We all get it.

[Abacus]

I wish I didn't feel compelled to do this, but I don't know if I can stand to see another poster who appreciates the NY cartoon "explaining" it to the rest of us morons. I'll save you the trouble: WE GET IT.

It's not particularly complicated; in fact it is probably about the most one-dimensional, simplistic pieces of satire I've ever encountered. They were mocking the ridiculous rumors, we get it -- it doesn't need any enlightened explanation, it speaks for itself. The NY is a liberal publication, we get that too.

That doesn't change the fact that it is a failure, that the cartoon puts together in a nice tidy image all the stupid smears and provides more ammunition than it does inoculation.

We also know what free speech means, do you?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Not only are we not calling for the government to shut down The NY, we're not making any efforts to do so as consumers either.

So can we at last leave these points out of any future NY cartoon discussions?

[Richardo]

1. I will if the others stop beating the same dead horse and move on to something more important.

[BOSSHOG]

2. I anticipate PETA petitioning to shut down GD-P very soon

[Egnever]

7. Hah!

[Richardo]

9. !!

:rofl:

[cliffordu]

12. rofl

[Abacus]

3. I don't like beating dead horses either

which is why I hoped not to post this. I never thought the cartoon was really worth discussing -- everything that can be said was already said in the first thirty minutes.

On the other hand, I'm much happier to be done with FISA.

[NatBurner]

4. basically. i get it, i just don't think it's particularly funny

[blondeatlast]

11. It's a difficult concept for some DUers to grasp, but yes, many of us got it,

but didn't find it funny or biting at all.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

5. Thank you.

The cartoonist meant no harm but his satire failed. It happens.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

6. yesterday someone called the cartoon a hate crime. then bunch of people agreed

with this someone.

yeah you can criticize things, but when you are being completely stupid, expect other people to call you on it.

you as in one, not literally you.

[sui generis]

8. if there is one over arching flaw

that we humans have, it is the utter depravity with which we fling ourselves into assuming the role and crash position of being persecuted.

I also think it's a phase that adolescents go through on the way to adulthood. Let's continue the teacher role here - could they have done a better or more effective satire piece? Probably.

Could they have done worse? Probably. That gets us back around to "it is what it is and what it isn't is: it ain't the end of the world."

Outrage is exhausting. Borrowed outrage is just comical. Just say no. It's a bad habit, but if us adults set boundaries eventually they'll stop doing it around us.

[glitch]

10. Thank you Abacus. I wish it would sink in but it probably won't.

Best we can hope for is they'll get bored with it and stop posting about it.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

13. Your quoting the First Amendment in this context is tedious

I can quote the 13th and 14th Amendment to show that there would be nothing unconstitutional about someone calling African-Americans racial slurs, or leaving a restaurant because a black person came in.

Those actions do not violate the 13th or 14th Amendment, but they are the actions of a person who is likely to be somewhat hostile to the goals or underlying philosophy of the 13th and 14th Amendments.

No one has proposed taking any DUer to court on 1st Amendment grounds, as far as I am aware, so it's kind of a red herring.

When people say, "You are against the First Amendment" they are usually (I can't speak for everyone) saying, "You are behaving in a manner suggestive of personal hostility to the goals and underlying philosophy of the 1st Amendment."

[TexasObserver]

14. Agreed. We get it!! But we don't think it is good satire. We think it's unwise.

It's like when Mitt Romney said "who let the dogs out" to the group of black people. It's pathetic, not funny. What it really reveals is a white guy cartoonist who lives such a sheltered life in NYC that the only people he can relate to are those exactly like him. He thinks that because something is amusing to him and his crowd, it has more universal appeal.

I'm guessing he wouldn't find it so amusing if he and his history were unfavorably stereotyped in the name of satire. He's your typical elitist white guy who understands nothing about either blacks or regular folks.

[EstimatedProphet]

16. Here's the thing though:

there's a lot of people on the board arguing that it is wrong to see this as a good idea. If you think it's a bad attempt at satire, that's your opinion and welcome to it. I disagree. The real proof is going to come in the next few days, as the reactions come out. If someone wants to call people trolls - as I have been called today - because they don't fall in line with their opinion, then they should be challenged on that.

BTW because of this:

What it really reveals is a white guy cartoonist who lives such a sheltered life in NYC that the only people he can relate to are those exactly like him. He thinks that because something is amusing to him and his crowd, it has more universal appeal.

Sorry, but I don't think you get it at all.

[Ron Green]

15. How is it a "fact" that it's a failure, and that it provides more ammunition than inoculation?

Where is the evidence for such a fact? How do you know that the cartoon will not ultimately be used more successfully to disarm the smear machine than to perpetuate lies that are increasingly difficult to believe?

[EstimatedProphet]

17. Exactly. Time will tell.

[Abacus]

19. You know,

I had intended to rewrite that expression for the literalists and then it slipped my mind (that is to say that I forgot about it, not that it laid down oil slicks and banana peels and waited for my mind to tread upon them). I do think the level of rebuke by the target readership so far points more toward failure than success. The most frequently espoused conservative opinion I've heard and read is that the humor is based on truth.

Edit: typo.

[slackmaster]

18. It is not a failure in any way - It brilliantly sets a LINE IN THE SAND!

Some people don't seem to be able to see the forest for the trees. Here is the bottom line:

From this point forward, ANY of the smears satirized by that one hyperbolically absurd illustration will all point directly back to it. It will effectively poison the well for anyone who tries to accuse Obama of being a closet Muslim. Nobody will ever again be able to say something like that without the listener's mind subconsciously or consciously invoking the New Yorker cover, and the person who attempts the smear will look instantly stupid. It's destined to be the most memorable image of the election.

It's more than a perversion of every dimension of the painting American Gothic. It's a negative-space version of "The Emperor Has No Clothes". The amount of conversation generated just on these forums establishes it as a tour de force of pre-emptive deflection of criticism.

All the nonsense that anyone can fling at the Obamas has already been flung, and neutralized.