Trump + Putin Images Thread

[RedPhoenix]

A nice little writeup on the rising prevalence of homophobia in anti-Trump protests.

You Can Mock Trump’s Relationship With Putin Without Resorting to Homophobia

"These signs and these “jokes” don’t hurt Trump and Putin. They do hurt people, especially young people, who are actually gay or queer. Because you cannot deride homosexuality without deriding gay people, even if the jokes are meant to be at the expense of someone’s ego. They still reinforce the idea that there is something funny about same-sex attraction.

That idea is especially pervasive when it comes to male same-sex relationships, perpetuating the idea that homosexuality undermines a person’s masculinity. Again, even if the point is ostensibly to mock men like Trump and Putin for having those views, the mockery still reinforces the bigotry. You cannot laugh at the idea of two specific men being gay without reinforcing the idea that there is something laughable about being gay itself.

As with the fat shaming that many Trump detractors have relied on, the homophobic protest signs are lazy forms of mockery at best and, at worst, cause real damage to innocent people whose identities are being used as the punchline to your joke."

And another:

An image of Putin and Trump kissing isn’t funny. It’s homophobic
"This ‘joke’ sends the message that being gay is something to be ashamed of, with horrible effects for actual queer people"

"As societies around the world roll back queer protections, it is more important than ever to ensure we don’t reinforce the view that homosexuality (or any part of the rainbow) is something shameful. Stop making it acceptable to laugh at queer people, no matter who they are.

Trump and Putin aren’t damaged by this mockery, but real queer people are. The young queer person sitting at home watching the news, wondering how they are going to tell their religious parents that they are “that way”. The homeless LGBTQ person walking down a street in New York seeing a depiction of Putin or Trump as gay and hating themselves a little more because of it. That’s who you’re hurting, not two world leaders who don’t care what you put on your posters.

Stonewall reports that the percentage of LGBT people experiencing hate crimes because of their sexual orientation rose from 9% in 2013 to 16% in 2017. It believes four out of five attacks go unreported. It’s not just direct abuse that affects the lives of queer people. Casual homophobia in our society means one in 10 have been discriminated against when looking for somewhere to live, one in six when going out for meal or a drink, one in three when trying to worship and one in 10 at a sporting event.

Everywhere queer people go, they face the very real consequences of a society that treats being queer as the punchline to a joke. To you it’s funny. To us it’s our lives."

[Vekseid]

I like how the writer of the pieces RedPhoenix linked couldn't be arsed to look up what these picture are referencing. If one of the two was female, we would be seeing the same sorts of images, and hearing the same sorts of jokes.

But then it'd magically be sexist, rather than magically homophobic.

It is neither of these things.

The genders are irrelevant, the kiss remains all the same.

[TheGlyphstone]

I like how the writer of the pieces RedPhoenix linked couldn't be arsed to look up what these picture are referencing. If one of the two was female, we would be seeing the same sorts of images, and hearing the same sorts of jokes.

But then it'd magically be sexist, rather than magically homophobic.

It is neither of these things.

The genders are irrelevant, the kiss remains all the same.

I don't think that makes RP's greater point wrong, though - less specifically on the kiss, and more on the casual homophobia inherent in 'Putin+Trump=Gay'.

[RedPhoenix]

I like how the writer of the pieces RedPhoenix linked couldn't be arsed to look up what these picture are referencing. If one of the two was female, we would be seeing the same sorts of images, and hearing the same sorts of jokes.

But then it'd magically be sexist, rather than magically homophobic.

It is neither of these things.

The genders are irrelevant, the kiss remains all the same.

Uh huh. And confederate flags are about state's rights. Lame excuses to justify hatred ring hollow no matter who makes them. You don't see any other references to obscure socialist customs from thirty years ago in these protest signs. But somehow, only the homophobic one.

Those images are implying that two men kissing is a bad thing. Period. You can't hand wave homophobia because you find it politically convenient. You also can't dismiss the very real and harmful effects this imagery has with some "Well actually" nonsense out of the cold war.

Even if you do buy this lame excuse (and I really doubt anyone does) - it falls apart by asking the simple question what means more - scoring political points with a reference to old socialism or not causing social harm to the LGBT community? If you value dinging Trump and don't care who you trample on the way, you're making the exact point the authors of the articles are making.

Also, sexism and homophobia do not appear by magic. They are real things. Implying otherwise is pretty telling. There's nothing subtle or magical about the message being sent by "two men kissing is bad." You have people in this very thread talking about Trump sucking Putin's cock. Strangely no one is referencing obscure socialist customs. Because that's not what those images mean. That's the effect these images have. It emboldens hate speech and otherizes queer folks. Don't try to justify it.

[Vekseid]

I don't think that makes RP's greater point wrong, though - less specifically on the kiss, and more on the casual homophobia inherent in 'Putin+Trump=Gay'.

If what you think of when you see an image of Putin and Trump kissing is 'gay=bad', then I don't think the problem is on the end of the person presenting that image.

By all means, if someone presents it that way or tries to warp it that way, call it out. Personally I feel pretending this is homophobic is the homophobic stance. Putin and Trump have a relationship that is at best troubling to any patriotic American. How would you depict this in an instant, if not via a means susceptible to this sort of outrage culture?

Uh huh. And confederate flags are about state's rights.

The state's right to define the status of black people as being subservient. Not the other way around, of course. Couldn't lose Tennessee.

But that's off topic and completely irrelevant.

Lame excuses to justify hatred ring hollow no matter who makes them. You don't see any other references to obscure socialist customs from thirty years ago in these protest signs.

The author of your article has disavowed the specific image that got chosen for it, at least. So there is that.

Your definition of obscure is rather curious, we've seen quite a lot of references. I know I've seen plenty of equally obscure ones. I don't particularly care, because

But somehow, only the homophobic one.

Those images are implying that two men kissing is a bad thing. Period. You can't hand wave homophobia because you find it politically convenient. You also can't dismiss the very real and harmful effects this imagery has with some "Well actually" nonsense out of the cold war.

We're experiencing the real and harmful effects outrage culture like these articles have on the world right now.

Call everything fascist, fascism becomes okay.

Call everything racist, racism becomes okay.

Call everything sexist, sexism becomes okay.



If there is no line to be drawn, then there will be no shame in crossing it.

These articles don't convince people a given act is homophobic. They give refuge. "See!? The left are the real homophobes! We just want what is best for them with these camps."

[RedPhoenix]

That's a last resort argument and an equally lame one to pretending gender and sexuality have nothing to do with it.

You act like there's no other way to symbolize a close relationship? How about handing each other money (which would actually demonstrate corruption rather than just political closeness which is something they've never denied)? Shaking hands? This isn't difficult - and many protests manage it just fine. Again the point is very simple - you can do it without being homophobic. Why is that such a problem for you to agree with?

You haven't addressed at all the language that comes with this imagery - it's all homophobia - Trump is sucking Putin's cock, Trump bend over for Putin, etc. etc. Just go on any social media or hell read this thread and you'll see it. This is enabled by the acceptance of that imagery. You haven't even bothered trying to deny that, but you can't just ignore that point and hope it goes away.

You're probably ignoring that though because it completely undermines your attempt to blame this on "outrage culture."  Which is once again you minimizing, denying, and talking around the real harm that this blatant homophobia causes because you find it politically inconvenient to acknowledge the truth of. This is not "outrage culture" this is about a group of people that are consistently attacked not just outraged online, actually attacked physically - much moreso since 2016 than in years before -  and demeaned for their existence.

But to you, first homophobia came out of nowhere magically, now it's just outrage culture. You're trying to sweep bigotry and its damaging effects on the world we live in under the rug here. And I think that's pretty transparent to anyone reading this.

I'm not going to bother with the old 4chan meme about "the people who point out bigotry are the real bigots." That's just sad you would try to say that.

The only point made was "you can criticize Trump without being homophobic."

You instantly rallied against that.

Hopefully people see what a huge problem it is thanks to your responses here. In a weird way that someone is willing to fight me so hard on this probably makes the point better than any number of articles or hate crime stats ever could.

[Vekseid]

That's a last resort argument and an equally lame one to pretending gender and sexuality have nothing to do with it.

This is raw projection. You have no argument against mine. You claim that descriptions of two people, once they suggest romanticism or sexual innuendo, must either be sexist and/or homophobic.

That is blatantly false on its face.

It is concern trolling.

It gets mocked and rightly so.

You act like there's no other way to symbolize a close relationship? How about handing each other money (which would actually demonstrate corruption rather than just political closeness which is something they've never denied)?

White House deletes Putin's support for Trump from official video, transcript.

Handing money and handshakes are also professional transactions.

Shaking hands? This isn't difficult - and many protests manage it just fine. Again the point is very simple - you can do it without being homophobic. Why is that such a problem for you to agree with?

I clearly agree that you can protest Trump without being homophobic.

I also state unequivocally that the Trump-Putin kissing images you've linked are not homophobic.

You haven't addressed at all the language that comes with this imagery - it's all homophobia - Trump is sucking Putin's cock, Trump bend over for Putin, etc. etc. Just go on any social media or hell read this thread and you'll see it.

What is homophobic about these statements? Because they both happen to be male?

Maybe there is an issue with these being seen as servile acts. That might be a worthy cause to fight, but it is more ancient and pervasive than Christendom.

These acts weren't equated with homosexuality then. Most people using it aren't doing so now. Certainly not regarding Trump, a man who we now have tape recordings of committing a felony in order to cover up his impropriety with a woman not his wife. To the surprise of no one.

This is enabled by the acceptance of that imagery. You haven't even bothered trying to deny that, but you can't just ignore that point and hope it goes away.

You're probably ignoring that though because it completely undermines your attempt to blame this on "outrage culture."  Which is once again you minimizing, denying, and talking around the real harm that this blatant homophobia causes because you find it politically inconvenient to acknowledge the truth of. This is not "outrage culture"

Yes it is.

You are perpetuating myths, equating this imagery and this language with homosexuality. And linking it from there to homophobia.

You help no one by promoting these equations.

this is about a group of people that are consistently attacked not just outraged online, actually attacked physically - much moreso since 2016 than in years before -  and demeaned for their existence.

But to you, first homophobia came out of nowhere magically, now it's just outrage culture. You're trying to sweep bigotry and its damaging effects on the world we live in under the rug here. And I think that's pretty transparent to anyone reading this.

You are twisting my words.

I am saying that referring to these images and phrases as homophobic comes out of nowhere. Well we know where this argument began, out of /pol/, /r/the_donald, and Twitter bots when Colbert made his "Putin's personal cockholster" comment. But still.

I'm not going to bother with the old 4chan meme about "the people who point out bigotry are the real bigots." That's just sad you would try to say that.

Which isn't what I said.

If you are bothered by the image of two men kissing, because of their gender, that homophobia is yours. Their gender isn't relevant to the image at all. Their gender isn't relevant to the language used to demean Trump in his relationship with Putin at all.

One of them could be a robot, and people would use the same language, show the same imagery.

The only point made was "you can criticize Trump without being homophobic."

Which would be a fine point if you had some examples of homophobia. Instead you equate certain acts with homosexuality and from there it must be homophobia.

This is a fallacy, it does not follow.

You instantly rallied against that.

Again, I rallied against calling these things homophobic. Which ought to be pretty clear in my previous post. But if anyone has any doubts.

Hopefully people see what a huge problem it is thanks to your responses here. In a weird way that someone is willing to fight me so hard on this probably makes the point better than any number of articles or hate crime stats ever could.

We have several dozen lurkers who don't even bother signing up, they just read. So hey, you do have an audience.

[Lyron]

Honestly? Maybe this is naivete on my part, and because I'm well past the point of being a teen, but I interpret the Trump and Putin kissing images in the same way I would if Trump or Putin were a woman: our president being "in bed" with our enemy. I don't think either original point, about it being homophobic or about it being a nod to a socialist custom, are wrong. Art, however loosely you want to apply that term, is going to be interpreted in different ways. Not to say that there aren't better forms of rhetoric, of course.

[gaggedLouise]

Honestly? Maybe this is naivete on my part, and because I'm well past the point of being a teen, but I interpret the Trump and Putin kissing images in the same way I would if Trump or Putin were a woman: our president being "in bed" with our enemy. I don't think either original point, about it being homophobic or about it being a nod to a socialist custom, are wrong. Art, however loosely you want to apply that term, is going to be interpreted in different ways. Not to say that there aren't better forms of rhetoric, of course.

It's also that in many of those spoof pictures - especially the photoshopped ones - Trump is clearly placed in the role of the woman: he is wearing a long skirt and long hair, he's giving an aroused/admiring smile and letting himself be held or lifted up by the stronger man, he is waiting for his turn to speak after Putin or some other man, and so on.

[Lyron]

It's also that in many of those spoof pictures - especially the photoshopped ones - Trump is clearly placed in the role of the woman: he is wearing a long skirt and long hair, he's giving an aroused/admiring smile and letting himself be held or lifted up by the stronger man, he is waiting for his turn to speak after Putin or some other man, and so on.

Sorry, I was primarily commenting on the images in the links that RedPhoenix posted. :-) Yes, the images in which Trump is depicted as a woman are more harmful in their rhetoric.

[gaggedLouise]

Sorry, I was primarily commenting on the images in the links that RedPhoenix posted. :-) Yes, the images in which Trump is depicted as a woman are more harmful in their rhetoric.

I'll admit that I couldn't help an irreverent giggle at some of those - especially the one where Trump, shown as an aged and lovestruck woman in a blue shift, is lifted up and embraced by a clearly much stronger and younger Kim Jong-un, and giving him a big enamoured smile. :)

Sometimes satire does make use of the dodgy and shameless, or of our "guilty pleasures"...

[Vekseid]

It's also that in many of those spoof pictures - especially the photoshopped ones - Trump is clearly placed in the role of the woman: he is wearing a long skirt and long hair, he's giving an aroused/admiring smile and letting himself be held or lifted up by the stronger man, he is waiting for his turn to speak after Putin or some other man, and so on.

These are more in line with the language Red was complaining about, rather than the images linked. That a certain sort of role is inherently subservient and lesser. Especially receiving anal sex.

The thing is, this viewpoint dates back before Alexander the Great and possibly earlier. It is old in the same way we use the shape of an extinct plant's seed as a symbol for love is old. Engaging in these acts were not inherently viewed as being homosexual, but if you were the 'receiver' or the one who knelt, it was seen as accepting the inferior role.



In news, more Orwellian phrases from Trump. "What you're seeing and reading isn't what's happening." In which he politicizes more events that were not previously political.

[RedPhoenix]

Okay, you're hung up on one image. It's not just one image, even though I don't buy for a minute any of the excuses for that image either. Here's a bunch of stuff that will take you to all the homophobic media you'd ever not want.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-putin-new-york-times_us_5b4cc235e4b0e7c958fde970 <- "Joking that Trump and Putin Are Gay is Homophobia" The Huffington Post, one of the most maligned publications by alt right trolls in existence.

"We saw it in “protest art” in the months after the election. The internet enjoyed a period of Photoshopping suggestive photos of the pair together. Late-night hosts found themselves in hot water for jokes of their own about a Trump/Putin romance. Many writers explained then just how corrosive the conceit was."

That article lists tons of examples - pictures of Putin fondling a pregnant Trump, for instance. They are repulsive I'm not going to go down the list. It's a pervasive problem that is consistently documented by the exact opposite of the alt-right sources your'e trying to blame it on.

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/trump-putin-new-york-times-homophobia-relationship-a8451151.html < - "Depicting Trump and Putin in a romantic relationship isn’t funny – it just makes you a homophobe" The independent. Another source that details many repulsive examples.

"The New York Times is the latest culprit, this week taking aim at Donald Trump and his Helsinki summit with Vladimir Putin by depicting the two heterosexual world leaders as gay lovers.

In the latest episode of the publication’s “Trump Bites” series, a feminised caricature of Trump eagerly prepares for a date with a hypermasculine, topless Putin. The pair embark on their date, hold hands, ride a flying unicorn in their underwear – because unicorns are gay, obviously – before Trump tweaks Putin’s nipples while they engage in a deep and passionate kiss."

Go on explain how that's not homophobic.

https://www.elle.com/culture/career-politics/a22163743/homophobia-trump-putin/ <- "Gay Jokes About Trump and Putin Aren't Funny. They're Hate." Elle. Elle is a woman's magazine that's been around for decades for those who don't know. It's again the complete opposite of an internet troll den.

"To attempt to mock Trump for having feelings of attraction for Putin is to attempt to incite a gay panic in the two men and in their followers and acolytes. It is willfully violent, not to mention careless, lazy, reductive, and, frankly, boring. It makes Putin and Trump's jobs easier by reinforcing a world that is hostile to LGBTQ people to the point of death. If that's the objective of these so-called jokes, fine. Just don't call it comedy; call it what it is: hate."

Well put - inciting a gay panic is the goal here. Blatant homophobia. No amount of excuses or denial will change that.

This is a point echoed and agreed with by socially responsible left wing organizations. "Call those who voice concern the real bigots" is the alt-right response, and it has been since before they were called the alt-right.

It's also that in many of those spoof pictures - especially the photoshopped ones - Trump is clearly placed in the role of the woman: he is wearing a long skirt and long hair, he's giving an aroused/admiring smile and letting himself be held or lifted up by the stronger man, he is waiting for his turn to speak after Putin or some other man, and so on.

Yes, equating being gay with being weak with being feminine is a whole host of issues in and of itself, some of which overlap what I'm discussing. None of it is funny and the only thing it accomplishes is alienating, otherizing, and enabling the rising levels of hate crimes against LGBT folks.

It's not a joke to those of us who have to live with the consequences of it.

Honestly? Maybe this is naivete on my part, and because I'm well past the point of being a teen, but I interpret the Trump and Putin kissing images in the same way I would if Trump or Putin were a woman: our president being "in bed" with our enemy. I don't think either original point, about it being homophobic or about it being a nod to a socialist custom, are wrong. Art, however loosely you want to apply that term, is going to be interpreted in different ways. Not to say that there aren't better forms of rhetoric, of course.

When you're making art with the specific intent of arousing political flames you not only obviously have thought about the social ramifications of what you've done, you completely support it. Yes, these people completely have the right to make whatever art they want. And when they make homophobic art I have the right to call it that and point out the harm that acceptance of this art within a supposedly progressive and open minded political movement does.

Read the articles I linked above, see how this is a pervasive trend in the form of protest. It's not just one picture here or there. It's a consistent that needs to be addressed and corrected not have its existence denied.

Again, when I pointed this out in the first place the response to "You can criticize Trump without being homophobic" could have been "Yes, you're right." Or no response at all if anyone thought the point was so obvious it didn't merit a discussion. Instead, well, you see what happened.

The thing is, this viewpoint dates back before Alexander the Great and possibly earlier.

As does sexism, racism, rape culture, violence, religious persecution, and almost everything else inherently wrong with humanity. "That's the way it's always been" isn't an excuse.

Moving past all of that is where we got the progress in progressive from.

Accepting it is the complete opposite.

[gaggedLouise]

Okay, my two cents on this - and I am not saying this to defend any one particular picture, since we've clearly all seen different arrays of pics:

-These pictures are not meant to be taken literally, not even by a long shot. No one seriously thinks Putin or Trump would be closet gay. The spoof gay sex or romantic straight sex/dating imagery is mostly a way of sending up the ultra-macho public images of these two men, and of indicating issues of dependence, weakness, giving in and so on without having to bring in lots of text.

-Humour does make heavy use of stereotypes. If you outlaw the use of stereotypes and spoofs of well-known attitudes, even outdated attitudes, you'll largely kill off humour. Also, most innovative humour wants to have an element of surprise or it will just begin to feel dull.

-Satire has to have the right to sometimes use unpleasant, controversial, weird and goofy images and subtexts. Trying to weed out every picture element that might be provocative or in bad taste for some people - even for most people, if it stood on its own - is a surefire way to strangle the range of satire. Is that really what we want?

[RedPhoenix]

Okay, my two cents on this - and I am not saying this to defend any one particular picture, since we've clearly all seen different arrays of pics:

-These pictures are not meant to be taken literally, not even by a long shot. No one seriously thinks Putin or Trump would be closet gay. The spoof gay sex or romantic straight sex/dating imagery is mostly a way of sending up the ultra-macho public images of these two men, and of indicating issues of dependence, weakness, giving in and so on without having to bring in lots of text.

That's exactly the point and why it's a problem. They are using the suggestion of homosexuality as an insult. That "gay" equates to "weakness, dependence" etc is the problem.

I'm not sure why you think that saying it's intended as an insult is supposed to make things better here. It doesn't. At all.

-Humour does make heavy use of stereotypes. If you outlaw the use of stereotypes and spoofs of well-known attitudes, even outdated attitudes, you'll largely kill off humour. Also, most innovative humour wants to have an element of surprise or it will just begin to feel dull.

But the treatment of LGBT people in this country and especially in Russia isn't funny. You can't even find reliable statistics for hate crimes in Russia. Look at what is happening Chechnya. So why make a joke out of it unless you are willing to consciously disregard what making a joke out of it means, and what it enables? These aren't posters that show the results of such treatment - the sobering images of children locked in cages for example. Nobody made a joke out of that (well, no liberals anyway). Why are gay rights treated like such a joke?

It's not so funny when you're the joke. The joke here isn't Trump, it isn't Putin, it's being gay.

Nobody even breathed a word about outlawing anything. I want people to choose to have a modicum of socially responsibility. Apparently that's asking too much.

-Satire has to have the right to sometimes use unpleasant, controversial, weird and goofy images and subtexts. Trying to weed out every picture element that might be provocative or in bad taste for some people - even for most people, if it stood on its own - is a surefire way to strangle the range of satire. Is that really what we want?

This isn't Satire. Satire is witty. Satire is the covers of the Economist that show Trump using a Klan hood as a megaphone.

This isn't "Bad Taste." Bad taste is the posters that show Trump farting out his tweets.

This is hostile, otherizing, alienating, enabling and symptomatic of a rise of hate crimes. It serves no purpose at all, the message that Trump and Putin are cronies  can be sent much more effectively in other ways, and the message is not at all diluted by removing the homophobia.

What part of an anti-Trump statement requires homophobia? What possible message do you need to send to him that requires that you can't do much better some other way?

[RedPhoenix]

And to further, there's nothing surprising or innovative about using gay as a slur. As Vekseid pointed out, that's literally bronze age material.

[gaggedLouise]

Sorry RedPhoenix, you're reading these cartoons (the ones you've seen) in a much too literal way. To most people, by far the most people, the point about those pics isn't about humiliating gay men or trying to celebrate outdated gender roles (women should be meek housewives and softly submissive etc), and it's not about really suspecting Trump and Putin of being in bed with each other either. The joke is about Trump and Putin as politicians and crowdpleasers, I'm 100% sure that's what most people take away from this sort of pictures and that's why they are getting widely circulated, too.

You're trying to cannonade this field of pictures with a claim that they're in such offensive bad taste that they shouldn't be tolerated, at least not in any group where people want to be seen as intelligent, cool and socially responsible (yes, you can effectively censor stuff, discourage it and shout it down even without getting it forbidden by a legal injunction)

It's not so funny when you're the joke. The joke here isn't Trump, it isn't Putin, it's being gay.

Nobody even breathed a word about outlawing anything. I want people to choose to have a modicum of socially responsibility. Apparently that's asking too much.

And moreover, everyone who is with "the lefties" against Trump, and who doesn't call out the use of these images seems to get rolled into the same blanket (your earlier posts). If they don't protest against these caricatures then they're stained by the same anti-LGBT stance. Really?  ::)

Okay, I'll offer an example to support my claim that satire or political spoofing doesn't have to look like a selection of the very finest and most prestigious caricatures, stuff out of the Economist, the New Yorker or the Guardian. It's a much wider field than that, and it has to be. Have a look at this one. Yeah, you've all seen a few of these "Hitler rants at..." videos, but this one's different. First because the joke isn't so much about the ranting itself, but rather the story being told (and with a very good script) and then because of the way Hitler comes face to face with Donald Trump at an iconic moment. :)  I'm not sure the video is trying to say anything very precise about Trump, but it does use Hitler and Trump as mirror images in a way: both of them trying to stage-manage their political scenes (notice the point when Trump tells Hitler, "You're fake news").

Is this clip trying to say that the media questioning Trump are like Nazis? No, of course not.

Is it offensive because it picks up a scene from the end of WW2 and uses it to frame a joke on Donald Trump? No, I don't think it is; like it or not, Hitler is one of the most stereotyped characters of the modern world. Everyone recognizes him.

Is it anti-German? No, not so much. :) It is what it is.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vBD4vboKfkE

[Oniya]

The thing is, it's perfectly possible to convey the inappropriate subservience that Trump is showing towards [insert dictator here] without any sexually charged imagery at all.  I can't draw worth a damn, so picture this:

Trump dressed in full colonial man-servant garb, including the wig, carrying a silver platter on which is a box labelled 'U.S. Elections'.  Putin, dressed as a man of stature, looking gravely down at the tray and saying 'Very good, Donny.  Send Assange in on your way out.'

[gaggedLouise]

The thing is, it's perfectly possible to convey the inappropriate subservience that Trump is showing towards [insert dictator here] without any sexually charged imagery at all.  I can't draw worth a damn, so picture this:

Trump dressed in full colonial man-servant garb, including the wig, carrying a silver platter on which is a box labelled 'U.S. Elections'.  Putin, dressed as a man of stature, looking gravely down at the tray and saying 'Very good, Donny.  Send Assange in on your way out.'

Many colonial man-servants were coloured, and today that's part of the cliché. Suppose Trump in that picture had a tone of yellow or brown in his face: wouldn't it get some angry complaints: "Hey, this is blackfacing!!"

Routine blackfacing in the theatre is one thing, and today it's become rare, but if even a drawn caricature sketch involving a politician can't use some "race marker" if the cartoonist wants to - use it to bring out what the figure is meant to show, and the function of that character, without being called borderline racist, then I think it is getting a bit eggshelly.

Also, I'm excusing myself from further debate with RedPhoenix in this thread, since they seem to be just too emotionally caught up on the idea that this sort of Trump/Putin imagery is in itself a slap in the face of LGBT people. It's completely plain to me that we're talking past each other here.

[Oniya]

Many colonial man-servants were coloured, and today that's part of the cliché. Suppose Trump in that picture had a tone of yellow or brown in his face: wouldn't it get some angry complaints: "Hey, this is blackfacing!!"

Hardly a requirement, though.  Done in a simple 'op-ed' black and white line-cartoon, there would be no doubt as to Trump's ethnicity.

[gaggedLouise]

Hardly a requirement, though.  Done in a simple 'op-ed' black and white line-cartoon, there would be no doubt as to Trump's ethnicity.

I know, but my wider point is that we really don't want it to become the norm that everyone who appears in a cartoon (or an adventure comic-book or an advert or...) must be shown either just as they were in real life or in a thin, simplified and nondescript fashion, so that there's nothing left that might cause offence to anybody. And neither must they say anything, or make any gestures that could seem disturbing to anybody. At least I don't think that's where the future of humour and picture stories is, don't know about you...  :-X

Some people are able to be offended by just about anything. "You're laughing at the wrong stuff, I'm so offended, stop laughing immediately!" No, no, no.

[RedPhoenix]

Sorry RedPhoenix, you're reading these cartoons (the ones you've seen) in a much too literal way. To most people, by far the most people, the point about those pics isn't about humiliating gay men or trying to celebrate outdated gender roles (women should be meek housewives and softly submissive etc), and it's not about really suspecting Trump and Putin of being in bed with each other either. The joke is about Trump and Putin as politicians and crowdpleasers, I'm 100% sure that's what most people take away from this sort of pictures and that's why they are getting widely circulated, too.

"The Majority agrees with me" is probably the least persuasive thing you could possibly say. "Look everyone's laughing" is not an argument you want to be in the company of.

In your previous posts you've admitted that the point of them is to humiliate for someone for being gay, weak, and feminine interchangeably. You've already conceded the point here.

You think that's okay, I don't. I've got better reasons besides "they're funny and I don't like Trump." You haven't responded to them.

Read the links I've posted. Many people have pointed out that these are harmful to them. The hate crime stats show how that harm manifests. Don't dismiss them just because you don't feel it yourself, or even if the majority doesn't feel it.

The thing is, it's perfectly possible to convey the inappropriate subservience that Trump is showing towards [insert dictator here] without any sexually charged imagery at all.  I can't draw worth a damn, so picture this:

Trump dressed in full colonial man-servant garb, including the wig, carrying a silver platter on which is a box labelled 'U.S. Elections'.  Putin, dressed as a man of stature, looking gravely down at the tray and saying 'Very good, Donny.  Send Assange in on your way out.'

See how easy it is. It's so easy not to be homophobic. It requires so very little effort. It's certainly a lot easier than picking a fight over it.

So why is there so much resistance to it?

(That's a rhetorical question in case it wasn't obvious).

Many colonial man-servants were coloured, and today that's part of the cliché. Suppose Trump in that picture had a tone of yellow or brown in his face: wouldn't it get some angry complaints: "Hey, this is blackfacing!!"

Routine blackfacing in the theatre is one thing, and today it's become rare, but if even a drawn caricature sketch involving a politician can't use some "race marker" if the cartoonist wants to - use it to bring out what the figure is meant to show, and the function of that character, without being called borderline racist, then I think it is getting a bit eggshelly.

Also, I'm excusing myself from further debate with RedPhoenix in this thread, since they seem to be just too emotionally caught up on the idea that this sort of Trump/Putin imagery is in itself a slap in the face of LGBT people. It's completely plain to me that we're talking past each other here.

I thought fleeing the argument before hearing a response and with a parting insult was frowned on in this forum.

Blaming my emotions (which are entirely in your head) for your lack of empathy, insight, and unwillingness to read any of the links I've posted is just petty. That you'd rather do this than re-consider your views or extend any sympathy for fellow human beings shows how deep-seeded your beliefs are and proves as a demonstration of what we're struggling with when we try to point out the problems of a people that get so consistently marginalized they're the butt of a joke from the ideology that is supposed to be on their side.

When you've run out of arguments you should start considering that you're wrong, not flee the conversation.

I know, but my wider point is that we really don't want it to become the norm that everyone who appears in a cartoon (or an adventure comic-book or an advert or...) must be shown either just as they were in real life or in a thin, simplified and nondescript fashion, so that there's nothing left that might cause offence to anybody. And neither must they say anything, or make any gestures that could seem disturbing to anybody. At least I don't think that's where the future of humour and picture stories is, don't know about you...  :-X

Some people are able to be offended by just about anything. "You're laughing at the wrong stuff, I'm so offended, stop laughing immediately!" No, no, no.

Lame strawman. Nobody has said anything of the sort is required. It's already been pointed out that it can be done in many ways that are humorous but not homophobic. You can't keep falling back on this.

But you keep arguing the point, despite saying you won't argue the point. Which again I thought was frowned on here.

[Iniquitous]

Just my two cents....

I do not think gay=bad when I see those kinds of pictures.  I think Trump is in love with/admires Putin/Kim Jung Un.  I have never looked at those kinds of pictures and thought homosexuality.

I may be in the minority in viewing those kinds of images that way. *shrugs*

[gaggedLouise]

When you've run out of arguments you should start considering that you're wrong, not flee the conversation.

Lame strawman. Nobody has said anything of the sort is required. It's already been pointed out that it can be done in many ways that are humorous but not homophobic. You can't keep falling back on this.

But you keep arguing the point, despite saying you won't argue the point. Which again I thought was frowned on here.

I preferred not to repeat the arguments Vekseid had brought against you (and that also panned the articles you were linking to). I would agree with most of what he said and felt it had been established in the thread.

No, there's no rule on this forum that one has to keep debating with someone who is heaping up "if you're not with me then you're accepting slurs on all LGBT people" and that sort of emotional overkill. I made my points but you're basically not listening to anyone who doesn't buy into your peculiar view of this whole range of cartoons and drawings.

I continued replying to Oniya, not to you. That's because I know her to be a calm and reasonable person; also, the points I've been discussing with her were not the same as the ones I argued with you. :)

[Oniya]

I'm also going to point out that depicting Trump as Trump and Putin as Putin in my example is going to show two white guys.  I could theoretically produce some really bad Photoshopping (I told you, I can't draw) using images taken from other political cartoons of these men, and you would still see two white guys.  Not 'one white guy being depicted in blackface'.