Loopy Pro: Create music, your way.
What is Loopy Pro? — Loopy Pro is a powerful, flexible, and intuitive live looper, sampler, clip launcher and DAW for iPhone and iPad. At its core, it allows you to record and layer sounds in real-time to create complex musical arrangements. But it doesn’t stop there—Loopy Pro offers advanced tools to customize your workflow, build dynamic performance setups, and create a seamless connection between instruments, effects, and external gear.
Use it for live looping, sequencing, arranging, mixing, and much more. Whether you're a live performer, a producer, or just experimenting with sound, Loopy Pro helps you take control of your creative process.
Download on the App StoreLoopy Pro is your all-in-one musical toolkit. Try it for free today.
Behringer - Please think at least twice before buying anything from them
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
As far as I can work out any cartoon that had a guy with a beard (any beard) and a large nose with eyes in it would have reminded some people of an anti-semitic cartoon. Given it didn't have the key feature that all anti-semitic cartoons had - a hooked nose - or anything recognisably Jewish (such as a Kippah, or stereotypically Jewish hair) - I don't know that there's much the cartoonist could have done other than to draw someone with a small nose, no beard and with their eyes closed.
I'm offended that you are offended that someone offended someone else who was offended.
To be clear I think this was shitty behavior. And incredibly bizarre. Behringer should be ashamed of themselves.
I just find the whole accusation of anti-semitism unfounded. It doesn't use anti-semitic imagery, there's no evidence Behringer were trying to be anti-semitic and Peter Kirn isn't even Jewish. Making unfounded accusations of anti-semitism just cheapens the charge.
I'm happy to point people to real world examples of anti-semitism if this is something they want to get involved in fighting. Like I said, there are European countries, and US politicians and pastors who engage in it quite a bit.
Exactly.
I really don't understand what you're arguing here. I'm saying it's ambiguous, but I absolutely see the connection to the history of anti-Semitic illustrations. If the people who are routinely attacked by something all say, "Hey, this is offensive" — I don't know, maybe listen to them?
Have some fucking empathy.
I dont think its cool actually I thought it was bad at first but now after research they are doing to much
Relevant because the cartoon and people’s mistaken identification of Peter as Jewish took it in that direction. Would it have gone that way otherwise?
If B’s team honestly believe that no one would associate that cartoon with anti-Semitic propaganda, they maybe shouldn’t work in PR anymore. The goal is to make sure people see what you want them to see; they failed spectacularly by drawing too many similarities to a negative cultural image.
Also, though, it looks like they copied the cartoon (likely from the public domain): https://cdn.imgbin.com/16/3/21/imgbin-pinocchio-cartoon-long-nose-man-26mdXTTvHw8inACZegPN68EiX.jpg
What is the connection? Seriously. How is that anti-semitic and this isn't:
or this:
Is it the beard?
I have plenty of empathy for Peter Kirn here.
The cartoon made people assume Peter was Jewish. They didn’t properly mitigate the risk of misinterpretation. Behringer is solely to blame.
I think there are plenty of reasons why his team should stop working in PR. Not sure this is where I'd focus TBH.
And you're seriously telling me that this shitty cartoon is anti-semitic? What makes it anti-semitic? Adding Peter Kirn's beard and glasses?
@cian : I think the side-discussion was because a few people (in response to the mention of accusations of anti-semitism -- about which you will notice I've taken no position on) went so far as to say that anyone is ridiculous or sick-minded to see the image as potentially anti-semitic.
I hope you understand that is very different from just saying: "I don't think it is anti-semitic." It is a jump from disagreeing with someone to calling people ridiculous or sick-minded. The people that found the image to be anti-semitic can be wrong and NOT ridiculous.
What I objected to was people going beyond disagreement to being dismissive. Marginalized can be wrong in their perception of bias BUT they shouldn't be ridiculed for bringing it up. There were mentions of "wokeness" (as a dismissive perjorative) and "snowflakes". Those are terms that are intended to insult people one disagrees and dismiss their right to have a concern.
This is totally independent of whether the accusations of racism are accurate. People should be able to be wrong about whether something is racist without being marginalized or jumped on.
I would have said nothing if people just said "that doesn't look anti-semitic to me". But some people (most or all of whom probably aren't jewish) went out of their way to be dismissive of the notion that it could be taken otherwise. There is just not reason for people to cross that line from disagreement to dismissiveness.
I don't get why (or I do get it and it disappoints me) people can't just stop at "it doesn't look anti-semitic" and take it a step further to ridicule people that see it otherwise.
In general, if people that are part of a marginalized community tell us that something feels prejudicial, the thoughtful thing to do if you disagree is to say "you know it doesn't seem like that to me" and stop there OR if you are ACTUALLY thoughtful ask them why it seems like that to them -- and don't feel the need to make them feel bad for FEELING BAD about how something affected them. You can explain why it doesn't seem racist without dismissing how they feel or how they took it.
It's so weird that this the hill you choose to die on when in Behringer's own apology they say that though they did not intend any anti-Semitism, THEY CAN UNDERSTAND WHY some people were offended.
I’m not saying ANY of it is anti-Semitic, especially not the original cartoon. What I’m saying is that drawing a man with a big nose, dark hair, a beard, and grasping hands is going to REMIND people of anti-Semitic propaganda. There’s a big difference. When you have all those things together we’re not checking whether the noise is hooked, the hands are clasped, and the beard is curly. It’s too similar to a known image so that’s what we see.
With regards to the Boris Johnson cartoon: blonde hair, no beard, no hands. The cartoon looks nothing like the propaganda drawings so no one made the connection.
It’s not about what Behringer meant, it’s about what people saw, and it’s not a huge leap. Honestly, they could have given him a CDM baseball cap and it would have taken a lot of the edge off.
Meh, I am planning on buying a Pro-1 soon.
Seems to me you’re deliberately missing the point but hey whatever, but hey you’re German aren’t you Adolf.
Woah... and right on the 200 mark... !
a> @CRAKROX said:
Sad, it makes me.
@cian: why not say something like: "It doesn't seem anti-semitic to me, but it does to some people. I just don't get it." Bonus points for being able to say "And maybe I'm not in the best position to judge."
Going out of one's way to marginalize the opinion of people who feel marginalized probably doesn't have the impact you want -- independent of your intent. You don't lose points even when you are correct about the intention.
I mean at some level literally anything could be interpreted as anti-semitic, so I'm not sure where that argument leads other than don't do stuff. Which in Behringer's case may be good advice honestly.
Big noses have been widely used in comics since the 1950s. There is literally a style of comic in France where all the characters have big noses. Underground comix used to use them a lot. Peter Bagge's main character in Hate (not Jewish) also had a big nose. Obelix had a big nose. A big nose is just a big nose. Of course in this case the shitty cartoon was using a Pinnochio nose, which is probably more widely known in the wider culture than the anti-semitic hook nose. And literally means - liar. It's a double entendre basically.
Grasping hands look like this:
Hands in the comic:
I wouldn't read too much into those hands - I think the cartoonist didn't really know what to do with them. This guy is a hack.
The imagery is rather clearly supposed to be this. Peter Kirn is in ecstasy smelling cat pee. His eyes are pointing up (suggesting revery), and the smile is supposed to be gormless. The beard and the hair is so you can recognize him as Peter (who has a beard). Also think it's significant that he's balding (he's being mocked). The nose is long as a double entendre (both smelling all these things, and liar) - and also to make it work visually with the knobs.
A better cartoonist, assuming this isn't truly just a rip of some public domain work, would have put the hands on the corks. This is, and I can't emphasize this enough, a shit piece of cartooning.
Just to be clear: You seem to be defending a company that attacked an independent music blogger by trademarking his name and commissioning a video mocking him with a cartoon that is, if not anti-Semitic, then unquestionably insulting.
Or have I got that wrong?
Do you agree that Behringer has revealed itself as a bad actor and weird, insecure bully?
I get it, but you’re missing the point. Let’s take a step back from the specifics.
Pretend you want to draw a cartoon duck. You draw a rounded head, a long navy blue body, a saddle-shaped orange bill, and a goofy little cowlick. Someone sees this cartoon and assumes you were drawing Daffy Duck.
You can go off all you want — “Daffy is black not blue, and this character doesn’t have a white band on his neck, and my duck’s cowlick is on the BACK of his head whereas this character’s is on the FRONT.” It doesn’t matter. The image of Daffy Duck existed before you drew yours, and despite subtle differences, the overall effect looks enough like Daffy that people will assume you wanted to draw Daffy. If you didn’t want to draw Daffy, you should have looked critically at the drawing before publishing it and realized that people might seize on the similarities rather than the differences.
Same deal here. I’m not saying, and have never said, that any one element makes the cartoon anti-Semitic. What I’m saying, and have repeatedly said, is that the cartoon bears ENOUGH SIMILARITY to OTHER IMAGES that were HISTORICALLY USED in an anti-Semitic context that a person could easily see parallels.
So the guy isn't Jewish? So what's the connection? Maybe just a clever conflation there then. Seems a sure fire way of blowing the whole thing out of proportion. Probably someone in advertising.