Temporary Mumsnet logo -not at all funny!

The history of political caricature goes back 100s of years.

How is the spitting image puppet of Charles that different to the logo. Presumably that would also 'spill over' to those with similar characteristics. I dont have particular feelings about the MN logo but I am really wary of people deciding what is offensive especially when it doesnt seem consistent.

Fleurpepper

VS :

'But again, are people offended by all of them or only some?'

That is indeed an excellent question.

And not 'just' about individuals, but groups of people or beliefs.

Indeed.
That explains why the only time in my life I have been accused of bullying is when I have expressed beliefs that Some People don’t like. I have often been told that my posts (and emails or other communications) are calm and measured even when written in the face of exasperating retorts, but when I use the same tone to talk about particular topics then for those people different rules apply. Cognitive dissonance or double standards?

Very well put NanaDana.

Thankfully Smileless

Over many years, generations even, we've become culturally accustomed to seeing caricatures of politicians and of the rich and famous, some of which exaggerate and lampoon physical features. Some of us may feel uncomfortable about that, but I guess we've no choice but to live with it, as it has become "the norm". However, specific, mocking and unqualified reference to a feature of someone's (anyone's) physical appearance is an entirely different matter. Critical, negative portrayal/comment about someone based on their opinions/behaviour/actions/comments is fair game. The same approach focussed on their physical features is not. It's also disingenuous to imagine that any hurt from such an attack would be limited to the specific target, as there is an inevitable spill-over which will also extend to anyone else who happens to share the physical characteristic of the person being mocked. It's not a carefully aimed single arrow.. it's an indiscriminate, sawn-off shotgun... So let's not pretend otherwise.

Well not really VS I mean how many men have a blue penis? and as far as I'm concerned it was only depicted in blue because he'd written about getting frost bite so we'll have to agree to disagree. Still we're used to that aren't we.

It's still physical appearance Smileless

But I think my question has been answered

Diane Abbott has taken a lifetime of flack the most awful stuff pictures and words, how she kept going I’ll never know I feel very sorry for her

Well he did mention that in the book didn't he, if he hadn't together with the explanation I doubt it would have been included in the episode.

Fleurpepper

I am sure many who objecged to the logo with the ears, didn't mind at all when it was Corbyn, or Meghan, etc.

No caricature, but photos. I really can't stand the woman and what she stands for- but oh dear how Therese Coffey is getting a ribbing!

Diane Abbott springs to mind. Mockery over her wearing odd shoes (even tho it was photoshopped,).

Oh so you saw his blue erm, privates Smileless?

oops should have put 'I don't think......'

H & M weren't being mocked for their appearance, they were being mocked for their behaviour. The way they were depicted left no doubt as to who the episode was about, I don't they were depicted physically in a cruel or mocking way and I did see the episode in full.

Personally I don't like caricatures. Family members have had them done of themselves and I've never liked any of them. I agree Fanny that the MN logo wasn't a caricature as only a pair of ears were depicted.

I actually like Meghan and Corbyn and I don’t think anybody should have the p taken out of the because of a physical feature they can’t help if you want to take the p out of their ideas or spoken words thats one thing but it’s very very different when it’s a physical problem that can’t be helped.

Surely you can see the difference it’s hardly rocket science ?

Fleurpepper

I am sure many who objecged to the logo with the ears, didn't mind at all when it was Corbyn, or Meghan, etc.

No caricature, but photos. I really can't stand the woman and what she stands for- but oh dear how Therese Coffey is getting a ribbing!

I agree. Violetsky and Fleurpepper

Exactly

I am sure many who objecged to the logo with the ears, didn't mind at all when it was Corbyn, or Meghan, etc.

No caricature, but photos. I really can't stand the woman and what she stands for- but oh dear how Therese Coffey is getting a ribbing!

VioletSky

I'm guessing people draw their own lines

But when your line moves depending on who the person is... There is an issue.

Clearly demonstrable issue in a lot of human behaviour that causes a lot of cognitive dissonance people wish to avoid

But when your line moves depending on who the person is... There is an issue.

That's it, isn't it.

If mocking people's appearance is wrong in principle (which I think it is), then you can't be selective.

I absolutely adore caricatures, from the golden age of Gilray, Rowlandson and Cruikshank onwards.
The Mumsnet thing cannot warrant the label ‘caricature’, it was just some daft stickers put over the MN logo.
It was a bit lazy and pathetic, and really not worth doing.

I'm guessing people draw their own lines

But when your line moves depending on who the person is... There is an issue.

Clearly demonstrable issue in a lot of human behaviour that causes a lot of cognitive dissonance people wish to avoid

VS :

'But again, are people offended by all of them or only some?'

That is indeed an excellent question.

And not 'just' about individuals, but groups of people or beliefs.

But I guess it's funny as long as they aren't liked

Also

I don't think people have actually seen the south park episode in full or they would see what I mean because one of his physical attributes was definitely caricatured

I'm not fond of unpleasant caricatures.

Richard Sharp, King Charles, Harry, William, Boris, Trump, Obama, Sunak, Old Granny.

I find unkind caricatures unnecessary.