Colin Kaepernick's skin appears darkened in Republican campaign fundraiser ad

[W2L]

I didn't ask you to make any. I asked for alternate reasons.

Im not an FBI photo analyst and neither are you.

 

[W2L]

It was darkened, and the water carriers are trying their best to deny it. This is no different than the racist GOP flyers that had pictures of Obama with Kool-Aid, fried chicken and watermelon. Water carriers will always deny the most racist acts.

Did the GOP create those images? You cant prove your assertion. Please stop accusing people of racism.

 

[DaisyDay]

anyone who thinks that image has been altered as claimed is letting his wishes or his imagination get away from him.

Right, don't believe your lying eyes, guys.

Did the GOP create those images? You cant prove your assertion. Please stop accusing people of racism.

The image has clearly been altered, the original and the changed version are right there, side by side; so the question is, was it deliberate to appeal to GOP donaters' prejudice or was it just a printing flaw? Given the GOP's long history, I do suspect the former.

 

[Rion]

It might be the lighting.

What would you do if you found out your assumption of racism is false?

Pretend it didn't happen and move on.

Indeed. they just darkened the whole image.

The white guy in the back in darkened. This screams incompetent boomer photoshop.

 

[FenderTL5]

Right, don't believe your lying eyes, guys.

The image has clearly been altered, the original and the changed version are right there, side by side; so the question is, was it deliberate to appeal to GOP donaters' prejudice or was it just a printing flaw? Given the GOP's long history, I do suspect the former.

If the image were printed, then there'd be some wiggle room for debate.
This was an email distribution, there's no printer to blame it on.
The photo was darkened either by incompetence or deliberately.

 

[DaisyDay]

If the image were printed, then there'd be some wiggle room for debate.
This was an email distribution, there's no printer to blame it on.
The photo was darkened either by incompetence or deliberately.

Okay, so the question is, was the photo was darkened either by incompetence or deliberately to appeal to the donaters' prejudices? I say the latter.

 

[FireDragon76]

View attachment 259342

Original image on left, altered image on right.

-CryptoLutheran

It looks like bad editing to me. If the intent was to emphasize his "black" skin, they just made every other color tone look off (if you look at his face, the effect is less noticeable contrasted with his hair).

 

[DaisyDay]

The white guy in the back in darkened. This screams incompetent boomer photoshop.

No, it doesn't.

 

[FireDragon76]

I didn't know Colin Caepernicks was running for the white house .So what's the point of the ad?

Inflame peoples anger to push a political message. Kind of like push-poll phone calls.

 

[Rion]

No, it doesn't.

A blind squirrel is arguing with me about an image. Not sure how I feel about this.

 

[W2L]

Assuming this is racism is subjective, and accusing people of racism on an assumption is reckless. Truth is we don't know why the image was so poor.

 

[FenderTL5]

Assuming this is racism is subjective, and accusing people of racism on an assumption is reckless. Truth is we don't know why the image was so poor.

My first giving the benefit-of-doubt thought was that it was a by-product of reducing the file size for easier/quicker email distribution.
I put the original in two different editors and reduced the files and the colors didn't get darker. They pixelated, but didn't get darker.
It was intentionally darkened; why is the only question.

 

[FireDragon76]

My first giving the benefit-of-doubt thought was that it was a by-product of reducing the file size for easier/quicker email distribution.
I put the original in two different editors and reduced the files and the colors didn't get darker. They pixelated, but didn't get darker.
It was intentionally darkened; why is the only question.

Considering it looks like a change for the worse in terms of image quality, I believe it was intentional. They wanted Kaepernick's tanned arms to look darker.

 

[FenderTL5]

Considering it looks like a change for the worse in terms of image quality, I believe it was intentional. They wanted Kaepernick's tanned arms to look darker.

The only other reason I could come up with is that removing the logos left some editing artifacts they were trying to hide.
That doesn't seem to be the case, either.
I'm pretty much left with the same conclusion.

 

[W2L]

My first giving the benefit-of-doubt thought was that it was a by-product of reducing the file size for easier/quicker email distribution.
I put the original in two different editors and reduced the files and the colors didn't get darker. They pixelated, but didn't get darker.
It was intentionally darkened; why is the only question.

We don't know. We cant subjectively assume its racism and recklessly slander others by labeling them racist.

 

[rambot]

Plausible deniability while being able to get the EXACT reaction desired. Republican supporters are NEVER going to say "well that is meant to be racist"... I dont expect them to even say it's in appropriate.

 

[W2L]

Im bowing out. Ive said enough, no use arguing with people whos minds are made up without any proof.

 

[Belk]

Im not an FBI photo analyst and neither are you.

You are correct, I am not. However as a reasonable human being I can come up with reasons someone might perform an action. Are you unable to come up with a reason someone might make the changes to this photo?

 

[Aldebaran]

I honestly don't know if you undestand the issue and are just trolling, or if you honestly aren't wrapping your head around this.

I brought up colorism because you referred to a post in which dark skin color was perceived as sinister. The reason why darkening an image of Kaepernick, and thus presenting his skin tone as darker than it actually is, is being seen as potentially problematic is because of the history of colorism as it pertains to people of color, especially black people, in this country. There is a history of the "dark skinned n*gro" as a racist trope, to depict darker skinned individuals as sinister.

Is that the purpose for having altered the image of Kaepernick? I don't know. But that is the question (and in some cases accusation) at hand.

It's not that being darker is bad, it's that trying to use dark skin to communicate "this person is bad" is what's wrong.

Is that clear enough? Or do you need more information?

-CryptoLutheran

What you're talking about is just another one of the many ways people of color (or more accurately, their radical Left political and social groups) use as a way to perpetuate the idea that they are being victimized. All this does is keep blacks, hispanics, etc. in the victim class while keeping white people portrayed as evil. It does nothing to bring healing or unity.

 

[Aldebaran]

It was darkened, and the water carriers are trying their best to deny it. This is no different than the racist GOP flyers that had pictures of Obama with Kool-Aid, fried chicken and watermelon. Water carriers will always deny the most racist acts.

Then you have your mind already made up about it and are not willing to hear any explanations?