July 21st cover of the new yorker

[lookout123]

Originally Posted by tw

Speaking of tasteless wacko extremists ...snip....

Oh, hi Pot, where ya been?

[BigV]

Originally Posted by tw

Why is it wrong for the New Yorker to picture what Rush Limbaugh et al have been saying on daily radio shows? Why is the New Yorker offensive, but wacko right ring extremist talk show hosts are not for saying the same thing?

I refute your incorrect assertions. Both are wrong.

Originally Posted by tw

Why a double standard - or do you not realize how full American airwaves are with these wacko extremist propaganda claims? Routine is to overhear someone ask, "Is Obama a Muslim?" Less common is for the other to say, "Yes." It was overheard by this poster.

No double standard. One standard.

Originally Posted by tw

Why is it tasteless? This same propaganda also proved that Saddam had WMDs. If the New Yorker had pictured a comic Saddam with his WMDs, would you also call that wrong?

You know full well why this is tasteless. If you do not, you are beyond my ability to educate or inform.

Originally Posted by tw

Wrong are many Americans who have been promoting these wacko extremist myths. What the New Yorker did could only be tasteless IF these claims were not routinely entertained among wacko extremist listeners. Wackos religiously believe this stuff to be fact, but the New Yorker and Mad Magazine cannot satirize it? Why not? And why are you not also criticizing Mad Magazine for doing the exact same thing? Double standard?

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.

Originally Posted by tw

Sad – or the funny part: among the most wackos, that New Yorker satire is actually a truth. BTW, you would not believe how many people have lately been overheard saying all but the niger word. Subliminal racist is also being used as knowledge. We should not discuss or satirize that too? It may be tasteless. But bias in overt denial of reality must be aired no matter how ‘tasteless’ it may be.

Please explain why you feel justified in speaking for most wackos.

Originally Posted by tw

Rush Limbaugh’s most extremist fans believe the New Yorker has only published truth. Only ones 'wronged' by that satire are those who also believe it to be fact.

Dammit... I kept up with you almost the whole way and you slipped the iron bonds of logic right at the end.

[xoxoxoBruce]

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

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?

[BigV]

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":

Originally Posted by BigV

snip--
There are some people for whom this is not satire, but breaking news investigative journalism. And regardless of how few of them vote, ALL of them talk.

[tw]

Originally Posted by BigV

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.

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.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by BigV

I'm not concerned with The New Yorker's intent "to reinforce untruths" but I am concerned with the effect of "reinforcing untruths":

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.

[BigV]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

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.

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.

[BigV]

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.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by tw

Speaking of tasteless wacko extremists who love Rush Limbaugh ....

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

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by BigV

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.

I would agree with you 100%.

[spudcon]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Yea, I heard it. I am an NPR junkie. I have even had to correct more than a few local red-necks that the bit about him being Muslim is false and was most likely started by some hard core religious right conservatives when the debates first started and the group was bigger, because that story has been around for quite a while.

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

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by BigV

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.

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.

[Undertoad]

o no they've started

[Sundae]

WTF?!

[tw]

[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.