> "We are in a world where moralistic mobs gather on social media and rise like a storm, falling upon newsrooms in an overwhelming blow. This requires immediate counter-measures by publishers, leaving no room for ponderation or meaningful discussions. Twitter is a place for furor, not debate. The most outraged voices tend to define the conversation, and the angry crowd follows in."
It's strange, and perhaps unfortunate, that having pinned the blame on "Twitter Mobs", the examples he chooses to give are where cartoonists have been silenced by autocratic regimes (Turkey, Venezuela, Russia). The solution in these cases is to push back and defend press freedom, not to cave in and blame faceless social media mobs.
And when it comes to 'social media' mobs, is anyone really going to come into bat for the NYT and claim that the below is not really anti-semitic or homophobic? If you need to lean on anti-Semitic or homophobic tropes let me suggest you're not as funny, incisive or subversive as you think you are. Comparing yourself to CH in such circumstances is to claim a martrydom you don't really deserve [1] [2]
I don't see how it's homophobic. The cartoon portrays Trump and Putin as lovers, supposedly to mock their alleged closeness. It doesn't attack homosexual people.
If the cartoon were portraying e.g. Merkel and Putin, in similar roles, would you call it "heterophobic" (is that a word?), or would it be perfectly acceptable?
> The cartoon portrays Trump and Putin as lovers, supposedly to mock their alleged closeness. It doesn't attack homosexual people.
It does attack homosexual people. You can't use "gay" as a slur or as a punchline to a joke anymore. The punchline of the joke isn't "they're close", its "they're so close they're gay".
That makes "being gay" an active of derision or humour, which is an attack on gay people.
>It does attack homosexual people. You can't use "gay" as a slur or as a punchline to a joke anymore. The punchline of the joke isn't "they're close", its "they're so close they're gay".
No, the punchline of the joke is "they're so close it's almost like they're in a relationship". Of course it has to be a gay relationship, because they're both men.
As I said before, the joke would work just as well if the cartoon depicted a woman and a man.
> The punchline of the joke isn't "they're close", its "they're so close they're gay".
Equally, the implicit punchline could even read as “Trump’s cheating on America with Putin”. It would work just as well with leaders of any combination of genders.
Honestly, and I'm not trying to anger people here but. I don't think it's anti-semitic at all. It's a cartoon that encapsulated the fact that Trump(s policies) are guided by Netanyahu and Israeli interests. And that Trump follow this blindly (hence the guidance dog image).
I don't really see anything else other than critique of the current Israel - US leadership relationship.
It's strange, and perhaps unfortunate, that having pinned the blame on "Twitter Mobs", the examples he chooses to give are where cartoonists have been silenced by autocratic regimes (Turkey, Venezuela, Russia). The solution in these cases is to push back and defend press freedom, not to cave in and blame faceless social media mobs.
And when it comes to 'social media' mobs, is anyone really going to come into bat for the NYT and claim that the below is not really anti-semitic or homophobic? If you need to lean on anti-Semitic or homophobic tropes let me suggest you're not as funny, incisive or subversive as you think you are. Comparing yourself to CH in such circumstances is to claim a martrydom you don't really deserve [1] [2]
[1] https://jewishnews.timesofisrael.com/new-york-times-antisemi...
[2] https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/new-york-times-trump...