being
accused of 'shocking' anti-Semitism
over cartoon of ex-BBC chairman
Richard Sharp that
'featured Jewish stereotypes'
Controversial image by Martin Rowson
showed a caricature of Richard Sharp]


It was Removed from their site

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ard-Sharp.html

[The cartoon, published yesterday,
depicted the former Goldman Sachs
banker carrying a box from the
bank stuffed with a squid and what
appeared to be gold coins.
Stephen Pollard, former editor of the
Jewish Chronicle,
described the illustration as
'unambiguously antisemitic',
adding: 'It takes a lot to shock me.
But I still find it genuinely shocking that
not a single person looked at this and said,
'No, we can't run this.']


https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ard-Sharp.html

[bots]

Guardian caught out again

[Crimson Dynamo]

The Octopus is a common antisemitic image found
in anti-Jewish images and cartoons, representing
the antisemitic canard of Jewish control.

[Crimson Dynamo]

[bots]

the guardian and the observer caught being anti semitic in the space of a week and they have the same owner ....

[Crimson Dynamo]

[Livia]

Lefties don't understand anti-Semitism, they never have and they never will.

[The Slim Reaper]

The cartoons are bad. Really bad. But as a wider point; if you supported and cheered on Hebdos or Danish cartoonists rights to produce cartoons knowingly offensive to Muslims, but then suddenly have lost your consistency with these, then maybe a few of you might wonder why that would be the case...

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by The Slim Reaper

The cartoons are bad. Really bad. But as a wider point; if you supported and cheered on Hebdos or Danish cartoonists rights to produce cartoons knowingly offensive to Muslims, but then suddenly have lost your consistency with these, then maybe a few of you might wonder why that would be the case...

its so not the same thing but full marks for trying to justify the constant left wing antisemitism

[The Slim Reaper]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

its so not the same thing but full marks for trying to justify the constant left wing antisemitism

Then it should be really easy for you to point out the difference, which I'm sure you'll do right away...

Originally Posted by The Slim Reaper

The cartoons are bad. Really bad.

[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by The Slim Reaper

The cartoons are bad. Really bad. But as a wider point; if you supported and cheered on Hebdos or Danish cartoonists rights to produce cartoons knowingly offensive to Muslims, but then suddenly have lost your consistency with these, then maybe a few of you might wonder why that would be the case...

There's a difference between creating mocking portrayals of a long dead paedo warlord, and deliberately invoking antisemitic tropes to mock a specific living person.

[The Slim Reaper]

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

There's a difference between creating mocking portrayals of a long dead paedo warlord, and deliberately invoking antisemitic tropes to mock a specific living person.

So the difference is purely in the framing?

[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by The Slim Reaper

So the difference is purely in the framing?

There wasn't anything specifically "islamophobic" about the portrayal of Muhammed, while the cartoon in the OP did feature antiSemetic imagery. It's not just the framing, it's the content.

[Crimson Dynamo]

[Mystic Mock]

Why the **** is Comedy being removed?

I know that I sound like a stuck record but if you don't like a Comedy Skit, just don't follow it, don't actually try (and succeed in this case) to ban it.

When was we China?

[bots]

there is a distinction. The previous cartoons were making fun of a mythical person. The guardian was making fun of an entire race of people

[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

there is a distinction. The previous cartoons were making fun of a mythical person. The guardian was making fun of an entire race of people

Well Old Mo most certainly existed, just because some people revere him doesn't actually give him mythic status... so you're mythtaken there

[bots]

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

Well Old Mo most certainly existed, just because some people revere him doesn't actually give him mythic status... so you're mythtaken there

no i'm not, a person named mo may have existed, but that doesn't mean that everything attributed to that person over the years is accurate. It's like jesus and the last supper, or the loaves and fishes. It's all complete bollocks.

You will be telling us next that Helen of Troy was a real person

[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

no i'm not, a person named mo may have existed, but that doesn't mean that everything attributed to that person over the years is accurate. It's like jesus and the last supper, or the loaves and fishes. It's all complete bollocks.

Fair point, well made.

[Mystic Mock]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

there is a distinction. The previous cartoons were making fun of a mythical person. The guardian was making fun of an entire race of people

Out of interest does the person that wrote this particular skit have a history of mocking the Jewish community?

I'm asking because if he has a pattern of just singling one group out to ridicule then the joke stops in my eyes as it's a lot more sinister.

However as I'm seeing it so far there was a joke that wouldn't be far amiss in Family Guy or South Park, but for some reason is being banned.

[bots]

Originally Posted by Mystic Mock

Out of interest does the person that wrote this particular skit have a history of mocking the Jewish community?

I'm asking because if he has a pattern of just singling one group out to ridicule then the joke stops in my eyes as it's a lot more sinister.

However as I'm seeing it so far there was a joke that wouldn't be far amiss in Family Guy or South Park, but for some reason is being banned.

it's not being banned though is it. The guardian chose to remove it, they weren't compelled by law to do so. Public pressure is what made them remove it. That's not banning something

[Mystic Mock]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

it's not being banned though is it. The guardian chose to remove it, they weren't compelled by law to do so. Public pressure is what made them remove it. That's not banning something

Listening to a few people on the Internet is capitulation.

I mean that's not even public pressure when I doubt that most people didn't really care either way would be my guess.

But I am wondering why The Guardian had that skit on their Newspaper anyway? I didn't think that they knew what a joke was.

[bots]

Originally Posted by Mystic Mock

Listening to a few people on the Internet is capitulation.

I mean that's not even public pressure when I doubt that most people didn't really care either way would be my guess.

But I am wondering why The Guardian had that skit on their Newspaper anyway? I didn't think that they knew what a joke was.

it's about money, thats why they removed it.

[Crimson Dynamo]

[MTVN]

I suppose one difference in these cartoons is that the artist won't be getting any murdered anytime soon for his drawing. I think it's always inadvisable to use religious tropes in cartoons because we should be better than that. The Charlie Hebdo writers and artists only ended up being defended so much because they or their colleagues lost their lives for it which is a much greater evil than the cartoon