DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Plane on February 09, 2015, 09:45:37 PM
-
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/viral-portrait-bobby-jindal-channels-richard-pryor-im/story?id=28831617
(http://a.abcnews.com/images/Politics/HT_bobby_jindal_jtm_150209_16x9_992.jpg)
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B88qGdKIcAEG66Q.jpg)
Heee hee he!
-
Why blame "Liberals" for this portrait? It might make sense to blame the person who made it, but how anyone can blame more than just the person who made it is absurd.
-
Where have I seen this before?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/04/obama-skin-tone-darker-in_n_89829.html
(http://images.huffingtonpost.com/gen/13778/original.jpg)
-
Why blame "Liberals" for this portrait? It might make sense to blame the person who made it, but how anyone can blame more than just the person who made it is absurd.
Do you think bleaching him is funny, or tragically absurd?
-
If you have ever done any serious photography of Black people, you will realize that the same person on the same day can be of several different shades. This is true for White people as well, but the difference is greater with darker skin. Skin simply does not always reflect light the same way. What professional photographers do these days is to use Photoshop or some similar program to make all photos of the same person the same hue.
The effect is the same with Black and White and sepia photos as well as color photos.
Of course, Black people get tanned darker in the Sun as well, just as White people do.
-
The portrait does not even resemble Jindal at all. Not just the color is off: the facial features are also wrong. This portrait looks more like Scott Walker, actually. But blaming "Liberals" for a bad painting that they did not paint is just ridiculous.
-
On Viral Portrait, Bobby Jindal Channels Richard Pryor: ‘You Mean I’m Not White?’
To me the biggest part of the story is Bobby Jindal's humor.
The connection to Liberals is the context of the bleached portrait going viral.
I do not really know if the artist meant to portray Bobby Jindal or not.
-
It did not go anywhere sort of viral around me. If it was not a portrait of Jindal, then this is utterly meaningless. It looks like a rather amateurish painting of some random White dude.
Richard Pryor was, of course, funny.
-
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2015/02/03/notice-anything-odd-about-the-portrait-of-louisiana-governor-bobby-jindal-hanging-up-in-his-office/
[][][][][][][][][][][][][]
The artist behind a controversial painting of Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal says the recent Internet uproar is all just a big misunderstanding.
Tommy Yow Jr., who painted the unofficial portrait from a photograph, said he never intended to lighten the governor’s skin tone.
.............
He said that the photo that caused the outrage on Twitter was “an excellent hatchet job of using either light reflection or flash on [Jindal’s] head area to even further lighten the head area of the painting.”
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/02/bobby-jindal-portrait-artist-skin-tone-114952.html#ixzz3RJBHuC7n
[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]
Heh!
This gets sloppy in the details.
-
This is what can be described as a "non story". Who the Hell cares?
-
You are right, it is not serious .
But the sort of thing happens often enough to be a clear effect, a little window on human nature.
I recall a researcher who made a picture of President Obama two shades lighter and another two shades darker.
He did not offer the subjects an unaltered picture , he just asked them to pick the more accurate one, though he was careful that the error was equal in both directions.
He also asked questions to find whether the subjects were critics or supporters.
He found a strong trend for critics to pick the darker portrait , and supporters to pick the lighter.
And this remained true no matter the shade of the subject.
I would like to see this on Mythbusters.
-
I predict that Mythbusters will not take this up because (a) it deals with a taboo subject (racism) and (b) there is nothing that they can blow up.
If you look through YouTube, you will see a huge number of Black people discussing what is called the phenomena of being "color struck". Lil Wayne, the rapper, once said in a rap that he liked "red" ie lighter skinned women. There is at least one video in which a dark skinned woman tells us that she will no ;longer listen to Lil Wayne or buy his music.
You will see bunches of dark skinned women complaining about how pissed the are when they hear someone say "She's pretty for a dark-skinned woman". You will also see videos of light skinned women complaining about people telling them that they "aren't Black enough".
There are many fewer Black men that tell YouTube about their problems with this, but I think it is because men do not like to discuss problems they cannot solve, or even think about them.
I observe that darker men (Wesley Snipes, Denzel, Chris Rock) seem to be preferred for movie roles over lighter ones (like Sinbad). POn the other hand, lighter skinned women (Halley Berry, Rehanna, Beyonce) get more roles than darker ones (Angela Bassett), and there are several female Black stars that seem to have actually changed color (Janet Jackson, Mary Blige).
Skin bleaching products are very well advertised and featured anywhere there are Black people, including in Nigeria and Senegal. Tyra Banks has a whole series of videos this.
The White guys on Mythbusters would be seriously assaulted for anything they could possibly say or do on this subject. And that is another reason why they will never touch it.
-
Mythbusters once tested the idea that "gentlemen prefer blonds" and actually found no preference at all.
Perhaps they would indeed be shy about the political and racial problematic aspect of this , Mythbusters is not only science , it is also show business . Keeping an audience interested is better than keeping them offended.
This might be better as a skit on SNL where they can make a black version of "Mythbusters".
-
Mythbusters is entertainment more than anything else. I suppose that they do make people think that have rarely thought before. The premise of the show is pretty sound, but the presentation is so much hype that it is really annoying.
What possible premise would Mythbusters take on?
"The Blacker the berry the sweeter the juice?"
"Once you've had Black, you never go back?"
" Black don't crack?"
-
One value of Mythbusters is that they show the wires of science, especially how test and data collection is done . This is good to be widely known.
I note mistakes they make now and then , but they are responsive to their audience, so some of their exploits are asked for by fans.
This may not be the sort of science that cures a cancer, but it is an educational event with enough "gee whizz" to be palatable.
Now do they want to avoid Myths that put off the audience, especially myths of racial dissimilarity, preference and advantage?? I don't know, ...
They are not afraid to test things that are silly, but they might be too wise to test things that are have no potential for a good answer.
Their working education is in the movie industry, they might have learned where the rabid dogs are sleeping.
-
Science is one thing, and finding proof is easy, because experiments can be made that yield clear factual results.
Attitudes on race are often veiled and concealed. Many people say one thing because it is socially unacceptable to express what they actually feel.
Feelings are not always rational, experiments are therefore difficult, inconclusive or both, as there are too many variables. The social sciences are less subject to scientific study.
I think that Mythbusters has been cancelled. I do not have access to all of the programs on Netflix.
The concept of the program is a good one, but they did get too silly upon occasion.
-
Attitudes on race and myths thereof can be investigated with scientific methods.
But can you make a lighthearted and fun TV show of it?
http://www.discovery.com/tv-shows/mythbusters/
-
I would hope so. In any case, censoring such a show should not be attempted.
The most entertaining part of the Mythbusters is when they blow stuff up. This is hard to do with regard to the social sciences.
One myth is that Black people have a natural sense of rhythm. I have not found this to be the case.
Another is that they cannot be prima ballerinas, because they do not bend in the same way as White people. This is true to some degree of some Black people, but oif course, not many African Americans are entirely African. I think that Louis Gates' DNA indicated that his genes were less than 50% African.
There have been several very good prima ballerinas that are regarded as Blacks and regard themselves in as Black as well.