Oh, hi Pot, where ya been?

I refute your incorrect assertions. Both are wrong.
No double standard. One standard.
You know full well why this is tasteless. If you do not, you are beyond my ability to educate or inform.
There's a single intelligent standard--my own (you have yours, too, apparently) and a fundamental part of that standard is to consider the source; to consider the intent. The New Yorker, Rush Limbaugh and Mad Magazine are different sources, with different intentions, and I hold them to different standards.
Please explain why you feel justified in speaking for most wackos.
Dammit... I kept up with you almost the whole way and you slipped the iron bonds of logic right at the end.

Anyone who doesn't see this as satire, sees it as truth?... or an attempt to reinforce untruths? :confused:

Are those the three camps, on this cover?

Can we break the first group into two groups?
A- Those that think it clever/funny, because it's so obvious it's a poke at silly accusations.
B- People who recognize it's satire, but are offended because they think they are smarter than the unwashed masses, that are too stupid to recognize satire, and would believe it's true?

What? How many groups and sub groups are you talking about, xoB?

Your straight talk about believe/don't believe, understand/don't understand is easy enough to follow, but when you tag on the unnecessary because clause, you lose me.

By your definitions above, I belong in Group B. I recognize it's satire. I am offended. I am smarter than the unwashed masses too stupid to recognize satire that would believe it's true. Of. Course. Anyone who recognizes the satire here is *by definition* smarter than someone who doesn't recognize the satire.

I'm not gonna bite on your group three proposition; I'm not concerned with The New Yorker's intent "to reinforce untruths" but I am concerned with the effect of "reinforcing untruths":

So wacko extremist political broadcasters who originally promoted every stereotype parodied on Mad Magazine and the New Yorker covers - they can lie all they want - all but call Obama a nigger - and that is not tasteless? That is a double standard.

The New Yorker educated non-American who apparently don’t know so much overt hate and fear is promoted every day on the radio by about 300 wacko extremist talk show hosts. The New Yorker magazine just informed non-Americans how much hate of Obama is being promoted across America. They can promote that hate – and it is acceptable – considered tasteful? The New York can accurately define each ‘hate’ and be criticized?

Yes, we should not be reminded that a large minority of Americans “hate the nigger or ‘black panther radical’ or Muslim Obama”. Take your choice. All those words are being used overtly or covertly in wacko extremist circles. Therefore the New Yorker only reported the news - by using satire.

You're afraid people who have heard these accusations, but are unsure, will feel they must/might be true, because of this cover?
Or that people spouting this bullshit, will feel vindicated and point to this cover as proof?

I find it hard to believe it will really do any harm, ie, pushing the unsure into the hate camp. It definitely has prompted discussion of these issues by rational people... at least here. :D

I think the surest way to kill lies like these is to expose them to the light of day--the more light, the more truth, the better.

You know as well as I do that a whispering campaign can be very effective. And the objective rational truth about a given subject is only a *part* of the equation that all people take into account when deciding what to think about issues like this.

And by issues, I mean any of the several messages suggested in the densely packed cartoon. For example, already in this thread Michelle Obama's "militancy" has been discussed. mercy's repetition of that unfounded defamatory slur has gone largely unchallenged. I read the articles at the links he provided, and some of her thesis, and I didn't find any evidence to support such a claim. But unchallenged, such an assertion leaves a mark on people's perception.

Repetition and how a subject is presented make a real impact on how people perceive an issue, and that has a direct effect on people's actions.

This is a big deal to me because the stakes are quite high. What happens in this storyline has a direct impact on me--the contest for the office of president for my country. I find this kind of discussion, this kind of satire particularly distasteful because it is based on untruths. It is fearmongering of the lowest sort. I didn't like it when I saw it coming from other quarters, in other contests, or on other subjects.

For those whose mind is already made up, closed to further input, regardless of their position, I have nothing to offer. For those who are still willing to listen, and speak, there is more communication to be had. And while some spout bs like this cartoon, I will do my best to counter what I consider the negative effects of such communication. My best consists of this kind of dialog.

tw, I don't know what to say to you.

Your posts are hard to follow, but I'll say this.

I find this cartoon tasteless and offensive. Other hateful slurs, regardless of the subject or the speaker also offend me. I have a limited amount of energy and ability to counter such crap, but I do my best.

You may judge me, but don't put words in my mouth. We won't have much of a conversation if you're doing all the talking.

Who is Rush Limbaugh? someone you jack off to every night? Never heard of him.....

I would agree with you 100%.

Wasn't it proven that Hillary's campaign started that rumor?

What I'm getting is, you feel this piece of satire will actually influence voters, will actually sway votes, will actually damage Obama's campaign.
I think you are taking it way too seriously.
If you think this is bad, wait till after the conventions, when the Rove trained gunslingers get into high gear. :eek:

o no they've started

WTF?!

[quote=TheMercenary;469862]Who is Rush Limbaugh?[quote]Playing dumb again Merc? Or just trying to outdue Urbane Guerrilla. Next time read Mad Magazine with more care.