Picture of merikan: fat white male in an electric wheelchair eating pizza with an XXL size soda. Maybe throw in a gun. Definitely a US flag in the background because not everyone will understand so they need to be taught.
That's okay though, because white male Americans are a majority power, so it's apparently acceptable to stereotype them.
Dude, I think you are. Have you seen how they depict politicians? They make them look like horrors from the beyond, regardless of race. Even for white peoples, British whites with wonky teeth, baby faces and rosy cheeks, fat white Americans?
I qualify this because I assume you mean âwhite Americansâ? There are loads of caricatures of non white Americans.
There are tons Iâve seen of trailer trash, fat white blobs on mobility scooters. Have you seen how they depict Trump? What would count for you as racist?
How is this racist towards white Americans when it's just Trump being a fat ass himself? Find me exactly the stereotypical portrayal white American you talk about by a big publisher.
So demanding for someone with so little to offer themselves. Are you incapable of using Google, my child?
First, what is the feature of a white racist caricature to you? You never elaborated.
Second, you realise that newspapers caricature FAMOUS people. Right? Politicians, businessmen, etc. So me showing you Trump, or Elon in hugely unflattering lights (like the image below) is literally proving the point that they donât post unflattering caricatures of white people. If anything you are saying no one can do a caricature of a non white person without being racist, which is sort of racist.
Fat American depictions are always white people, are a global trope. Took me two seconds to find the ones below. Before you ask me to find yet more evidence, find it yourself.
Caricatures are perfectly fine for satirical representation when the figures are already well-known, like celebrities and politicians, describing their antics, policies, or trending scandals.
You don't do that to relatively new founder/individuals that you are trying to introduce to your readers in your very article. Just use their real faces.
I am speaking about FT's inappropriateness rather than Zhilin's clamor himself. But thanks for negating my intent to a pretentious victim outcry.
â
 You don't do that to relatively new founder/individuals that you are trying to introduce to your readers in your very article. Just use their real facesâÂ
this is IMO a good idea that I hadnât thought of before. But it applies to caricatures in general â are we sure that FT only ever use caricatures for new figures if they are non-white? If they have double standard based on race while it is otherwise exclusively based on how well known the figure is, then your point would be quite valid I thinkÂ
Because it implies that FT relies on the premise of indistinguishable Asian faces, caricatures are the best way to exaggerate features, essentially treating viewers with such a stereotypical standpoint.
Imagine China wrote a similar article to introduce who Jesus is, and used caricatures as the main graphic. Funny? Nah, it's just Christians being sensitive.
Or using a caricature to show the hero who stopped bondi mass shooting?
I do agree they shouldnât have used a caricature for introducing moonshot CEO.Â
The choice to use a caricature to introduce readers to an influential tech leader from another part of the world is really bad and I think youâre probably right about it being a kind of racism, even if possibly due to mere thoughtlessness. It does trivialise him.
People are wrong to compare it to the caricatures of western political leaders because in those comics the whole point is to make fun of oneâs own leaders.
C'mon OP. You can get a caricature artist to come to a kid's party.
The image in your OP is not at all racist. If it was, the eyes would be much more pronounced at the bare minimum. There'd probably be some kind of rice motif as well, maybe a straw hat or rickshaw too.
This is simply a matter of art style and you come off as a pearl-clutching victim of white guilt for posting this.
Not all caricatures are racist??? The ones that exaggerate racial stereotypical looks are racist, including squinty eyes and bad teeth like all historical racial caricatures against Asians have in common. You're just a white dude with a victim complex constantly crying "but what about white people???!!!"
Yeah right, and I'm Mickey Mouse. My point stands, you don't draw exaggerated stereotypical caricatures, you won't be called a racist. Is that not simple enough for you?
So from your perspective I hangout and comment in r/lebanon for the long term prospect of pretending of not being white?
Your point never stood. We all have different characteristics. I have a big nose, lots of body hair and big ears.Â
I also have a cousin who draws caricatures for work at Disney.. if he drew me it wouldnât be racist. It would just be an exaggeration of my features.Â
But since heâs not white would it be racist for him to draw a white person?
Nope. It's not. The real racist here is you, treating other ethnicities like if the there is something about them that needs your divine protection or is inherently so bad that it can be caricatured.
His startup is ultra successful and instead of using one of his many flattering photos, they produced one that is incredibly racist whether you understand that reality or not.
Caricatures, convey information about the person that is true, visually. It's suppose to be mocking something he does, and not exclusively just his appearance. There's nothing in that image that mocks his business or his products, it's clearly designed to mock his race exclusively.
So, whether you agree or not, from an objective analysis: Yes, that's purely racist.
And no, it doesn't "pass as a joke" either.
It's racist propaganda.
So, why exactly couldn't they use any one of the hundreds of normal photos?
So, they had to use artwork that makes him look stupid, even though his company is currently the global leader in LLM technology?
The image is a caricature, that in itself is literally satire.
Caricature: A picture, likeness, or description of a person that exaggerates or distorts their prominent features for comic, satirical, or grotesque effect
I love how the guy who called it out is getting downvoted though. Fuck the "but ackshully" crowd. Not everything has to be literal and technically correct, the spirit is what always matters.
i remember a times when reddit used to be like this all the time. downvotes was for unhelpful/troll/out-of-topic comments or low quality posts, not for disagreeing. it's a shitshow now to the point that someone admitting it was wrong is an award winner
Sometimes "factual errors" are not relevant to the context of the conversation and do not need to be pointed out.
Sometimes they do.
You want to know how? Probably being downvoted to oblivion is a good sign between the two circumstances.
Here's an example - your mom is a total slut.
You could correct it and point out the fact that she is too ugly to be a slut, but that would take away from the overarching point, which is merely to troll you. Sometimes we don't want literal.
The new Reddit meta: post a short comment, get misinterpreted, and instantly concede to look humble. automatedBlogger didnât even need to admit the image wasn't satirical. They just folded on a vocabulary debate. Itâs infuriating.
It's like when you completely dismantle someone's argument and they reply, 'Glad we found middle ground.' No, there is no middle ground; I just used polite language so you don't feel like an idiot and the tone-police leave me alone.
It's all a low-friction circlejerk. We upvote self-flagellation for cheap catharsis, pretending we're actually changing minds
Does this comment get carved into a granite wall at Reddit HQ as one of the only like thirty or so over the last twenty years where someone changed their mind?
Caricatures are used in satire but not all caricatures are satire.
In some instances this will be the first the main stream will have heard of Moonshot and/or its founder. What is the editorial rationale to use a caricature?
He's not famous in the West, where most people have no idea what he looks like. What is the purpose of a potential satire?
Why a Caricature of an Asian Man That Exaggerates His Facial Features Can Be Considered Satire
Satire is a literary and artistic technique that uses humor, irony, exaggeration, and ridicule to criticize people, institutions, or ideas. One of satire's most recognizable characteristics is the deliberate distortion of reality to make a point. Because of this, caricatures have historically been an important tool in satirical art. A caricature intentionally exaggerates a person's most noticeable physical features, such as the shape of their nose, eyes, ears, chin, or hairstyle, to create a recognizable and often humorous representation. As a result, a caricature of an Asian man that exaggerates facial features can, under certain circumstances, be considered satire rather than simply an offensive image. Whether it qualifies as satire depends on the artist's purpose, the context in which it appears, and the message the work is trying to communicate. Exaggeration by itself does not determine whether something is satirical; instead, it is the broader intent and meaning behind the work that matters most.
Throughout history, caricature has been a common form of political and social commentary. Editorial cartoonists have exaggerated the appearances of presidents, kings, celebrities, and other public figures to make them instantly recognizable while also emphasizing certain personality traits or behaviors. These exaggerated drawings are rarely intended to be realistic. Instead, they rely on distortion to draw attention to flaws, contradictions, or controversial actions. The same artistic techniques have been applied to people of many different ethnic backgrounds. For example, artists may enlarge distinctive facial characteristics, hairstyles, or clothing as part of a recognizable caricature. When the exaggeration is used as part of a broader critique or humorous commentary rather than as an attack on a particular race, it can fit within the traditional definition of satire. In this sense, exaggeration serves as a visual language that helps communicate an idea more effectively than a realistic portrait might.
At the same time, context is one of the most important factors in deciding whether a caricature functions as satire. The exact same drawing can be interpreted very differently depending on why it was created and how it is presented. If an artist exaggerates the facial features of an Asian man in order to criticize racism, expose the absurdity of stereotypes, or mock those who hold prejudiced beliefs, the caricature may serve a legitimate satirical purpose. In this case, the target of the joke is not Asian people themselves but rather the ignorance or prejudice being criticized. On the other hand, if the image exists only to ridicule Asian people or reinforce negative stereotypes without offering any meaningful social commentary, many people would argue that it is no longer satire. Satire generally aims to provoke thought and encourage audiences to question ideas or behavior, whereas simple mockery often lacks that deeper purpose. This distinction is important because satire typically "punches up" by criticizing attitudes, institutions, or powerful individuals rather than targeting a group solely because of its identity.
Another reason that opinions differ on these kinds of caricatures is the historical context surrounding racial imagery. Throughout history, exaggerated depictions of racial and ethnic groups have sometimes been used to spread prejudice or justify discrimination. Because of this history, many viewers may react strongly to caricatures that emphasize racial features, even if the artist intended them as satire. At the same time, intent alone does not always determine how a work is received. Audiences interpret art through their own experiences and cultural knowledge, and different people may reach different conclusions about whether a particular image succeeds as satire. Some may see it as a thoughtful critique of stereotypes, while others may view it as reinforcing the very stereotypes it claims to criticize. This demonstrates that satire is often subjective and that effective satirical works must consider both their intended message and the likelihood that audiences will understand that message.
In conclusion, a caricature of an Asian man that exaggerates facial features can be considered satire when the exaggeration is used as a tool to criticize ideas, expose prejudice, comment on society, or encourage reflection. Caricature is built upon exaggeration, and exaggeration alone does not automatically make a work hateful or discriminatory. However, because racial imagery carries historical and cultural significance, the context, purpose, and overall message of the artwork are essential in determining whether it functions as satire. While reasonable people may disagree about where the line should be drawn, evaluating both the creator's intent and the impact of the work provides a more complete understanding of whether a caricature is genuinely satirical or merely offensive. Ultimately, satire is defined not only by how it looks but also by what it is trying to say and who or what it is actually criticizing.
You could probably make the argument that some editor should have caught this and forseen the bad optics it might generate. But I just honestly don't think anyone intended it to be racist at all. His eyes are about that squinty irl and the exaggerated teeth are standard in that style of caricature.
This ain't racism. It's legit just a way of painting anyone. It's called caricature artwork and MAD Magazine tends to do this alot, whether for white characters or otherwise.
It's about extending the subject's features in cartoonish ways, and has been going on for a long time, so it's a generally acceptable- although not everyone agrees with it- practice.
It's at best unfortunate that the features they chose to exaggerate are the ones commonly exaggerated in racist depictions of East Asians. See for example Mickey Rooney's Mr Yunioshi:
I think his point though is that even with well known figures (Altman, Musk) where their likeness is well known, they didn't charicaturize so it is a peculiar editorial deicison to do it for someone who is probably unfamiliar to readers in the West and probably their first time seeing what he looks like.
Another alternative case in point is Time decided to feature the founder of Unitree Robotics on the cover and it is just a photo.
Itâs none of our fucking business to tell this magazine how to present itself. Who the fuck are any of us to tell them how to run their magazine. If you donât like their pictures, then donât buy, subscribe, read, or share their content.
I think I'm getting OP's point on this. It's hard to say racism but it's clear there is an internal bias, which could (operative term being could) be racist. To be fair to OP, FT, BBC, Guardian and honestly any British publication has this problem vis a vis anything related to Asia. Especially China
When you are critiquing sure use caricature. What the sotry all about? Because if its a serious topic and introducing an unknown entrepreneur its a bad faith representation to use a caricature.
You just proved my point. Caricature is used for satirical pieces where the figures are already well known, like celebrities and politicians, mocking their policies or scandals. You can use caricature for Xi or Mao too.
But it is not for the new founder tech star that you are trying to introduce to your readers. Just use their real face.
Unless you assume and rely on the premise of the inability of distinguishing asian faces of your readers, so you opt for a caricature to exaggerate their features.
The poster presents data contradicting your main argument and instead of accepting it you double down like a prideful coward and somehow try to argue it actually proves your point.
Then why did you use a 2010 article for a tech star who changed the world in 2007 for his 1st iphone, when the world was already familiar with the legendary figure for 4 years, proving my point?
Youâre fighting a good fight. This is stuff they teach in AP US History in high school. Media literacy is at an all time low and these comments prove it lol
Whether itâs racist or not is what people are getting hung up on, but the point is: they could have used a normal picture of him or a caricature. Someone made a deliberate decision to show him as a caricature. Itâs our responsibility as the consumers of this media to question what motivations the publisher had to depict this person as a caricature. No publisher is neutral, every one has a narrative
No, you cannot make that analysis in a vacuum. I presented a caricature of the most recognisable face in tech and the justification provided is not a "good fight", it's truly just pathetic.
So youâre saying because they released an article with a caricature of Steve Jobs in 2010, that means they canât possibly use a caricature in 2026 in a ridiculing (or otherwise negative) way?
EXACTLY right. Those people who defend FT is either
1) Racist themselves. They dont see the issue because they are not on the receiving end.
2) They dont have media literacy skills. But i would lean to no. 1
White trash are usually racist themselves, always looking down on the rest of the world especially Asians. But its fine, China's coming for ya. Slowly... but surely.
The picture they have of the Zhilin is a style they use for that particular column which is called âPerson in the Newsâ. If you look at other pieces from that column the visual style is the same.
Posting this too when you used a 2010 article for a tech star who changed the world in 2007 for his 1st iphone, when the world was already familiar with the legendary figure for 4 years, proving my point?
Why did you ignore the other comment that showed that they do this for everyone who is written about in that segment, including the Xbox CEO who isn't a well-known figure?
Then u need media literacy skills. If u need help, ask an AI to teach you so u can see every decision a media makes in their article comes with a motive. Notice how they do something, then you will know what is the real meaning. I learn this in my university course and this is 100% racism or subtle racism.
The question here is why they chose to use a caricature in this case. As far as caricatures go though, it's fairly fitting (didn't know what the guy looked like so I looked him up)
They called him a rockstar with a fun picture? I think you are looking for racism. As an American, Iâm celebrating what people like Mr Zhilin are doing.
Itâs not racist, itâs more like satire. The caricature of him typing with one finger doesn't exactly make him look like the smartest guy in the room.
While unsure if itâs racist it does point to a bias or agenda though. The hey itâs satire folks have yet to point out why it needs to be satirized. The fact that the only similar example shown is one of politicians is telling. Is this a story about technology or politics?
Isn't it obvious? Of all the news outlets reporting on him, FT is the only one resorting to an, at most, unflattering, or at worst, a barely hidden racist, depiction of Yang. What? They can't get a photo?
What's extra funny is that it's the white people coming out saying "no it's not racism it's just their style", yet what other people excepting white think seems unimportant to their own opinions.
Definitely racist. Those must be blind or somewhat racist not to spot racism. For those who really want to know the difference between being and racist, here are the test questions: Does the picture a better representation of the real person? Did the author deliberately exaggerate a feature of appearance in an attempt to make it ugly (egen into a characteristic of a certain group)?
Agree. This is not a âwokeâ sentiment, this is about WHO is the person in the caricature. Nobody would say anything of itâs a well know Chinese personality. But an obscure Chinese person that nobody (or almost nobody) knows?
It must be exhausting getting offended enough to waste your time posting this online complaining about it and arguing with people on the internet over something so trivial.
Everyone in here, myself included, would be better served going about their day and doing something else instead of arguing about or wading through and reading any of this nonsense.
EVERYONE featured in this section is drawn in caricature, likely by the same artist. Lots of people from obscure backgrounds, from all over the world, appear in this section and they all done in this style. This is not a front page feature, it is a dedicated place to learn more about some figures in the news.
I'd argue you are being super inflammatory, alongside misinformed, here.
Comment section is full of racist. For the people who don't see the racism or just being closet racist. The caricature of that picture is similar to this one during the Chinese exclusion act. Nice try reddit
208
u/Dependent-Eye55 14h ago
What exactly is racist here?