July 21st cover of the new yorker

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[BigV]

lower half

[lookout123]

with as obese as our nation apparently is? I think not.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Just gets them trending in that direction.

Nervous Nellies, of course, would immediately imagine Muslim rioting inspired by the Danish magazine situation and the EuroMuslim (yes, one word) inferiority complex. Puh-leeze. Those people probably thought the surge wouldn't do it, either -- there are disadvantages to being a toe-tag Democrat.