Having fun ? Am I supposed to "show" that mickey and the boy thursday is not racist at all, next turn ? Or do the svp/udc political posters come first ?

Once you've properly admitted defeat here (I assume you've folded due to lack of counter-arguments), let's see...how about trying to drag the MacGyver series through the dirt. Surely, you could manage to build a case around MacGyver being an evil Imperialist for always helping the US and that this is also racist because some of his missions are against Asians and brown people and when he is helping them then isn't that racist too because he, the great white man, is portrayed as so much smarter. Isn't it also misogynist because he always has to rescue women who are usually the damsel in distress type who can't use a screwdriver and then they fall for him and everything because he's the handyman with the superior white man genes? It's also way homophobe that he doesn't return Jack Dalton's love. And then there's the way Chinese people are portrayed as being into all kind of hokey superstitious crap (The Wish Child e.g.). There's also racism against East Germans. Oh wait, they're white so they can't be victims...next! What happened to that black kid that MacGyver kept as a pet in the first episode? And of course that black kid is portrayed as just playing basket ball as if black people weren't capable of doing anything else. Stereotypes! Did MayGyver sell him off to KKK or what? Racism everywhere!

Look, let's settle this once and for all and ask the OP if it's racist.

Wait, on second thought lets not. :P

noo, lets just get high

In an exponential forum trollwar about an extreme-righter admittedly playing "rationalize pre-decided stance" on a matter that has been settled decades ago (including by the original author himself) ? You're the only one spending your time playing this, it's a bit too tedious and stakes-less for me to join in that game.

Most countries now edit this book with some "warning, written as propaganda during belgium's 1930s colonial empire, this book merely depicts awalterj's worldviews" foreword, and it's fine like that. The fact that you claim to not see racism in it (like the fact that you consider the svp/udc to be a non-xenophobic, moderate rightwing party) informs us about you, but that's about it. Your rants are just flavor.

You expected someone to take them more seriously than you do ?

... so uh. Has no one here heard of Destination Adventure / Objectif Aventure?

[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tintin:_Destination_Adventure]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tintin:_Destination_Adventure[/url]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1q7JErNqk6E

I have this game for PC and it runs incredibly well on Windows 7 64-bit. I didn't have to adjust a single thing to get it to work.

Thanks for the link! I didn't know this particular one!

A) Extreme right-wingers, where? Here? Maybe inside your mind? Did you check underneath the bed? Keep your feet underneath the bed sheets and you'll be safe.

B) The "trollwar" could be a productive discussion if you would cede to rational argument. Also, it takes two to (t)roll.

C) The matter has not been settled. Concerns have been raised and accusations have been made against the comic and/or author. I'm reopening the case and expressing my own opinion. An opinion resulting from thinking for myself - which is a greatly interesting thing to try.
One thing has been settled though, namely the court case that ruled Tintin in the Congo as not racist.

A) I don't care how many countries do what, I care about what makes sense and what not. Majority of numbers is not necessarily congruent with reasonable. Regarding Tintin on the Congo being written as propaganda, unsupported claim. Hergé did later express regrets regarding some of the content but he didn't have any apparent intent of making propaganda when he first drafted the story, all signs clearly point towards this being intended to be entertainment and an exciting adventure story - which it is. No more, no less.

B) According to your logic, The Quran should be edited with a warning that says: "warning, written as propaganda during 7th century AD in what is now Saudi Arabia, this book merely depicts Muhammad's world view". Do you want that? If your personal answer is no and you still want Tintin in the Congo to come with a written warning then you're guilty of having double standards.

C) Illogical conclusion of yours to say that Tintin in the Congo depicts my world view. I find the volume entertaining and funny, that's all. I could easily neutralize your unsupported claim by telling you that I rooted for the anti-colonials in Sandokan but then again, your claim does not really need neutralizing due to the lack of its weight.

A) The SVP is not xenophobic. A phobia is an irrational fear, and they bring rational arguments for their policies. There most certainly are some xenophobic members in the SVP but I'd say they're a minority. Unlike you, I've personally experienced xenophobia here in Switzerland so I know it when I see it. It's not a magic fighting word I throw around to make myself look all politically correct and holier-than-thou.
If you want to throw around a word to paint the SVP with, "misoxeny" would be more appropriate but it's still a strong term that would still only apply to a minority.

B) Moderate is a relative word. What I'm trying to say is that your claim of the SVP being an extreme right-wing party is false, proven by the fact that there are political parties which are decidedly more right-wing, e.g. the PNOS. Unlike the SVP, the PNOS has a racist element to it. If you're the anti-racist you wish you were, you'd be going after real racists instead of complaining about a harmless and beloved classic comic book written by an author who is long dead and who was at worst patronizing but not the racist you make him out to have been.

C) No, I don't expect anyone to take anything I say -more- seriously than I meant it, just equally seriously would be a great start. I don't expect that much from you because I'd only end up being disappointed. It's your right not to take something seriously, same as my right to have a different opinion than you.

If you would read instead of skim, you might end up learning something. Don't let your ego prevent you from being more open-minded, you could only benefit! Yes, I do have your benefit in mind! You see, if you were more open-minded to reasonable argument, it would greatly enhance our relationship which at the moment is hampered by you wanting to make everything and everyone (and their grandma) racist. You love to bathe in racism like Elizabeth Báthory in the blood of young virgins so you can't find enough of it.

All I ask is that you take your zealous anti-racism to where it would actually make sense, and make a difference.
As of now, your supposed anti-racism is all about PR for you, yourself, and telika. You could do so much better if you'd let people steer you in the right direction.

I have no idea what game you are playing - or more precisely why you still keep playing it here. I've been increasingly skimming through your posts because they are way too stupid, dishonest and superficial. They are an empty exercise in self-justification, a circular rationalisation, and you know it perfectly. There is no reflexion of any other type than "through what rhetoric can I make my stance sound legitimate".

Now, you're really in search for some validation, or some attention, and you obviously take a huge pleasure in this pseudo-intellectual exercise. I understand it's highly glorified in your political circles, but I have no interest in playing "flat earth society" with you. That is not a hobby of mine. Yes, questions of racism and xenophobia in society are interesting, as are all questions on collective cultural representations. Even UDC/SVP worldviews are worth being studied (and there's quite some litterature on the socilogy of your party, and other european extreme-right formations, already). And societal dilemmas are also highly interesting to analyse, weight, and trying to (impossibly) "solve" in the least damaging manner (for all the people at stake). BUT, not with imbeciles. NOT with people who are still at the "durr, thar iz not racimsm in tintin at congo" level. NOT with militants who are still at the "hey UDC/SVP is just a regular moderate center-right party, to the right of which sands just the socialist party". NOT with people for who pretend to not grasp the notion of islamophobia. NOT at the poor wysiwyg level of social awareness of ultraconservatives for whom "racism" being a "bad word", can never be applied to their side, and therefore has to be emptied of absolutely any meaning short of KKK-lynches. Your game is just a waste of time, that can be spent on actual work, on honest investigations, or on more enjoyable gaming.

My previous quick sarcasm had very serious content : I could also play "proving that mickey mouse and the boy thursday is not racist at all, because it's normal that the boy thursday doesn't know any better, and mickey mouse is super patient and generous with him". It would be amusing but empty. In your case, it's more than amusing : there is the double stake of 1) not allowing criticism on your sacrosanct childhood references, 2) emptying the notion of "racism" so that it cannot ever apply to your party's policies or propaganda. But, beyond these motives, there is still a sterile exercise in WAY out-dated bad faith, and no matter how desperate you are for someone to help you pretend it is a grown-up discussion, I personally have no taste in that. And not enouh respect to pretend I have. I am not your private anthropology teacher, and you have zero curiosity or intellectual honesty - or else, your stances would have been different from the get go.

You are just 50 years late. The interesting questions and the real issues are way beyond the points where you drag. Even if there was a "debate" (it isn't one, it's just a build-a-political-speech on your side), it has ceased to be interesting or stimulating decades ago.

Enjoy the solitary fun you derive from it, but, really, don't expect very interested spectators. Time is better invested elsewhere, whether it's on serious stuff (honest analysis of pop culture, for instance) or on silly stuff (funny empty exchanges on the forum). Inserting coins to see UDC/SVP-level rants fill up a blackboard is not part of my hobbies.

So, you can throw another snowball and yell "run after me run after me", but, frankly. You over-estimate how interesting you are.

It's called a discussion and it goes like this: You bring your arguments, I bring my arguments, and so on. Needs at least two people of whom you're presently one (but presently unaware of the fact).
Insults & accusations without arguments naturally don't count and can be dismissed as invalid. If you could somehow make them funny they'd have at least some entertainment value but argument is still required for it to stick and warrant the effort of proper defense. I didn't invent those unwritten rules but that's how it commonly goes.

Regarding circular reasoning: In your first post, you yourself initiate circular reasoning by beginning with the conclusion that Tintin in The Congo is racist, without first bringing forth arguments.

As explained above, you need some form of argument to go with an accusation, otherwise it's like serving a glass of water without water inside.

Maybe not a hobby but you sure do it with reliable frequency and despite appearing to not enjoy it, you seem unable to resist. I'm assuming that no one has kidnapped you and is forcing you to post?

There is compelling evidence for the fact that the Earth is not flat but there is no decisive evidence for your claim that Tintin in The Congo is racist. I've addressed all the pages and panels you mentioned. Your claims are rehashing the politically correct status quo which is a position of imagined moral higher ground that doesn't stand up to closer scrutiny.
It's a common smear tactic to draw an unwarranted racist card on something or someone while hoping that it - without the use of any actual arguments - will either trigger enough liberal guilt in the accused or have some sort of "Meidung" (shunning) effect such as when an Amish fellow goes to town to see a movie and then gets shunned from his community for this "terrible crime". In essence, you're hoping for self-censorship which is a staple of any unfree society (DDR etc).
You even mentioned in one of your posts that you secretly wished that some of kingbradley's post were censored.
You might not like what some members say but to have such an attitude is a slippery slope and censorship is generally seen as incredibly nasty around here so if you're hoping for some kind of shunning effect, be careful that it doesn't ultimately fall back on you.

The danger of resorting to such lazy tactics is that you'll lose your argumentative edge and then ultimately get frustrated when it doesn't work and resort to simple insults, as seen above and in the other thread where you didn't even have the courtesy to make the insults face to face but behind my back (several times in a row).
So at least you're now insulting me directly and not behind my back, not sure if it's a result of your increased frustration or if it's an actual improvement in terms of honest conduct, I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming the latter.

According to your logic, the social democrats (SP/PS party) are extreme leftists, left of which are only Stalin & Co.
Not being concise isn't helping any discussion. Obviously, calling a party more extreme than it really is in reality is an attempt at defamation because no likes extremists. As I mentioned right above, simply repeating your mantras doesn't cont as argument. Even if you repeat it a 100 times it does not change reality, it only solidifies your perception. As with all cheap tactics, it might work for a while and is doomed to ultimately fail. Case in point: The boy who cried wolf.

PS: litter(ature) belongs in the trash, sorry for capitalizing on your typo but it's too fitting :)

Stonk sauerkraut, jawohl! I'd give you some points for pathos if I gave points for that but pathos in rhetorics is too often a tool for influencing the attitude of the crowd without proper argument and while it (unfortunately) often works, you might end of dying alone in a bunker so I wouldn't place all too much importance on it. Didn't you say something about seeking validation and attention above? In this part of your post, you throw around all the staple keywords: "racism, militants, islamophobia, ultraconservatives, KKK" -> all words that you quite loudly and frequently use to validate yourself by "being against it". Do you do anything against it? You'd deserve validation for actions, not for just complaining (in all the inconsequential places)

For example: You took issue to the thread about that little game in which gay people are a target for murder. In the meantime, Islamists are throwing real-life gay people from rooftops and hang them from cranes, right now as we speak.
If you want to do more than parade around your "social awareness" and if you want to be a real advocate for human rights then kindly invest your energy where it counts. Instead, you're looking for quick validation by bagging on people like kingbradley who I'm quite certain isn't throwing anyone off rooftops or anything remotely like that. Or hating on Hergé who can't defend himself because he's already dead. I suspect you're really just a bully who likes it when people don't talk back and when they do (like that impertinent imbecile awalterj!) then you become frustrated because you suddenly get asked to have arguments, not just mantras.

I fully agree. Except that this isn't my "game" but ours. Don't be so socially unaware...

As I mentioned elsewhere on the forum, I consider all my gaming and forum activity by definition a waste of time so whether I'm arguing with someone or posting in "what's your favorite game" thread number 235436564, I'm fully accepting the circumstance that I'm willfully wasting time. The keyword is fun, here I agree with you. This isn't really fun, not because we are arguing but because you're not presenting me with proper arguments, resorting to simple insults instead, not much to work with.

If you want to stop arguing, just say the magic word. And don't forget, it takes two. No one is forcing you to reply, so if you're here against your own better judgement then it's a simple case of this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypocrisy

-> part 2 of post follows, as usual. You know the drill :)

I don't know boy thursday and I'm not a Mickey fan so you'd have to find someone else for that potential debate. I do know the Tintin series inside out though so I'm discussing that. And, as usual, trying to show you the wider implications of your attitudes.
If I wanted to manipulate you, I'd pretend to be on your side and then take all your positions to a more extreme level until it becomes comical and even you would have to laugh about it, possibly even introspect. Then again, I'm not the manipulative type, I just sayz it howz it iz. Tintin in da Congos, thar iz not racimsm!

If your arguments are sound, you can have any opinion and I'll agree. If your arguments are insufficient or absent, then you can still have your opinion but prepare for opposition. If you don't like how the internet talks back, play a singleplayer game.

As I explained in detail several times in our discussions, it is you who is devaluing the notion of racism by crying wolf in situations where it's unwarranted. Your causing inflation and that is not only dangerous but completely irresponsible. Since you've never experienced racism yourself, you obviously have nothing at stake here.

btw: My party is the "party of reason" (yet to be founded), meaning that I always vote based on the topic at hand and if my conclusion happens to correlate with the right-wing party on a number of issues, so be it.
You seem more ideology based, and appear to categorically exclude the right wing from ever being right while as I don't categorically exclude the left wing from being right and agree with them on some issues.
The difference between you and me is that I don't care if my opinion makes me look "good" in the eyes of my predominantly liberal colleagues, I just want to be reasonable.

Reason is never out of date it's not even in fashion yet...

As already mentioned, takes two to tango. So again, please read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypocrisy

Thanks for the offer but I'm only interested in exchange, not tutoring and you'd first have to qualify yourself before I'd choose you as a teacher, same as I choose any other teacher. By the way, I've literally spent a large portion of my childhood in museums and with books of all kinds. It's not uncommon for me to spend hours looking at neolithic skulls or folk costumes or Yoruba figures etc and making drawings & paintings of the things I see which is an excellent form of studying, not just anthropology but everything under the sun. Plus I've traveled to 20 different countries so far, always carefully taking note of the cultural and social variations from place to place. I've also talked to many foreigners and asylum seekers here who are from places I haven't visited, unlike you not as a job for money but as a private person which means I'm getting their real stories. On top of that, I currently hold a job in the tourism industry, working outdoors with tourists from all over the world. In other words, I'm studying anthropology continuously, for the rest of my life and I don't think I need lectures from an individual with a diploma, might as well get my info from the prime source - which is all around me!

Yeah right :D In other words: Having a different opinion than you is poopoo and a sin!

An awalterj is never late, nor is he early. He arrives at the precise time he intends to.

It's just a shame that I'm "forcing" you to partake in a non interesting and non stimulating discussion. I must be using voodoo magic. Have you heard of free will yet? It's like this cool thing where you can decide for yourself if you want to partake in a discussion or not.

I think you might be repeating yourself, you already said that above. Unlike you, I do read carefully so no overly large need for redundancy. Also, keep in mind that repeating mantras doesn't work on me. Only arguments, remember?

Judging from the size of your post, I'd say I'm apparently quite interesting :)

Have you tried ignoring? It's this cool tactic where you can at least pretend that you don't read what I write (even though I know you do) but the downside is that the imbecile awalterj would "have the last word". A true dilemma.

Here's my solution to the problem: Since I've already countered all your arguments and you haven't brought any new arguments, I'll objectively consider myself the winner of the "Is Tintin in The Congo racist?" debate. You can now either ignore this thread or make another rant post with invalid low-level insults calling me stupid and a member of the SVP (except that no one here gives a damn about what party I support, some people don't even know or care where Switzerland is let alone what parties we have) and I'll let you have the last word, ok? Maybe some candy and a blanky, too. Either way, Tintin is off the hook. Think about efficiency next time, you could so easily find something that's really, and I mean -really- racist in this world, no need to overexert yourself in the wrong place for the wrong reasons.