July 21st cover of the new yorker

[tw]

Originally Posted by BigV

I find this cartoon tasteless and offensive.

No cartoon can be sufficiently tasteless because of the subject. Subject is wacko extremists who hype these lies to others; who then blindly believe these myths. Accusations by right wing wackos are no different than brown shirts being told that Jews are vermin. Also proven because their 'Rush Limbaughs' told them it was so. A satire showing all the myths about Jews also would have mocked the liars - Nazis and their brown shirts. Instead, the world ignored those myths rather than satirize them.

Satire should exist on the front cover of every responsible magazine because these wacko extremists’ myths are that tasteless and dangerous. We cannot satirize how tasteless wacko extremists because they are dumb? Those with taste post satire with vengeance because - well how many good America lives are being wasted uselessly on another wacko right wing extremist lie - Saddam's WMDs. Satire about people such as TheMercenary could never be sufficiently tasteless. We should also see satire about what TheMercenary, et al will not ask; what every decent person asks: "When do we go after bin Laden."

Even bin Laden remains free because wacko extremists need him to promote their myths. The New Yorker can only be praised for showing that wacko extremists (including Rove) are that tasteless. New Yorker is praised for satirizing the problem - wacko extremists and their myths.

What makes the New Yorker cover so patriotic and wonderful? It is hilarious - and reality - and honest - and also called a summary of the news. As posted here, many non-Americans don't even kow how American are bombarded routinely with evil French and evil Nigerian, and evil Vietnamese, and evil Chinese, and evil Al Jezzera ... Tasteless hate by those who also invent these Obama myths is daily on American radio.

Without such mockery of wacko extremists, well, what do these same wacko extremists also want? War in Iran.

Did you read that Esquire magazine (Mar 2008?) article about Adm Fallon - former Central Command commander? He says he averted a 'Pearl Harbor' type attack on Iran. If we were that close to war, then the New Yorker magazine cover (that mocks these people like TheMercenary) is wonderful. Without satire about these tastelss people, then even an Iranian war becomes possibile. That New Yorker comic is not about Obama. It is about those who are America's greatest threat: wacko extremists who love more war and who even invented and promoted those Obama myths. The New Yorker did not mock tasteless people enough.

Who are most offended by that New Yorker comic? Wacko extremists.

[classicman]

All this attention to an inappropriate cover on a magazine that at best reaches 1,000,000 people has made more of this than anything. Are they "wacko extremists" at The New Yorker - I don't think so. Has their cover altered my perception of Obama? No!
I believe the vast majority of those who read that mag understand it was nothing more than it was - a stupid cover - ill-advised, inappropriate and distasteful. Let the damn thing die.

All the media attention to this and the real "wacko extremists" who pontificate here and elsewhere about it are the ones that are making a bigger issue out of it than anything. It has nothing to do with a grand conspiracy or Iran or anything else. It was a bad decision to publish it - and I hope they lose readers because of it. Yes, they got a lot of play out of it in the short term, but liong term it will not help them.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by tw

Who are most offended by that New Yorker comic? Wacko extremists.

Now, now, BigV is not a wacko extremist... just a mite serious.

[deadbeater]

tw, I find the toon tasteless and offensive. It loses all sense of satire when people begin believing it.

[xoxoxoBruce]

So you feel that it doesn't qualify as satire. because people that aren't as smart as you, will believe it's true?

[piercehawkeye45]

I thought the satire was that some people do believe that the stereotypes are true? Or at least that the media keeps on commenting on them.

[deadbeater]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

So you feel that it doesn't qualify as satire. because people that aren't as smart as you, will believe it's true?

Yes, yes. People believe in images more than words, in that there is at least some truth to images, if none in words, especially if published in The New Yorker.

[jinx]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

So you feel that it doesn't qualify as satire. because people that aren't as smart as you, will believe it's true?

I think this is exactly how people feel. It's outrage based on hubris.

[BigV]

I think that term "smarter" is a loaded term.

There are areas where I know more than other people, and vice versa. That's not hubris. That's reality. Where is the "overweening pride"?

How do you parse xoB's statement? That is isn't satire, because some people will believe the untruths illustrated? In that case it would seem that you include yourself in the smarter group, no? Is your hubris showing here?

Or, maybe I have it wrong. Maybe you believe it is satire because everyone is as smart as you and will disbelieve it. If that's the case, what's the point of the cover at all? Why choose those elements, if they're all universally understood to be false? Why not choose other aspect equally universally absurd--that he has two heads, or that McCain will be his VP?

Look at your sig:

Originally Posted by jinx's sig

"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
H. L. Mencken

This cover is an example of Mencken's point: a series of menacing, imaginary hobgoblins.

xoB's statement is something of a trap.

[jinx]

Everyone who reads the New Yorker is at least as smart as I am and will likely understand the cartoon.
Others will hear about it thru various sources and will use the information, biased one way or another, to further support the opinions they already hold.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by BigV

I think that term "smarter" is a loaded term.

And I think you over analyzing.

There are areas where I know more than other people, and vice versa. That's not hubris. That's reality. Where is the "overweening pride"?

But we weren't discussing "other areas", were we.

How do you parse xoB's statement? That is isn't satire, because some people will believe the untruths illustrated? In that case it would seem that you include yourself in the smarter group, no? Is your hubris showing here?

No parsing is necessary for me, or deadbeater, or Jinx.

Or, maybe I have it wrong. Maybe you believe it is satire because everyone is as smart as you and will disbelieve it. If that's the case, what's the point of the cover at all? Why choose those elements, if they're all universally understood to be false? Why not choose other aspect equally universally absurd--that he has two heads, or that McCain will be his VP?

It's easily recognizable satire, because anyone with an IQ higher than a glass of water can see they are depicting the bullshit the anti-Obama troops are trying to scare people with.

Look at your sig:
This cover is an example of Mencken's point: a series of menacing, imaginary hobgoblins.

xoB's statement is something of a trap.

Yes, it's a trap for anyone trying find a hidden agenda in a straight forward question.
Take some aspirin, have a couple drinks, watch the Olympics and relax.
I asked deadbeater a question. He understood and answered it. That's all folks.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by jinx

Everyone who reads the New Yorker is at least as smart as I am and will likely understand the cartoon.
Others will hear about it thru various sources and will use the information, biased one way or another, to further support the opinions they already hold.

I believe there is truth in that. But you don't have to be "smart" to read the New Yorker, only have the ability to read at a highschool level, unlike most of our newspapers which are amied at a 5th grade level of reading. The New Yorker is just another rag that some people enjoy. My rags are The Atlantic and The Economist.

[Griff]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

... The Economist.

I knew you were tw's sock puppet!

[jinx]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

I believe there is truth in that. But you don't have to be "smart" to read the New Yorker,

I agree, but I also have no reason to assume they are dumber than me as a group.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by jinx

I agree, but I also have no reason to assume they are dumber than me as a group.

I would submit that anyone who thinks they are de facto smarter than someone else based on what they read on a purely web based interaction is pretty foolish. We really know very little about each other here.