Lol Carlsen is Thor
Find a new cartoonist.
Sort:
DEATHBYRANCHDRESSING wrote:
http://www.chess.com/article/view/anand-carlsen
If Anand was a Christian would it be okay to make a cartoon of a Anand/Jesus character holding an ax next to a basket of severed heads?
If Anand was a Muslim would it be okay to make a cartoon of a Anand/Muhammad character holding an ax next to a basket of severed heads?
This cartoon sucks.
I thought chess.com had a rule against discussing religion and politics but there it is, on chess.com front page, disrespectful crap.
Looks like the wave of political correctness that has spread in recent years has affected more than just the US.
It's called freedom of expression. If you don't like it ignore it.
"Political correctness" aside (Why would you want to offend millions of Hindus who love chess when you're running a for profit website?), the cartoon is stupid anyway you slice it.
And don't forget all the vikings that are pissed off about thor and shit.
Despite the veneration they receive from middle class white society, the vikings were murdering raping bastards.
DEATHBYRANCHDRESSING wrote:
"Political correctness" aside (Why would you want to offend millions of Hindus who love chess when you're running a for profit website?), the cartoon is stupid anyway you slice it.
You think it's stupid, but other people like it. So it's there for the people who like it, and if you don't like it you can just ignore it.
DEATHBYRANCHDRESSING wrote:
Despite the veneration they receive from middle class white society, the vikings were murdering raping bastards.
Um... I thought you didn't like offending people?
zealandzen wrote:
Vikings don't get veneration, nor do Hindus get denegration, but Vikings are part of lore and no longer exist. The cartoon shows some historical symbolism, but is it of Hinduism or of India? Or is that the same thing? (And I ask in all seriousness.)
It would be like an American depicted as a cowboy - it's immediately recognizable because it's cliche. There's the historical cowboy but there are also the cowboys of recent memory like Ronald Reagan and G.W. Bush, and some would not like the country to be so compared, but most would say it's a freedom of speech right to do it.
It's not anything like a cowboy because a cowboy isn't a religious icon.
macer75 wrote:
DEATHBYRANCHDRESSING wrote:
Despite the veneration they receive from middle class white society, the vikings were murdering raping bastards.
Um... I thought you didn't like offending people?
Sorry, that's just what the historical record says.
Thor and John Wayne are about to open up a can of whoop-ass.
I agree with OP .... had it been Anand/Muhhamad in this cartoon, not only the cartoonist but also Erik would have been searching for a hiding place by now.
chess.com should get rid of it immediately.
macer, freedom of expression too has it limits. I am not sure how much would you like your family members are the subject of some ridiculous cartoon
So because it's a rule not to make any kind of image of Muhammad, it's also not ok to make a picture of Hindu God Anand?! This makes no sense at all people. Get your religious do's and don'ts straight please
heinzie..nobody made a rule of not depicting Muhammad cartoon either. It is just that it is hurtful for a section. same is true for depicting Hindu gods as cartoon if they object
Wait, so Norwegians worship Thor?
It's more like Drawing Bobby Fischer looking like John Wayne.
[COMMENT DELETED]
I'm Muslim not Hindu, and I don't tend to find much offensive and often enjoy having a laugh, but I must admit I don't like this cartoon really and feel it perhaps crosses a line.
There is freedom of expression macer75 but then there are boundaries too. How many Americans get upset when their flag or effigies of their politicians get defaced or burned. Now I am not saying that this cartoon is quite the same as something as deliberately vindictive as the example I gave but both have potential to cause offense and when they do you can't simply dismiss it as "freedom of expression", especially if the act does not offend your beliefs anyway - so you're not in any position to decide whether it crosses a boundary or not.
Some may argue back that anything has the power to offend someone but we should recognise the broader boundaries of acceptance and not endorce something we can easily recognise as offensive to a majority.
This site says there should be no religious content in discussion but this cartoon clearly holds a religious context and one that can and will cause offence
I also find this cartoon offensive- not only because it's distressing some of our Hindu members, but because it has so little artistic merit. 
Soorat92 wrote:
This site says there should be no religious content in discussion but this cartoon clearly holds a religious context and one that can and will cause offence
Not to seem rude, not meaning that at all. Just would like some education. How is this a) religious in content and b) offensive?
I really do not mean stir anything, just trying to reduce my ignorance.
http://www.chess.com/article/view/anand-carlsen
If Anand was a Christian would it be okay to make a cartoon of a Anand/Jesus character holding an ax next to a basket of severed heads?
If Anand was a Muslim would it be okay to make a cartoon of a Anand/Muhammad character holding an ax next to a basket of severed heads?
This cartoon sucks.
I thought chess.com had a rule against discussing religion and politics but there it is, on chess.com front page, disrespectful crap.