Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
I Learned it from Reading Slate, Rupert!
Slate's Christopher Beam has a horrible secret. It was he who started this "terrorist fist jab" nonsense, when he quoted a commenter at the right-wing website Human Events accusing Michelle Obama of being a Hezbollah sleeper agent. Or something. This led to the now-infamous Fox News fembot comment that "everyone seems to interpret [the gesture] differently," but some have suggested that it is a secret terrorist greeting. Beam's apologia for introducing the "fist jab" meme makes for interesting reading:
The morning after Obama locked up the nomination, I was writing a "Trailhead" item that mocked the media's difficulty in figuring out what to call the now famous gesture. "Fist-pound," "knuckle-bump," and "fist-to-fist thumbs up" were among the funnier examples, but one of them−"Hezbollah-style fist jab"−was particularly risible. It came from the Web site for Human Events, a hard-right weekly. Unfortunately, I failed to note that its provenance was not the magazine itself but a reader comment posted below an unrelated column by Cal Thomas. I linked the phrase to the column but didn't explain that the words weren't Thomas'.
Many "Trailhead" readers clicked through to Thomas' column and, not finding the phrase there, assumed that Thomas or his bosses had wiped it from his column. What really happened, it seems, is that Human Events removed the reader comment after many other readers posted comments taking offense and/or debunking it. These latter comments remained, while the comment that provoked the outrage vanished into thin air, creating further confusion about its origin.
From anonymous web comment to New Yorker
cover to denunciations of David Remnick as an insensitive elitist.
Writer Ta-Nehisi Coates advises that "White people step away from the
sepia-toned crayons" and stop drawing the Obamas, and upbraids
Remnick for not understanding satire, which, he writes, must trade
in "exaggeration" to be successful. And this particular New Yorker cover "exaggerates nothing." Well, I'll
leave it to our clever commenters to quibble with Coates'
definition of satire, but an image of Obama in the oval office,
turban-clad, burning the American flag beneath a portrait of Osama
bin Laden strikes me as, well, a pretty obvious
exaggeration.
Besides, Coates argues, the "broader body politic" will not get the
joke and, therefore, the cartoon is dangerous. It is a familiar (and unconvincing) argument. As Remnick
observed, this is the most frequent criticism the magazine has
received: "People say, well, I get it, but I'm afraid that
so-and-so is not going to get it." Satire, then, mustn't be
too complicated, lest its meaning be ambiguous, lest it
turn the country rubes even more racist.
Strained headline reference here.
Update: Ta-Nehisi Coates emails with a clarification and a few sensible points:
For the record, I don't think that the cartoon is dangerous at all, and I highly doubt that it'll convert anyone who was going to vote for Obama into a McCain voter. I do think it's bad satire though, not because it doesn't exaggerate Barack Obama, but becase it doesn't exaggerate the smears about him. It's literally is just a reflection of those smears. Nothing else. It's almost like a joke that's all setup and no punchline.
Anyway, I feel sort of dumb for even writing that post. I got lumped in with all the other nitwits who are running around talking about how they're now going to cancel their New Yorker subscription. You don't have to agree with my argument--indeed and completely open to my reading of the cartoon as being off. But I want to be clear about what my argument is. I don't think the cartoon does any damage. I don't think it's "racist." I don't think the NYer is part of some nefarious plot. I just, Didn't. Like. The picture. Seriously, nothing more than that.
If you haven't read Coates's terrific piece in The Atlantic on the "audacity of Bill Cosby’s black conservatism," take 20 minutes and do so now.
ed|7.16.08 @ 2:28PM|#
Satire, then, mustn't be too complicated, lest its meaning
be ambiguous, lest it turn the country rubes even more
racist.
Cue the H&R rubes. You know who you are.
|7.16.08 @ 2:32PM|#
an image of Obama in the oval office, turban-clad, burning
the American flag beneath a portrait of Osama bin Laden strikes me
as, well, a pretty obvious exaggeration
Why? What is being exaggerated?
He's a little anti-American?
A little Muslim?
A little terroristic?
The only item in that cover that was an exaggeration was the
uber-kittenish look Michelle was giving him. She really does look
like at him something like that.
None of the other stuff is a hyperbolic treatment of something
true. The AK, the Middle Eastern dress, the burning flag, the Osama
picture are not "exaggerations" of anything true, but realistic
depictions of smears that are false.
Now, if the cover had shown that picture on a easel, while Rush
Limbaugh stood in front of it holding a paintbrush while looking at
a realistic view of the Obamas fist-bumping, that would be
exaggeration. It would be a slighly hyperbolic depiction of how the
righties see the Obamas.
|7.16.08 @ 2:33PM|#
Um, isn't it a little arrogant when Ta-Nehisi Coates tells all white people what to do?
Elemenope|7.16.08 @ 2:34PM|#
ed --
Well, not for nothing, but properly executed satire generally
includes some clues. For example, putting a cartoon on the cover of
a magazine that many people will see and browse by, but are
unlikely to actually buy and read the accompanying explanatory
article (since, let's face it, very few New Yorker writers
are readable), was probably very stupid.
Not by any means something that should be regulated or disallowed.
Just pointed out as stupid.
No Name Guy|7.16.08 @ 2:34PM|#
Would
this cover be considered satire?
I hope so cause I really wanna see that on the cover of
National Review.
|7.16.08 @ 2:36PM|#
Why do "hard right" blogs feel like they need to "clean up" their comments sections?
Episiarch|7.16.08 @ 2:37PM|#
Why on earth did Obama's campaign complain about this? This may be the stupidest Obama "controversy" yet, and that's saying something.
|7.16.08 @ 2:37PM|#
Joe,
What is being exaggerated is the tone of the right-wing commentary.
McCain's surrogates are not actually accusing the Obama's of having
framed photos of Osama, burning American flags, toting AK's. They
are calling them "soft on terrorists" and "not patriotic." This is
an exaggeration of that claim.
|7.16.08 @ 2:40PM|#
I'm with you, Epi. Aside from the fact that the cover was not
insulting the Obamas, I think he could have gotten more political
mileage out of being magnanimous and saying some things about the
freedom of the press.
We still have freedom of the press, right?
|7.16.08 @ 2:40PM|#
Why do "hard right" blogs feel like they need to "clean up" their comments sections?
To be honest with you, we're just looking for the
Truthers.
They're everywhere.
No Name Guy|7.16.08 @ 2:40PM|#
Epi, its not as stupid as Birth Certificate-gate.
I don't think its even quite as stupid as Bittergate.
|7.16.08 @ 2:42PM|#
"None of the other stuff is a hyperbolic treatment of something
true"
No, it is a hyberbolic treatment of what the New Yorker thinks
Obama's critics think is true. I suppose they could have spelled it
out more by making the cartoon the thought cloud of some redneck
falling asleep in his chair, but I don't think that is
necessary.
No Name Guy|7.16.08 @ 2:44PM|#
I'll say one thing about McCain--hes run a clean campaign.
Really.
The dirtiest attacks have either been drummed up by the media,
started by right wing bloggers, Hillary Clinton, or some
combination of the three.
McCain's hands are clean in almost all the Obama dirt.
kinnath|7.16.08 @ 2:45PM|#
Why? What is being exaggerated?
Right-wing representations of the Obamas perhaps.
Rhywun|7.16.08 @ 2:45PM|#
the media's difficulty in figuring out what to call the now famous gesture
I've been calling it "punch it in" for almost
20 years now.
|7.16.08 @ 2:45PM|#
The whole kerfluffle just proves that lefties have no more sense
of humor than righties.
And joe, given your definition, would a cover showing Dick Cheney
preparing to eat a bowl of sugar-frosted babies not be an
exaggeration (since he probably doesn't actually eat babies, at
least not the sugar-frosted kind)? Or, since he probably does eat
some sort of breakfast cereal, would the cover qualify as
exaggeration?
Elemenope|7.16.08 @ 2:47PM|#
Why on earth did Obama's campaign complain about this? This
may be the stupidest Obama "controversy" yet, and that's saying
something.
Truer words are rarely spoken.
McCain's hands are clean in almost all the Obama
dirt.
When you have surogates, who needs to be a prick in person?
"What, and have all that royal blood all over our hands? No, no,
no, Duke Leto. I think you fled out into the desert after your son
and that Bene Gesserit witch of yours, and then after that, can't
say."
|7.16.08 @ 2:47PM|#
Brian24,
I don't think it's an exaggeration of what McCain's surrogates are
saying, but an accurate depiction of, for example, those Barack
HUSSEIN Obama emails. One regular commenter on Hit & Run wrote
that Michelle Obama "hates my children because of the color of
their skin."
If "soft on terror" and "not patriotic" and the like were the bulk
of what has been thrown at the Obamas, I think the reaction to that
cover would have been different.
Why on earth did Obama's campaign complain about this?
Because the appearance of such imagery without pushback would allow
it to come to be seen as normal. It is currently considered
unsavory and disreputable to use racial caricatures to depict
Barack and Michelle Obama, and they want to keep it that way.
jtuf|7.16.08 @ 2:48PM|#
So, the basic civility and social norms on a blog was enough to nip the fist bump rummer in the bud there. Unfortunately, reporters in echo chambers made it national news for weeks. Since "commenter makes rude comment" is not exactly breaking news, reporters should giver blogs a grace period of a couple of days to self-enforce civility before they broadcast the comment.
Fluffy|7.16.08 @ 2:48PM|#
Joe, you're absolutely wrong.
You know what is being exaggerated? The stupidity of people in the
flyover states.
That's what the people objecting to the cartoon either don't get,
or are pretending not to get so they can hold a pity party to try
to disingenuously generate sympathy for Obama.
When that image appears as a New Yorker cartoon, the joke is saying
- in much the same way one urbane New Yorker reader might say to
another - "Lovey, those silly hicks between here and Vail think all
sorts of idiotic things about Obama. Isn't it funny to think about
how stupid the average provincial American is, and then to laugh at
them from our vantage point of comfortable cultural
superiority?"
It's exaggerating the misconceptions stupid people have of Obama
to laugh at stupid people, and not at the Obamas. I would
bet you that the New Yorker's readership would poll about as well
for McCain as the Upper West Side would or as the Harvard faculty
would. They're not mocking the Obamas; they're mocking the average
Savage radio show listener.
|7.16.08 @ 2:49PM|#
One regular commenter on Hit & Run wrote that Michelle Obama "hates my children because of the color of their skin."
Was it who you think I think it was?
|7.16.08 @ 2:50PM|#
"One regular commenter on Hit & Run wrote that Michelle
Obama "hates my children because of the color of their skin."
How many times has the left said that about a political enemy? Too
many times to count. What is that person saying other than Michelle
Obama is a racist? The left calls political opponents racists all
the time and they certainly are not above claiming Republicans are
out to get children and poor people. It is pretty rich to complain
about that statement Joe.
|7.16.08 @ 2:52PM|#
McCain's hands are clean in almost all the Obama dirt.
When you have surogates, who needs to be a prick in
person?
The Hillbots are McCain surrogates? I'm going to need a link for
that.
Blog comment note: Are we to the point yet where we can just type
"IGTNALFT" instead of typing it out?
|7.16.08 @ 2:52PM|#
Is this title a reference to those anti-drug ads where the kid
says "I learned it from watching you, Dad!" If so, awesome.
it's called dap.
Indeed.
|7.16.08 @ 2:53PM|#
"It is currently considered unsavory and disreputable to use
racial caricatures to depict Barack and Michelle Obama,"
But it is perfectly okay to use disreputable caricatures of every
other politician in the world. If Obama were truly a transcendent
candidate and not interested in playing the race card, he wouldn't
feel that way. Instead, what he is doing is accusing anyone who
criticizes him of being a racist. The cartoon and the reaction to
it have played perfectly into his hands by lumping all criticism in
with the kind of caracature presented in the cartoon.
Episiarch|7.16.08 @ 2:55PM|#
Because the appearance of such imagery without pushback
would allow it to come to be seen as normal.
Well, it's everywhere now--way, way, way outside the
New Yorker-reading Thurston Howell III's that it would
have been limited to. So it's actually way more normal than it
would have been.
It was a bonehead move to complain.
Fluffy|7.16.08 @ 2:57PM|#
Oh, OK, you addressed my point in response to others.
Because the appearance of such imagery without pushback would
allow it to come to be seen as normal.
In other words, you get the joke, but you have decided to pretend
you don't get the joke and to claim that the Obamas were the target
of this caricature, in order to score political points.
In other words, it's typical dissembling, i.e. lying.
|7.16.08 @ 2:58PM|#
I'm concerned that I find myself agreeing with John. But I do. Crying "racism" over a New Yorker cover -- a New Fucking Yorker cover -- is just mindboggling, especially when everyone knows they're actually anti-Semites.
Fluffy|7.16.08 @ 3:00PM|#
If Obama were truly a transcendent candidate and not
interested in playing the race card, he wouldn't feel that way.
Instead, what he is doing is accusing anyone who criticizes him of
being a racist. The cartoon and the reaction to it have played
perfectly into his hands by lumping all criticism in with the kind
of caracature presented in the cartoon.
No, I think it's one level more dishonest than that.
The cartoon doesn't even criticize Obama. The Obamas are not the
target of the humor in the cartoon. The cartoon is PRO-Obama.
They're playing the race card once removed by attacking a
pro-Obama cartoon for using imagery that might be used by the very
people the cartoon is making fun of. They're doing this even though
they know that the cartoon is pro-Obama, because they know that
people are stupid and the press will let them get away with it.
|7.16.08 @ 3:05PM|#
Those fiends!
OK, was that explanation of the title here the whole time and I
just missed it? Or was it added in later?
Abdul|7.16.08 @ 3:06PM|#
an image of Obama in the oval office, turban-clad, burning
the American flag beneath a portrait of Osama bin Laden strikes me
as, well, a pretty obvious exaggeration.
Of course it's an exaggeration. As a devout Muslim, Obama would
never have a picture of Bin Laden on the wall. He would
probably have a calligraphied verse from the Koran or a decapitated
infidel's head instead.
Zubon|7.16.08 @ 3:07PM|#
Are we to the point yet where we can just type "IGTNALFT"
instead of typing it out?
I've been using [citation needed] lately. I need a sign with that
to carry with me. Reference xkcd.
ed|7.16.08 @ 3:07PM|#
the appearance of such imagery without pushback would allow
it to come to be seen as normal
Wow, joe's a crusading superhero now. It's just a friggin' magazine
cover. It's not that important, and you can't do a thing about it.
Get over yourself.
|7.16.08 @ 3:09PM|#
joe,
Fine, but I don't think The New Yorker is satirizing what some
commenter on reason.com said. They're satirizing the more
mainstream right-wing commentary.
This all seems fairly obvious to me, frankly, and I think the
cover's well done.
Episiarch|7.16.08 @ 3:10PM|#
They're playing the race card once removed by attacking a
pro-Obama cartoon for using imagery that might be used by the very
people the cartoon is making fun of. They're doing this even though
they know that the cartoon is pro-Obama, because they know that
people are stupid and the press will let them get away with
it.
So they're either slick as hell or are total idiots. Not good for
the candidate of hope and change.
iowan|7.16.08 @ 3:11PM|#
You know what is being exaggerated? The stupidity of people
in the flyover states.
Are you calling us stupid because we launched Obama's campaign and
mortally wounded Clinton at the Caucuses last January?
Or were you assuming that the bullshit attitudes of elitist pricks
in New York represent a valid description of us dumb yokels in the
fly-over states.
No Name Guy|7.16.08 @ 3:14PM|#
iowan-
I think he meant "Appalachia", the upper midwest, Great Plains, and
the Rockies are very pro-obama.
Which is why phrases such as "flyover country" are stupid.
|7.16.08 @ 3:15PM|#
Fluffy,
When did I pretend not to get the joke? I even explained why the
joke failed, and how it could have been made better. I'm not sure
what your bitch here is.
John writes, But it is perfectly okay to use disreputable
caricatures of every other politician in the world. Not racist
ones, it's not.
If Obama were truly a transcendent candidate and not interested
in playing the race card, he wouldn't feel that way. Um, if
Obama was truly not interested in "playing the race card," he
wouldn't complain about attacks which even you, his political
enemy, acknowledge are racist. You heard it here first, folks:
"playing the race card" now includes complaining about actual
racism.
Episiarch, Well, it's everywhere now--way, way, way outside the
New Yorker-reading Thurston Howell III's that it would have been
limited to. So it's actually way more normal than it would have
been. It's been more widely distributed, yes, but it's been
widely distributed within stories about how terrible it is. That
doesn't normalize it.
|7.16.08 @ 3:17PM|#
Shorter Fluffy: when I put a black lawn jockey in my yard, it's ironic. Everyone knows that!
iowan|7.16.08 @ 3:18PM|#
Which is why phrases such as "flyover country" are
stupid.
Agreed, however "flyover country" is pretty commonly known as
everything between the west-coast big-cities and the east-coast
big-cities. Occasionally, those wankers from the coasts will exempt
the rust-belt big-cities.
Orange Line Special|7.16.08 @ 3:18PM|#
1. Under the BHO regime benevolent leadership, such
covers will be banned
as "hate". His "forces" will make
sure of that. (It's odd how Reason hasn't covered either of
those. The Orange Line runs silent and deep!)
2. Various kinds of sites "clean-up" their comments sections; see
examples here.
Just recently, Alternet "clean-up" one, I'm
StillBannedFromCrooksAndLiars, BoingBoing (the site Reason wants to
be) DeletedACoupleFromMe, and so on.
Episiarch|7.16.08 @ 3:20PM|#
It took you OverFiftyPosts to show up, LoneMoron. You're losing your edge.
Fluffy|7.16.08 @ 3:21PM|#
Or were you assuming that the bullshit attitudes of elitist
pricks in New York represent a valid description of us dumb yokels
in the fly-over states.
Jesus Christ you fucking people need to be held by the fucking
hand, don't you?
I am trying to explain the joke.
That means that I have to describe the frame of mind that informs
the joke.
Or did you mess the whole part of my post where I made up a fake
quote from the cartoonist's perspective?
|7.16.08 @ 3:22PM|#
I'm going to guess that ed's resume doesn't inlcude a BA in
Communications and a summa cum laude.
It's just a friggin' magazine cover. It's not that
important, Uh, yeah, since when does imagery that gets passed
around in the media influence political campaigns? What are you,
kidding me?
and you can't do a thing about it. I was talking about the
Obama campaign's pushback, Einstein, not mine. You might have
figured that out, by looking at the little question in italics,
which was Why on earth did Obama's campaign complain about
this?
Bingo|7.16.08 @ 3:23PM|#
Lonewacko is like the crazy guy on the street corner yelling about stuff that no one cares about, only he does it on the internet.
Fluffy|7.16.08 @ 3:27PM|#
Shorter Fluffy: when I put a black lawn jockey in my yard,
it's ironic. Everyone knows that!
Nope, not even close.
I know you understand the joke.
You know I know it.
By continuing to pretend that you don't know it, you're just being
a big fat motherfucking liar.
But that's OK for you, I suppose, because we should have known that
you would turn into a big fat motherfucking liar if that was what
the Democrat talking point of the day demanded.
Everyone here knows I hate McCain. As a practical matter, by hoping
for a crushing McCain defeat, that means I am rooting for an Obama
victory, because obviously Barr can't possibly win. So I am
obviously not interjecting myself into this thread to pick on
Obama.
I'm just not going to swallow every piece of bullshit spin the
Obama campaign puts out between now and November, no matter how
much I hate John McCain. And that's what this is.
I have no doubt there are lots of people on the Democrat side who
are flat out too stupid to get the joke, and who see a picture of
Michelle Obama as a black militant and immediately play the race
card. Their outrage is genuine, but stupid. Your outrage is not
genuine, because I know that you understand the joke. And
demonstrating faux outrage makes you a gigantic douchebag. Period.
There is little in this world lower than faux outrage. There is
little that has done more to putrefy and debase our political
debate than faux outrage. So shove it up your ass.
|7.16.08 @ 3:27PM|#
If it wasn't for thin-skinned Progressives, I wouldn't know what to think about anything. I might see some sort of hate crime, and think it was merely lame.
|7.16.08 @ 3:29PM|#
"It's just a friggin' magazine cover. It's not that important,
Uh, yeah, since when does imagery that gets passed around in the
media influence political campaigns? What are you, kidding
me?"
Yes Joe. The Obama campaign is doomed because of a cartoon on the
cover of magazine no one has read in 40 years will cause all of
America will think he is a terrorist Muslim. Come on. This is
stupid.
Elemenope|7.16.08 @ 3:31PM|#
I've been using [citation needed] lately. I need a sign with
that to carry with me. Reference xkcd.
I've always loved that one.
As for your request, R C Dean, I wasn't trying to argue that a
*particular* incident of Baracknaphobia was started by McCain
surrogates. I meant only to imply that it was *laughably naive* to
think that McCain's campaign does not engage in this stuff through
surrogates.
Everyone does it. *Everyone*.
ed|7.16.08 @ 3:32PM|#
Michelle should be pleased with her caricature. The artist could have easily exaggerated her dishwasher-sized butt (giving her a legitimate complaint) but instead he made her into a thin, hot militant babe. If that's an insult--and as bad as it ever gets--she should be grateful.
|7.16.08 @ 3:32PM|#
FWIW, I smirked at the cartoon. The Obama campaigns' (faux) outrage is overdone, but from my perspective so is the outrage about the outrage.
Fluffy|7.16.08 @ 3:33PM|#
And by the way, don't EVEN fall back to,
"Well, even if this is a pro-Obama joke, it's bad that the 'imagery
get out there', anyway."
Not saying that you're about to say this, but other have. And it's
absolutely wrong. Every act of communication gets to get judged on
its own merits, by its own actual demonstrable content, context and
intent. The fact that "imagery getting out there" might "normalize"
the use of such imagery by dumbass yokel chain-email-believing
retard rednecks doesn't mean a god damn thing.
That whole subset of people who are saying, "Well, we know what the
cartoonist meant, but we're still going to pretend to be outraged,
because we want to discourage others from using similar imagery
with different intent and meaning," are pathetic. Openly admitting
that you've decided to be both disingenuous and unjust is no way to
convince me of your point, folks.
iowan|7.16.08 @ 3:34PM|#
Jesus Christ you fucking people need to be held by the
fucking hand, don't you?
Of course, I'm from flyover country.
I am trying to explain the joke.
Wasted effort.
That means that I have to describe the frame of mind that
informs the joke.
You did not do that well.
Or did you mess the whole part of my post where I made up a
fake quote from the cartoonist's perspective?
You need to work on your communications skills.
|7.16.08 @ 3:35PM|#
This could have played well for Obama. But it seems that it is just making him and his supporters look like humorless pricks.
Fluffy|7.16.08 @ 3:40PM|#
You know what? Fuck it, Iowan.
If you want to pretend that when I wrote:
Lovey, those silly hicks between here and Vail think all sorts
of idiotic things about Obama. Isn't it funny to think about how
stupid the average provincial American is, and then to laugh at
them from our vantage point of comfortable cultural
superiority?
...then you are, in fact, a stupid hick, and if you think I'm
making fun of your state that's just fine, and maybe you should go
pick some corn now and shut the fuck up.
Fluffy|7.16.08 @ 3:42PM|#
...then you are, in fact, a stupid hick, and if you think
I'm making fun of your state that's just fine, and maybe you should
go pick some corn now and shut the fuck up.
That should have read:
...I was describing my own state of mind, then you are, in
fact, a stupid hick, and if you think I'm making fun of your state
that's just fine, and maybe you should go pick some corn now and
shut the fuck up.
Joe's law strikes again.
Episiarch|7.16.08 @ 3:46PM|#
maybe you should go pick some corn now and shut the fuck
up
...
And demonstrating faux outrage makes you a gigantic
douchebag.
It's not "queef" but damn it's still entertaining.
iowan|7.16.08 @ 3:49PM|#
...I was describing my own state of mind, . . .
My last post did not accuse you of evil intent. It said that you
need to work on your writing skills. The post as written is
disjointed and it was not clear what message you were trying to get
across.
Generally speaking, trying to explain jokes leads no where
good.
|7.16.08 @ 3:55PM|#
This could have played well for Obama. But it seems that it
is just making him and his supporters look like humorless
pricks.>/i>
Well, there are no jokes in Islam.
ed|7.16.08 @ 3:55PM|#
crypto-sexism
It isn't sexism if it's true.
My god, you could park a plane on that tarmac.
Dagny T. |7.16.08 @ 3:56PM|#
Some ethanol musta found its way into iowan's cornflakes this
morning.
Fluffy makes a good point. Pretending to be dumber than one
actually is is pretty icky. Seems to be a national passtime, though
(see Hil's inane whining about globalization or Obama's waffling on
free trade).
|7.16.08 @ 3:59PM|#
To be honest with you, we're just looking for the
Truthers.
They're everywhere.
This is oddly plausible.
Bingo|7.16.08 @ 4:00PM|#
iowan is obtuse but the mind naturally develops like that when all you got to look at are cornfields and those fine-lookin ewes.
|7.16.08 @ 4:01PM|#
I'm sorry you lost it, Fluffy, but don't expect me to read the rest of your tirades, if you're going to flip out like that.
|7.16.08 @ 4:02PM|#
"Well, there are no jokes in Islam."
Obama is just an uptight whinny white guy in a half black body. He
is a lot more Steve Urkell than Malcolm X. I cant for the life of
me see why anyone finds him charismatic. Hell, he could be a
hardcore conservative Republican and I would still think he is a
dork.
|7.16.08 @ 4:04PM|#
Obama is just an uptight whinny white guy in a half black body.
OK, you hit my pet peeve. Defining "whiteness" or race in general as personality traits or even cultural values.
|7.16.08 @ 4:07PM|#
"OK, you hit my pet peeve. Defining "whiteness" or race in
general as personality traits or even cultural values."
There is a difference in culture betweeen white people and black
people. Not that one is better than the other. Granted, that is a
generality. I have known white people that pretty black and black
people who are whiter thna I am. Call it what you want. Maybe black
versus white has too much history to use. But, Obama strikes me as
your typical earnest, dorky liberal beta male. Most of the people
who fit that description are white, but as Obama shows, not
all.
Fluffy|7.16.08 @ 4:08PM|#
I'm sorry you lost it, Fluffy, but don't expect me to read
the rest of your tirades, if you're going to flip out like
that.
And now you sink even lower.
You've made the transition from "guy being disingenuous to attempt
to maintain a talking point" to "guy declaring that if someone uses
the word 'douchebag' he doesn't have to respond to the substance of
the point".
You are now Hugh Hewitt. Congratulations.
|7.16.08 @ 4:10PM|#
What, exactly, is supposed to make it clear that this is a satire of the smears against the Obamas, and not just a repetition of them?
Orange Line Special|7.16.08 @ 4:11PM|#
Bingo writes: Lonewacko is like the crazy guy on the street
corner yelling about stuff that no one cares about, only he does it
on the internet.
Oddly enough, I've received thousands of hits to this post about
BHO's "forces", and it's been discussed by many other sites.
Just not the "libertarians" at Reason for some odd reason. Maybe
they're looking forward to the nifty uniforms or something.
And, one might think that a pledge to drive
"hate" off the air might be of interest to libertarians, but
not so the "libertarians" at Reason.
Odd.
iowan|7.16.08 @ 4:11PM|#
Joe, you're absolutely wrong.
You know what is being exaggerated? The stupidity of people in the
flyover states.
That's what the people objecting to the cartoon either don't get,
or are pretending not to get so they can hold a pity party to try
to disingenuously generate sympathy for Obama.
When that image appears as a New Yorker cartoon, the joke is saying
- in much the same way one urbane New Yorker reader might say to
another - "Lovey, those silly hicks between here and Vail think all
sorts of idiotic things about Obama. Isn't it funny to think about
how stupid the average provincial American is, and then to laugh at
them from our vantage point of comfortable cultural
superiority?"
It's exaggerating the misconceptions stupid people have of Obama to
laugh at stupid people, and not at the Obamas. I would bet you that
the New Yorker's readership would poll about as well for McCain as
the Upper West Side would or as the Harvard faculty would. They're
not mocking the Obamas; they're mocking the average Savage radio
show listener.
OK, I've read this half a dozen times now, and I still not sure who
Fluffy thinks New Yoker is making fun of.
Rick H.|7.16.08 @ 4:11PM|#
Fluffy said it best. Watching all the loopy and ignorant commentary about this pile of nonsense, on certain lefty blogs I once respected, has been very dispiriting.
|7.16.08 @ 4:13PM|#
iowan,
OK, I've read this half a dozen times now, and I still not sure
who Fluffy thinks New Yoker is making fun of.
Oh, you understand. Of course you understand. You're just
pretending not to understand to make a point.
Gaaah Aarrgh Gack!!!! *Falls under desk*
ed|7.16.08 @ 4:13PM|#
OK, this makes no sense and you know it.
How is it "sexism" to point out that a woman has a large ass? It's
a simple observation.
Fluffy|7.16.08 @ 4:15PM|#
What, exactly, is supposed to make it clear that this is a
satire of the smears against the Obamas, and not just a repetition
of them?
1. Their context.
2. The over-the-top juxtaposition of every one of the smears in one
absurd image.
It is difficult to mock the lowbrow right wing these days,
precisely because they have lowered the bar so far that it's
difficult to get under it far enough to make the point. But the
cartoonist has done it here because it's clearly mockery.
It's like asking for a verbal explanation of what makes it clear
that the racial epithets in Blazing Saddles are satire.
The answer is "Um, watch the movie."
|7.16.08 @ 4:16PM|#
Nice follow-up by Coates. The man realizes that sometimes you
have to backpedal to move forward.
joe asks "What, exactly, is supposed to make it clear that this is
a satire of the smears against the Obamas, and not just a
repetition of them?"
My answer: Perhaps the big ass words THE NEW YORKER printed at the
top of the page?
|7.16.08 @ 4:16PM|#
Speaking of the Michelle caricature: does Michelle Obama have a tight, curly afro?
|7.16.08 @ 4:22PM|#
Most of the people who fit that description are white, but as Obama shows, not all.
That's my whole point. Generalities have some use, but they start falling apart at the individual level. On a personal level, even though I'm black, I fit more generally into indie culture than any stereotypical conception of where I should fit in. Then I saw Afro-Punk and said, "ah."
|7.16.08 @ 4:23PM|#
1. Their context. What context? There is actually a
movie surrounding the racial jokes in Blazing Saddles. You can't
see those scenes without seeing the movie.
2. The over-the-top juxtaposition of every one of the smears in
one absurd image. Fluffy, you never got the "Barack HUSSEIN
Obama" email, did you? You want to talk about over-the-top
juxtopositions?
While piling them all on top of each other is a pretty good
indicator that the piece is satire, I don't see how it's supposed
to indicate that it's satire of the image rather than of the people
themselves.
Put it this way: if someone wanted to put together a propaganda
picture about the scary, black, radical, Mooslem, terrorist-loving,
America-hating Obamas, how would it look any different from this
cover?
Fluffy|7.16.08 @ 4:24PM|#
Here's another way to know that the images are satire:
Now, if the cover had shown that picture on a easel, while Rush
Limbaugh stood in front of it holding a paintbrush while looking at
a realistic view of the Obamas fist-bumping, that would be
exaggeration. It would be a slighly hyperbolic depiction of how the
righties see the Obamas.
The fact that in the very first post you made on the subject you
have already made it clear that you know that it's satire. By
writing this you're making it clear that you understand the cartoon
fully. You looked at the images and said, "Oh they're lampooning
what a stupid right winger thinks about the Obamas. But why didn't
they put a picture of Rush in there? That way all the retarded kids
out there would get the joke, too." You saw the satire, you just
are demanding the inclusion of an additional image to make it into
"paint by numbers, ram you over the head with it, painfully
obvious" satire. If your rule of thumb is "It's not satire until I
can be sure the most stupid person in the world will get the joke"
then you have a problem.
Episiarch|7.16.08 @ 4:24PM|#
OK, I've read this half a dozen times now, and I still not
sure who Fluffy thinks New Yoker is making fun of.
Dude, you are the one with reading comprehension problems.
Fluffy said "Lovey, those silly hicks between here and Vail think
all sorts of idiotic things about Obama. Isn't it funny to think
about how stupid the average provincial American is, and then to
laugh at them from our vantage point of comfortable cultural
superiority?"
He is giving his impression of what New Yorker readers
think about, well, you.
Maybe if you read that quote in a Thurston Howell III voice it'll
become more clear.
|7.16.08 @ 4:25PM|#
What, exactly, is supposed to make it clear that this is a
satire of the smears against the Obamas, and not just a repetition
of them?
That was my thought about the cover too. As someone who has never
read the New Yorker and don't know it's political leanings, I was
unsure about what the cover was implying.
If it wasn't for the commentary by others I could have easily have
seen the cover and thought that the New Yorker actually sees the
Obamas that way. I could have also perceived it to be a caricature
of the smears because I would assume no legitimate publication
would really run a cover like that to attack a major candidate. But
I would have to make certain assumptions to draw the latter
conclustion -- assumptions that, without being familiar with the
New Yorker, I don't think I would have made.
I wish I would have seen the cover before I had seen the reaction
to it.
It wasn't an over the top depiction of the smears and it wasn't
obvious parody. In fact it basically was an illustration of the
things that are being said about him without hyperbole or
exaggeration.
Although I don't think the cover is inherently offensive (now that
I know their intent), I do think that whoever penned it and whoever
chose to run it need to either get better at satire/parody or just
stop trying -- cuz this was a FAIL. If I can't tell what message
they are trying to get across without reading an accompanying
article or a critique of the thing, then they haven't really done a
good job.
|7.16.08 @ 4:26PM|#
For the record, I don't think that the cartoon is dangerous at
all, and I highly doubt that it'll convert anyone who was going to
vote for Obama into a McCain voter. I do think it's bad satire
though, not because it doesn't exaggerate Barack Obama, but becase
it doesn't exaggerate the smears about him. It's literally is just
a reflection of those smears. Nothing else. It's almost like a joke
that's all setup and no punchline.
I want to be clear about what my argument is. I don't think the
cartoon does any damage. I don't think it's "racist." I don't think
the NYer is part of some nefarious plot. I just, Didn't. Like. The
picture. Seriously, nothing more than that.
Exactly. I know enough about the guy who plays Kramer to know what
he was going for when he went off on his little "nigger" tirade -
he was trying to do a bit about people who freak out over black
people. It still sucked, because there wasn't any "bit about people
who..." in that bit. It was just him, freaking out over a black
person.
|7.16.08 @ 4:26PM|#
After all, people buy into aspects of culture at the individual level. BTW, I'm reading Coates' Cosby article now. Long, but good.
|7.16.08 @ 4:28PM|#
Fluffy, I think you need to apologize to ChicagoTom.
You just called him a retarded kid.
|7.16.08 @ 4:28PM|#
Anyway, I feel sort of dumb for even writing that post. I
got lumped in with all the other nitwits who are running around
talking about how they're now going to cancel their New Yorker
subscription.
I don't subscribe to The New Yorker along with about 300,000,000
other americans....are we all nitwits?
Plus there is the obvious reasoning that the cover was simply a
ploy to increase readership...are people who cancel because of that
reasoning also nitwits?
How about people who just really don't think about it and subscribe
but because the very subject of canceling came up because of this
cover thing and despite having really no feelings one way or the
other about the cover simply realized that they really don't like
the New yorker so canceled...are they nitwits?
Episiarch|7.16.08 @ 4:29PM|#
joe asks "What, exactly, is supposed to make it clear that
this is a satire of the smears against the Obamas, and not just a
repetition of them?"
My answer: Perhaps the big ass words THE NEW YORKER printed at the
top of the page?
joe, you need to read what CN wrote here. Because if you aren't
being utterly fucking dishonest, it would have to mean that you
think The New Yorker would actually print a picture like
that that isn't satire.
Which is it?
iowan|7.16.08 @ 4:30PM|#
Dude, you are the one with reading comprehension
problems.
You know what is being exaggerated? The stupidity of people
in the flyover states.
Perhaps I got stuck at the short, clearly-unambiguous declarative
statement at the beginning of the post. Perhaps I failed to give
Fluffy the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps I assumed that Fluffy was
just a dickhead and that the rest of the post wasn't worth paying
much attention to. Perhaps.
|7.16.08 @ 4:31PM|#
The fact that in the very first post you made on the subject
you have already made it clear that you know that it's satire. By
writing this you're making it clear that you understand the cartoon
fully.
What a crock of shit.
He may know that NOW -- after so much discussion has occurred. But
that doesn't mean he knew it the first time he or anyone saw the
cover.
Unless you are a reader of the New Yorker or very familiar with it,
there was no context to make one think it was parody.
Anyone who believes that because its on the cover of "The New
Yorker" somehow gives it the proper context is a fucking
moron.
Is the New York post liberal too? I mean it has New York in its
name so it must be right?
|7.16.08 @ 4:34PM|#
Here's the thread about the Michael Richards brouhahah.
http://www.reason.com/news/show/116845.html
Not seeing a whole lot of "but he was trying to tell a joke" on
that thread.
|7.16.08 @ 4:37PM|#
I'm supposed to know that the New Yorker would't be trading in
racial stereotypes, because...they're liberal? They're New Yorkers?
They're from the city where Hillary and Geraldine live? Because
mainsteam media publications couldn't possibly get caught up in the
lunatic smears that have been thrown Barack Obama's way?
Quick, call me dishonest and swear again, because this line of
argument isn't going anywhere good.
Episiarch|7.16.08 @ 4:37PM|#
Anyone who believes that because its on the cover of "The
New Yorker" somehow gives it the proper context is a fucking
moron.
First of all, I'm surprised that you have no idea what The New
Yorker is about, because it's the epitome of the monocled,
top-hat-wearing, opera-and-dinner-at-the-Guggenheim-function
stereotype.
Secondly, it's not our fault you don't know. The New
Yorker may be a bit of an inside joke but then, if you see the
cover, you go find out what it's about, right?
|7.16.08 @ 4:37PM|#
"On a personal level, even though I'm black, I fit more
generally into indie culture than any stereotypical conception of
where I should fit in. Then I saw Afro-Punk and said, "ah.""
At least you fit in somewhere. I am a conservative republican but
find upper class white people highly annoying most of the time and
never fit in with them. Try being that sometime.
|7.16.08 @ 4:38PM|#
Of course.
I mean, I buy every magazine whose cover I see. Especially the ones
that have racial caricatures on them.
You aren't making any sense.
Fluffy|7.16.08 @ 4:39PM|#
Fluffy, I think you need to apologize to ChicagoTom.
You just called him a retarded kid.
ChicagoTom also admitted to not having enough familiarity with the
New Yorker to know where they were coming from.
If that's really the case, then we'll just have to leave him out of
the discussion.
Because I hate to say it, but any reasonably literate person should
have that information just as cultural baggage.
It's not even a matter of the magazine's political leanings.
Politics actually has little to do with it. Culturally,
the New Yorker stands for highbrow east Coast opinion and always
has. Their viewpoint has always been one of elite "coastal"
opinion. Iowan seems to think that I'm a huge jerk because I can
immediately decode where they're coming from, and maybe it does.
But no one with the level of familiarity with the magazine
appropriate for an educated and aware American would fail to
understand that the cartoon is making fun of "people who aren't
like us, the really really smart readership of the New Yorker, with
all their silly beliefs about Obama."
By the way, Iowan is being pretty reasonable now and making me look
like a big dick. Damn you and your trickery, Iowan!
|7.16.08 @ 4:41PM|#
How many people have canceled their subscriptions to the New Yorker over Seymor Hersch articles?
|7.16.08 @ 4:41PM|#
John,
Henry David Thoreau and Ted Kaczyn--the Unabomber didn't fit in
very well, and at least one of them was a success.
Fluffy|7.16.08 @ 4:42PM|#
Anyone who believes that because its on the cover of "The
New Yorker" somehow gives it the proper context is a fucking
moron.
Well, I tried to be delicate about it in my other post mentioning
you, but I guess if you're going to be a dick about it I'll just if
you really think this, just fucking go on "Jaywalk All-Stars" right
now, because you're a half-educated rube.
|7.16.08 @ 4:43PM|#
ChicagoTom,
Are you really that clueless about The New Yorker or just
pretending? I hope it's the latter.
|7.16.08 @ 4:44PM|#
OK, so he's an illeterate retarded kid. Nice.
Now, of course, you know that ChicagoTom is, in fact, an
intelligent, educated, thoughtful, sophistacated person. Not some
hillbilly from Iowa at all. (Yes, I know. That's the humor.)
But it's grotesquely false, to the point that you need to start
ranting about "motherfucking liars" for me to say that there is not
enough context on that cover to convey the artist's intent.
OK.
Fluffy|7.16.08 @ 4:45PM|#
And btw, since Joe and now Chicago Tom are trying to pretend
that Joe still doesn't get the joke -
Give me a fucking break.
You Roveian bastards.
"We got called on our bullshit? No problem, we'll just continue to
deny. They'll get tired of correcting us before we'll get tired of
our pretense."
Now you're not even Hugh Hewitt. Now you're Michelle fucking
Malkin.
|7.16.08 @ 4:45PM|#
And apparently joe is as clueless as ChicagoTom, at least when it comes to magazines and American culture.
|7.16.08 @ 4:46PM|#
I admit it. I'm a New Yorker subscriber. I'm from James Thurber's hometown. It's mandatory.
|7.16.08 @ 4:48PM|#
You know what?
It's good to know that I'm never going to be accused of racism,
racial stereotyping, or having a tin ear about racial issues, ever
again, on these threads.
I'm about as "highbrow east Coast opinion" as one can be. So,
obviously, if anything I write could even remotely be interpreted
as being less than perfectly enlightened about any racial, gender,
ethnic, or religious grouop, you'll all just assume that it's
brilliant satire. Because I come from Massachusetts, dahling.
Right?
Episiarch|7.16.08 @ 4:49PM|#
Because mainsteam media publications couldn't possibly get
caught up in the lunatic smears that have been thrown Barack
Obama's way?
joe, the idea of The New Yorker doing anything that crude
is laughable. For fuck's sake, it's the paper where you look for
listings for apartments for sale on CPW for $8 million.
|7.16.08 @ 4:50PM|#
Oh, well, if they're rich, liberal, and from New York, then that's that, Episiarch.
|7.16.08 @ 4:50PM|#
What, exactly, is supposed to make it clear that this is a
satire of the smears against the Obamas, and not just a repetition
of them?
If The New Yorker printed a mock up of Bush blowing up the twin
towers it would just be a repetition of Truether smears
right?
Wrong. It would be satire.
Printing cartoons of smears propagated from deleted commenter posts
on obscure blogs is not "just a repetition of them". It is exposing
their absurdity.
|7.16.08 @ 4:51PM|#
I'm from James Thurber's hometown.
Woot woot! Incidentally (I'm like an old guy who tells the same story over and over again) I read my first issue of Reason at the Columbus Metropolitan Library. Plus, I used to check out movies a lot there. They had a great collection.
|7.16.08 @ 4:52PM|#
Of course, j.c, the idiot Republicans wouldn't get it, and there'd be a big kerfluffle.
Fluffy|7.16.08 @ 4:54PM|#
Citizen Nothing -
I think they're pretending. Partially to poke me with a stick, and
in Joe's case because his chief loyalty remains the talking
point.
Even though in posts not pointed directly at me he's as much as
come out and admitted he got the joke, he's not going to back away
from denouncing the New Yorker, because that's what the Obama
campaign is doing today, so joe will fight to find a way to justify
it no matter what the facts are.
It's like when Obama fucked over the civil libertarians among his
supporters on the FISA bill, and joe contorted himself into 100
different shapes to try to find a way to claim that it wasn't a
fucking. Anything directly related to the campaign, you can not
really count on joe to honestly argue for the next few months.
General issues of policy and philosophy, he'll probably be the same
old joe, but if Obama's name is involved he's going to act as if he
is the campaign spokesman and that's pretty much that.
That's where this whole "I'm going to demand ever more detailed
descriptions and explanations of a visual joke, even though I've
already made it clear that I already understand it. That way it
will take the focus off my disingenuousness and faux outrage,"
thing comes from.
|7.16.08 @ 4:54PM|#
Printing cartoons of smears propagated from deleted commenter posts on obscure blogs is not "just a repetition of them". It is exposing their absurdity.
Is this one a' them vicious loops?
So, obviously, if anything I write could even remotely be interpreted as being less than perfectly enlightened about any racial, gender, ethnic, or religious grouop, you'll all just assume that it's brilliant satire.
It was pretty funny when you called me "that colored fella." [citation needed]
|7.16.08 @ 4:57PM|#
If The New Yorker printed a mock up of Bush blowing up the
twin towers it would just be a repetition of Truether smears
right?
I'd think that they were slagging on George Bush, and not the
Troofers.
If the cartoon-Dubya was wearing a huge cowboy hat and boots, with
an 8-ball of coke falling out of his pocket, yadda yadda yadda with
all of the stereotypes, I'd be even more likely to see it that
way.
Fluffy|7.16.08 @ 4:57PM|#
It's good to know that I'm never going to be accused of
racism, racial stereotyping, or having a tin ear about racial
issues, ever again, on these threads.
I'm about as "highbrow east Coast opinion" as one can be. So,
obviously, if anything I write could even remotely be interpreted
as being less than perfectly enlightened about any racial, gender,
ethnic, or religious grouop, you'll all just assume that it's
brilliant satire. Because I come from Massachusetts, dahling.
Right?
Actually, I remember a thread where you compared someone else's
point to a belief that blacks engaged in some stereotypical
activity, and either John or Guy Montag or one of that crew went on
and on for hours about how the fact that you would employ such an
example meant that you were secretly racist.
That's what you're doing now.
|7.16.08 @ 4:58PM|#
I think the main problem with joe is that, unlike The New
Yorker, he does not realizes that all the hoopla about Obama smears
is a fabrication of the fringe and not a main stream
phenomena.
Joe seriously thinks there are Conservative think tanks dreaming
this stuff up rather then the fact that it is simply weirdos in
basements that are getting play time on MSM simply because of how
off the wall it is and the fact that left leaning elements in MSM
think it might garner Obama sympathy.
|7.16.08 @ 4:59PM|#
Fluffy can't refute anything I've written, so he's on to Plan
B:
"joe is a Democrat. What he's saying favors the Democrat.
Therefore, he must be wrong."
Yawn.
|7.16.08 @ 5:00PM|#
That's what you're doing now.
Except I haven't accused the New Yorker of being racist, just of
putting out a bad cartoon that is easy to misunderstand.
So no, not really.
iowan|7.16.08 @ 5:01PM|#
First of all, I'm surprised that you have no idea what The
New Yorker is about, because it's the epitome of the monocled,
top-hat-wearing, opera-and-dinner-at-the-Guggenheim-function
stereotype.
As a hick from flyoever country, I had actually no idea what kind
of rag New Yorker is ;-)
|7.16.08 @ 5:03PM|#
joshua,
You misunderstand. I know that the smears depicted in this cartoon,
the ones from the email, aren't coming out of the McCain campaign
or AEI or the RNC. I think your Truther comparison is a good
one.
I also know that those smears are believed by a surprisingly large
segment of the population. That's my problem here.
|7.16.08 @ 5:03PM|#
Well, I tried to be delicate about it in my other post
mentioning you, but I guess if you're going to be a dick about it
I'll just if you really think this, just fucking go on "Jaywalk
All-Stars" right now, because you're a half-educated
rube.
*I* am being the dick? The guy who thinks that everyone should be
as aware as they are is the dick?? Really? Project much
asshole?
SHorter Fluffy: ANYONE WHO ISNT AS AWARE OF EVERY LIBERAL MAG LIKE
I AM IS A RUBE.
Hey Fluffy -- Go fuck yourself, ok?
Are you really that clueless about The New Yorker or just
pretending? I hope it's the latter.
Why would I pretend? And why am I supposed to be familiar with the
New Yorker? Is the New Yorker like USA Today or something? I don't
get why "THE NEW YORKER" is something everyone is supposed to be
aware of, much less have it's political leanings be common
knowledge?
And apparently joe is as clueless as ChicagoTom, at least when
it comes to magazines and American culture.
Yes, not being very away of every piece of shit magazine out there
makes one "clueless". ANYONE WHO ISNT AWARE OF REASON AND ITS
POLITICAL LEANINGS ARE CLUELESS!!!!!!!
I think they're pretending. Partially to poke me with a stick,
....
You flatter yourself too much. Like I give a fuck about you to such
an extent.
The bottom line is that you are the one attacking others and
calling people liars because you just can't acknowledge that you
assumed everyone has the same degree of knowledge or insight as you
do, you fucking asswipe.
|7.16.08 @ 5:06PM|#
You have just as much knowledge and insight as Fluffy,
ChiTom.
But being from Chicago, yours is less centered on New York as some
people's.
No Name Guy|7.16.08 @ 5:07PM|#
Is the next four years going to be one, big, long, stupid
argument that goes:
"RACIST!"
Nu-uh, you're the REAL RACIST!"
Please tell me no.
Episiarch|7.16.08 @ 5:07PM|#
I'm about as "highbrow east Coast opinion" as one can
be.
No, you are about as "Obama campaign talking points" as one can be.
Maybe you really don't know what The New Yorker
is about if you think your working-class Irish Masshole ass is
anything like that.
|7.16.08 @ 5:07PM|#
ChicagoTom also admitted to not having enough familiarity
with the New Yorker to know where they were coming from.
If that's really the case, then we'll just have to leave him out of
the discussion.
You know what's funny...it's people like me (people who are
unfamiliar with the NEW YORKER) who are the whole point of the
discussion.
The fact is that to someone who isn't aware of the mag and its
politics, this cover is a hardly a good example of parody/satire.
And that is exactly the point of the whole thing.
The satire only works for "insiders" or political junkies. I would
imagine that most people don't have a keen understanding of the
political leanings of the New Yorker -- hence the bruhaha.
|7.16.08 @ 5:10PM|#
Maybe if you write the words "talking points" a few more times,
Episiarch, no one will notice that you can't answer my questions or
rebut my arguments.
Maybe, if you're really lucky, nobody will notice that I have never
claimed to misunderstand what the cartoonist was going for, or that
my criticism is entirely that he failed to convey his point.
Fluffy|7.16.08 @ 5:10PM|#
Joe, I have refuted EVERYTHING you have written.
The bottom line is this:
The cartoon was a satire of the false beliefs about Obama by the
lumpenproletariat of the right wing.
You have acknowledged this. You may say that it wasn't well
executed, or that the inclusion of additional images may have made
that more immediately clear to the uninformed casual viewer of the
magazine cover. But that doesn't actually matter to the substance
of the argument. You've acknowledged that you do, in fact,
understand what the cartoon is about, and have also stated
explicitly that it's not racist, wasn't intended to harm the Obama
campaign, and won't have any harmful impact on the Obama
campaign.
My point remains that if all the things you have acknowledged are
true, there are no grounds for criticizing the New Yorker, and that
the outrage being directed at the cartoon by the Obama campaign is
disingenuous and unjust.
You have made separate counterclaims to my point:
You have pretended that the cartoon contains insufficient clues to
the joke - even though you understood and understand the joke. It
is not possible for the cartoon to be insufficiently clear if you
and I can understand it.
You have, contradictorily, said that even if the images in this
context aren't intended as abuse of the Obamas, you have to
denounce them anyway, because you want it to remain disreputable to
use caricatures to depict the Obamas. Any my response to this is
that it's also absurdly unjust to denounce someone for using a
non-abusive caricature because you're afraid that someone else
might use an abusive one.
For you to refute my points, you would have to prove:
1. A reasonably well informed person would not have any way to know
that the cartoon was satire.
or
2. It is fair to run the New Yorker through the ringer because
someone else might someday employ the same images in a
non-satirical way.
I don't see how you can prove either of those things. Sorry.
|7.16.08 @ 5:10PM|#
But being from Chicago, yours is less centered on New York
as some people's.
Apparently, I am just a rube or a liar. So say Flully, Episarch,
and Citizen Nothing -- it can't be that I just really am unfamiliar
with some little POS magazine.
What the fuck is wrong with some people?
|7.16.08 @ 5:11PM|#
How can an otherwise intelligent, obviously literate, American
have absolutely no knowledge of such a venerable and culturally
important institution such as The New Yorker?
I blame the schools.
|7.16.08 @ 5:12PM|#
I also know that those smears are believed by a surprisingly
large segment of the population. That's my problem here.
Then you should look at the polls of how many people believe in
Angels, bigfoot, and UFOs,....then realize that these people vote,
get over it and move on.
|7.16.08 @ 5:12PM|#
1. A reasonably well informed person would not have any way
to know that the cartoon was satire.
Unless they are aware of the political leanings of the Magazine in
question, a reasonably well informed person would have absolutely
no clue that this was satire.
In fact this was proven above when people said that it HAD to be
satire -- cuz it was on the cover of the New Yorker.
|7.16.08 @ 5:14PM|#
My point remains that if all the things you have
acknowledged are true, there are no grounds for criticizing the New
Yorker
Yes, there are.
1. The cartoon sucked.
2. Normalizing such imagery, putting it out there as something
decent people may do, encourages low-lifes to do the same.
It is not possible for the cartoon to be insufficiently clear
if you and I can understand it. Iowan and ChicagoTom, just to
name two, disagree.
|7.16.08 @ 5:16PM|#
joshua corning,
Believing in angels, BigFoot, and UFOs doesn't hurt anybody.
Racism bothers me more than those other things.
|7.16.08 @ 5:16PM|#
Then you should look at the polls of how many people believe in Angels, bigfoot, and UFOs
Uh, dude, you do realize Bigfoot is an angel and angels travel in UFOs, right?
|7.16.08 @ 5:18PM|#
It is not possible for the cartoon to be insufficiently
clear if you and I can understand it.
And I thought it was the liberals who are supposed to be the
elitists? Talk about the height of arrogance.
Just so we are clear here...other than being on the cover of the
New Yorker -- what made it plainly obvious that it was
satire?
Cuz I haven't seen any other reasons offered up?
|7.16.08 @ 5:18PM|#
"Uh, dude, you do realize Bigfoot is an angel and angels travel
in UFOs, right?"
Bigfoot is just another brown dude being kept down by the man.
Episiarch|7.16.08 @ 5:19PM|#
Tom, I didn't insult you, so lighten up. I just explained what the magazine was all about.
|7.16.08 @ 5:19PM|#
How can an otherwise intelligent, obviously literate,
American have absolutely no knowledge of such a venerable and
culturally important institution such as The New Yorker?
I blame the schools.
I think I am a product of bad parenting. You see instead of giving
me subscriptions to the New Yorker, I was instead given an order to
go get a job and earn my keep. I think that qualifies as child
abuse.
|7.16.08 @ 5:20PM|#
"Just so we are clear here...other than being on the cover of
the New Yorker -- what made it plainly obvious that it was
satire?"
If it is not obvious satire, then name me one person who thinks
that the person who drew it thinks that the Obamas are flag burning
terrorists? When you saw it, honestly did you think for even a
second, "my God the racists have taken over the New Yorker"? Was
there ever a trace of doubt in your mind what the cartoon was
saying? There sure wasn't in my mind.
Fluffy|7.16.08 @ 5:21PM|#
2. Normalizing such imagery, putting it out there as
something decent people may do, encourages low-lifes to do the
same.
Then you are admitting that my criticism of you is true.
You are admitting that you find it acceptable to punish someone for
using an image in a satirical way, because it might encourage
COMPLETELY DIFFERENT PEOPLE to use that image in a literal
way.
That means that, to you, the actual meaning and actual content of
the cartoon aren't relevant. You feel free to completely ignore the
actual meaning and the actual content of the cartoon because of the
potential meaning of some other image you've made up in your head
that might be used by a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT PERSON.
There's joe's concept of justice for you, everyone. Nice. Real
nice.
|7.16.08 @ 5:21PM|#
Brrrrrrrrr!
I'm going to go home and read some Seymour Hersh to my babies to
make sure the same doesn't happen to them.
Episiarch|7.16.08 @ 5:22PM|#
Normalizing such imagery, putting it out there as something
decent people may do, encourages low-lifes to do the
same.
So anything that might be mistaken by anyone ever should never be
printed?
|7.16.08 @ 5:22PM|#
Tom, I didn't insult you, so lighten up. I just explained
what the magazine was all about.
Ahem -- maybe my sarcasm detector is out of whack, but if you
weren't being sarcastic then this is insulting:
First of all, I'm surprised that you have no idea what The New
Yorker is about, because it's the epitome of the monocled,
top-hat-wearing, opera-and-dinner-at-the-Guggenheim-function
stereotype.
if you were being sarcastic than I happily apologize for throwing
you in with the likes of Fluffy.
No Name Guy|7.16.08 @ 5:23PM|#
Everyone does realize this whole New Yorker controversy will have exactly zero impact on the typical swing voter in Rustville, Michigan? Right?
Charles|7.16.08 @ 5:24PM|#
I think a good comparison might be (although it wouldn't really work, because so few magazines go for covers without many/any headlines etc) if National Review ran a cover with Cheney as Emperor Palpatine, or (in the opposite direction) if Reason ran one of Bush with angel wings and a halo shaped like a cowboy hat handing democracy to some Arab. Everyone would get it.
Episiarch|7.16.08 @ 5:25PM|#
if you were being sarcastic than I happily apologize for
throwing you in with the likes of Fluffy.
I wasn't being sarcastic, I was just surprised because it's such a
symbol of the stereotype I described.
I do realize that having lived on the Upper East Side of Manhattan
may skew my view a bit.
|7.16.08 @ 5:26PM|#
Well, I know a lot of blue-collar workers with subscriptions to the New Yorker. They never read the thing, they just look at the cover and form their opinions off of it. [citation needed]
Fluffy|7.16.08 @ 5:27PM|#
Unless they are aware of the political leanings of the
Magazine in question, a reasonably well informed person would have
absolutely no clue that this was satire.
No reasonably well informed person wouldn't know that, so your
objection has no merit.
And even if the magazine wasn't sufficiently well known that it
makes it incumbent on the reader to be informed, the context of the
cartoon would still matter.
It's not like Lew Rockwell is a household name, but if he put up a
cartoon of Ron Paul waving a Confederate flag and carrying a copy
of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and strangling Rosa Parks, I
would not think that Lew was trying to mock Paul. I would think
that Lew was trying to mock the distorted image of Paul propagated
in the media by his political opponents. And it wouldn't be
necessary for there to be anything IN THE CARTOON about it. The
context would be sufficient. And it would be incumbent on ME to
deduce the meaning from the context.
So, fine. You've never heard of the New Yorker before. That's not
the cartoonist's problem or concern, and has absolutely no impact
on the cartoon's meaning or intent.
|7.16.08 @ 5:27PM|#
If it is not obvious satire, then name me one person who
thinks that the person who drew it thinks that the Obamas are flag
burning terrorists? When you saw it, honestly did you think for
even a second, "my God the racists have taken over the New Yorker"?
Was there ever a trace of doubt in your mind what the cartoon was
saying? There sure wasn't in my mind.
John, read my earlier post on the matter...
When I first saw it, it was only after I had read commentary about
it -- so I knew the context alread.
But if I hadn't seen anything but the cover -- unless I was
familiar with the New Yorker already -- I would thought it was a
shot at the Obamas.
If that cover had been on the National Review or even on the front
page of the NY Post, would it obviously be satire as well? Or would
it be legitimate to think that there might be racists at the NR and
the NYP ?
If someone needs to have intimate knowledge of your publication in
order to get the message, then I think the message failed
|7.16.08 @ 5:31PM|#
Fluffy,
Bad example. Nobody knows who the hell Lew Rockwell is. Joe
Lunchpail probably would think it was some cartoonist with a
grudge.
Fluffy|7.16.08 @ 5:31PM|#
if Reason ran one of Bush with angel wings and a halo shaped
like a cowboy hat handing democracy to some Arab. Everyone would
get it.
And if National Review ran the same cartoon without
alteration, they might mean it literally. But that would be
irrelevant to the Reason cartoon.
In fact, it would make the Reason cartoon even more
apt.
It would be precisely because the people at the Corner would accept
the message literally that the image would be appropriate as
satire.
|7.16.08 @ 5:33PM|#
"If someone needs to have intimate knowledge of your publication
in order to get the message, then I think the message failed"
Yes the messsage failed and it was a stupid cartoon. I will give
you that.
Episiarch|7.16.08 @ 5:33PM|#
Fluffy's point (I think) is that if someone doesn't know enough about Paul or Rockwell to get that it's satire, then fuck them, that's their problem.
|7.16.08 @ 5:35PM|#
No reasonably well informed person wouldn't know that, so
your objection has no merit.
Fluffy, your whole argument has no merit.
I mean if we are gonna start from the position that everyone SHOULD
KNOW the political leanings of some obscure magazine, then talking
to you is a waste of time.
You cannot seriously be saying that in order to be reasonably well
informed you should know the politcal leanings of the New
Yorker.
The New Yorker is not like Time Magazine or Sports Illustrated. It
is not something that most people would be aware of by osmosis
because they advertise it so much. And even if you are aware of its
existence, why would someone who isn't a regular reader have any
assumptions about its politics?
So, fine. You've never heard of the New Yorker before. That's
not the cartoonist's problem or concern, and has absolutely no
impact on the cartoon's meaning or intent.
Actually it is the cartoonists and the editor's concern. Perception
is important.
Unless you think that magazines don't care if people outside of
their subscriber base dont give a fuck about how they are perceived
by others (one assumes they would want to to try and get them to be
subscribers, no?)
Fluffy|7.16.08 @ 5:35PM|#
Bad example. Nobody knows who the hell Lew Rockwell is. Joe
Lunchpail probably would think it was some cartoonist with a
grudge.
Would Joe Lunchpail be right, or wrong?
Once you pointed out the context to Joe Lunchpail, told him who Lew
was, gave him the rundown on the whole history, if he still
INSISTED that the cartoon was offensive - would he be right, or
would he just be a stubborn dickhead?
If after that conversation, Joe Lunchpail proceeded to walk around
for days, telling people about the "offensive" cartoon and trying
to use its existence to get sympathy for Paul as part of a game of
campaign spin, would his conduct be appropriate? Or would it make
him dishonest?
|7.16.08 @ 5:37PM|#
Point taken, Fluffy. But overall that sort of gamesmanship just seems silly to me.
|7.16.08 @ 5:39PM|#
Yes the messsage failed and it was a stupid cartoon. I will
give you that.
John that was my point entirely. It was a stupid cartoon with a
failed message that left them open to criticism.
I think the reaction has been a bit overblown but it is valid to
question their decision making ability of whoever decides what goes
on their cover.
If it were *MY* magazine, I would fire whoever decided to print
that cover because of the poor judgment and the bad PR.
|7.16.08 @ 5:39PM|#
Racism bothers me more than those other things.
I thought in order for something to be racist it had to be able to
exert power. The only power weirdos in basements have that I can
see is the power to make you and left leaning MSM go into
conniption fits.
I think you are conflating Racism with bigotry.
Fluffy|7.16.08 @ 5:41PM|#
You cannot seriously be saying that in order to be
reasonably well informed you should know the politcal leanings of
the New Yorker.
We're not going to agree on this and there's no real way to even
discuss it without being insulting.
Two hours ago I would not have thought that there was anyone
posting here who would not know that information just by, as you
say, osmosis. It's not like these are the American Idol message
boards or something.
Actually it is the cartoonists and the editor's concern.
Perception is important.
Unless you think that magazines don't care if people outside of
their subscriber base dont give a fuck about how they are perceived
by others
We're not talking about the magazine's marketing campaign, so no -
perception is NOT important. We're discussing whether the cartoon
was offensive, whether it was intended to lampoon Obama or his
opponents, and whether it's disingenous for the Obama campaign to
act as if the cartoon was a racial attack on the Obamas. That means
that perception is irrelevant and all that matters is the cartoon's
actual meaning, actual context, and actual intent. Unless you want
to be like joe and declare that you can blame someone for the
messages and images others might create, even when the content and
intent of those messages and images is the exact opposite of
yours.
|7.16.08 @ 5:43PM|#
Fluffy's point (I think) is that if someone doesn't know
enough about Paul or Rockwell to get that it's satire, then fuck
them, that's their problem.
And my point is that if someone is trying to be satirical and they
fail miserably and don't make it obvious, don't blame the people
who "don't get it" and call them rubes. Blame the people who don't
know how to properly do satire.
Good Satire, like all good comedy shouldn't have to be explained,
nor should one need some type of insight into the mind or beliefs
of the satirizor (is that a word?)
Fluffy|7.16.08 @ 5:46PM|#
Fluffy's point (I think) is that if someone doesn't know
enough about Paul or Rockwell to get that it's satire, then fuck
them, that's their problem.
To be precise, my point is that the fact that you don't know who
Rockwell is doesn't change the actual meaning of the cartoon in
that context.
Your lack of knowledge doesn't somehow reach inside Lew Rockwell's
brain and make him hate Ron Paul. It doesn't reach inside the
brains of all of Rockwell's regular readers who DID get the joke
and make them not get it. All your lack of knowledge does it leave
you outside, and make you wrong. And that's OK, until you start
trying to use the existence of the cartoon to lead a campaign
against Rockwell as an unfair Ron Paul hater. Then you're either
someone who doesn't know what they're talking about and is
embarrassing themselves, or you're someone who knows that you're
lying for some kind of political gain.
|7.16.08 @ 5:54PM|#
We're not going to agree on this and there's no real way to
even discuss it without being insulting.
There is nothing to agree on. You already insulted me, repeatedly,
and have told me that I am a liar or dumb because I am not aware of
the same magazines and their political beliefs as you.
You have exposed yourself as an arrogant and elitist dick.
We're discussing whether the cartoon was offensive, whether it
was intended to lampoon Obama or his opponents, and whether it's
disingenous for the Obama campaign to act as if the cartoon was a
racial attack on the Obamas.
No we aren't. We are talking about whether a reasonable person
could reasonably interpret the cover as offensive/racist or an
attack on the Obamas.
That means that perception is quite important. In fact, perception
is EVERYTHING.
Like I said earlier, knowing what I know now, I don't think that
the cartoon is meant to be racist or offensive. But the execution,
NOT THE intent, was offensive (to fans of satire at the very least)
and could reasonably be perceived as racist/offensive to someone
who is walking by a newsstand and sees the cover.
To me the true test is: If this ran on some other obscure magazine
that you don't know its political leanings, what message could one
infer just by looking at it's cover??
It is not unreasonable to think even though I get what they were
trying to do now that it has been explained, without that
explanation and without me ever having read the New Yorker, I would
think this was an attack on the Obamas.
Fluffy|7.16.08 @ 5:58PM|#
Actually, now that I think about it some more, I have been being
sort of a dick about the whole "Should you know what the New Yorker
is automatically" question.
I grew up in NY, and the magazine was always in the house when I
was a kid, and it is possible that I am mistaken about how
immediately obvious the magazine's nature should be to an
"informed" person. And because of that I am disparaging people like
ChicagoTom who are smart guys and don't deserve it.
And I am also doing exactly what Iowan thought I was doing -
slighting people out biases that arise from my own geographic
history.
And it actually hurt my position in the discussion, because it
shifted the focus of the debate to what people "should have known",
when in fact that's not important. That places the focus of the
discussion on "perception", even though I am arguing that
perception doesn't matter.
So I'll retract my previous statements, and say that I can
definitely see that the New Yorker is a niche interest and
basically a foible or indulgence of a particular type of affected
east coast person, and it's perfectly reasonable to not know where
they're coming from. But that doesn't change the fact that the
Obama campaign knows where they were coming from, and is
wilfully pretending that they don't. And that's pretty shitty. I
may be a geographically biased asshole, but at least I try to be
honest, and the Obama campaign is not trying to be honest.
Fluffy|7.16.08 @ 6:02PM|#
without that explanation and without me ever having read the
New Yorker, I would think this was an attack on the
Obamas.
But you would be wrong.
You might say that it would be reasonable for you to make a
mistake, but it would still be a mistake.
If it wasn't an attack on the Obamas, and as you say you realize
now that it was not an attack on the Obamas, then when you thought
it was an attack on the Obamas you were wrong.
And if you were to continue to portray it as an attack on the
Obamas, even after you knew it wasn't, you would be a liar.
And there are people who are doing that.
|7.16.08 @ 6:23PM|#
But you would be wrong.
Sure I would be.
But I would be justified in being wrong based on the information
presented. In and of itself, the cover is offensive. It's only not
offensive after it gets explained. Then the cover becomes merely
poor judgment and poor execution of satire.
But that doesn't change the fact that the Obama campaign knows
where they were coming from, and is wilfully pretending that they
don't.
The campaign may know where the New Yorker is coming from, but
wouldn't it be fair to think that the campaign believes that voters
might not know where the New Yorker is coming from and may get the
wrong impression -- especially low information voters or those who
only tangentially follow politics? I don't begrudge them for
pushing back and responding. If they didn't respond to it, I would
think something was wrong with the campaign.
Essentially, I don't think the cover hurts Obama -- it hurts the
New Yorker. But I don't fault campaigns for chiding publications
that publish stuff that can easily be interpreted as offensive and
for criticizing stuff that can be perceived as low-brow.
I mean even the McCain campaign attacked the cover and called it
inappropriate. I assume they did that because they want to be
perceived as being against this low-brow stuff as well.
|7.16.08 @ 6:27PM|#
Fluffy the Hysterical,
You are admitting that you find it acceptable to punish someone
for using an image in a satirical way, because it might encourage
COMPLETELY DIFFERENT PEOPLE to use that image in a literal
way. To ADMIT something, I would have to be somehow unhappy
about saying it, or wish to hide it. I don't ADMIT anything. I
openly, proudly, without the slightest hesitation, say that I don't
like this cartoon, because it's going to give lowlifes an
excuse.
That means that, to you, the actual meaning and actual content
of the cartoon aren't relevant. You feel free to completely ignore
the actual meaning and the actual content of the cartoon
There is a difference between authorial intent and "actual
meaning." People often misspeak or leave the wrong impression or
screw up, and convey something they didn't mean. This extends all
the way from RC's Law about typos to this cartoon. The cartoonist
intended this cartoon to have one "actual meaning," but because the
cartoon sucked, it had a different one.
because of the potential meaning of some other image you've
made up in your head I didn't make up anything. The
Obamas-as-anti-American-terrorists/Muslim smear is quite well
known, you know. Well-known enough for the illustrator to try, and
fail, to produce a satire about it.
Episiarch,
So anything that might be mistaken by anyone ever should never
be printed? Isn't it amazing what you can do with words like
"anyone," "ever," and "never?"
I think people, especially those who have highly visible soap
boxes, should have enough of a clue about, you know, not trading in
racial stereotypes that they make fine targets for rotten
vegetables when they screw up like this.
|7.16.08 @ 6:30PM|#
John,
If it is not obvious satire, then name me one person who thinks
that the person who drew it thinks that the Obamas are flag burning
terrorists?
It's obvious satire. It's not obvious that it is satire of the
sloped-headed troglodytes who send out the HUSSEIN emails. It's
quite easy to read that cartoon as being satire of the Obamas
themselves - satire about their being radical blah blah blah. That
is, as per my first comment, that portraying Barack in a keffiyeh
and Michelle with a flag in the fireplace is supposed to be an
exaggerated satire of them.
|7.16.08 @ 6:37PM|#
Not just an arrogant, elitist dick: one with a middle-school understanding of the relationship between meaning and intent, who presumes to think of himself as intellectually enlightened and wise in the ways of media, because of where he was born.
|7.16.08 @ 6:41PM|#
Two hours ago I would not have thought that there was anyone
posting here who would not know that information just by, as you
say, osmosis. It's not like these are the American Idol message
boards or something.
So, two hours ago, when you asserted that there couldn't possibly
be any objection to the racial caricatures in the cartoon because
everybody would obviously understand that author's intent, so there
was no way this cover could actually be read as being about the
Obamas rather than about the troglodytes, you were completely
talking out of your insular, provincial ass.
Fluffy|7.16.08 @ 6:43PM|#
In and of itself, the cover is offensive. It's only not
offensive after it gets explained.
This is so wrong that this is offensive.
The thing-in-itself includes its explanation. It can't be offensive
because you don't understand it. The thing-in-itself is not
offensive, and a person a state of error or lack of knowledge might
mistake it for something offensive.
To say otherwise elevates the person who is wrong and who lacks
knowledge into the position of moral arbiter. And that can't be
correct. The moral stature of the cartoonist and the moral status
of the cartoon is what it is, and you can either know it, or not.
And if you don't know it, the fact that you don't know it doesn't
change the moral stature of the cartoonist or the moral status of
the cartoon one iota.
We are now dealing with the cartoon version of "the appearance of
impropriety", and this is an object lesson in exactly how corrupt a
concept that is. The cartoon doesn't become morally blameworthy
because you don't know enough about the New Yorker to place it in
its context; there is either impropriety, or there is not
impropriety, and the "appearance" means nothing at all.
There is a difference between authorial intent and "actual
meaning." People often misspeak or leave the wrong impression or
screw up, and convey something they didn't mean.
Perhaps. Except the cartoonist in this case did none of those
things. I got the joke as soon as I saw it. It needed no
explanation. No one had to correct themselves or say they
misspoke.
There are people in the world who find the word "niggardly"
offensive. That is not because someone who uses that word
"misspeaks". The word has an actual meaning. It might take effort
for some people unfamiliar with the word to deduce that actual
meaning, but that doesn't matter relative to whether we should
praise or blame the speaker.
I openly, proudly, without the slightest hesitation, say that I
don't like this cartoon, because it's going to give lowlifes an
excuse.
This would mean that if you were to, for example, appear in a play
portraying a burglary, I should be allowed to throw you in jail
because someone else seeing that play might think that burglary was
now "normalized" and they should create actual burglary.
The meaning of the cartoon can be known.
If the meaning of the cartoon is not racist, then the cartoonist
cannot be blamed for promoting racism. Period.
If some other person sees the cartoon and says, "Hey, great! It is
now 'normalized' to portray Obama as Sambo, so I can publish my
magnum opus of Obama Sambo cartoons!" the moral blame for that
racist act will belong entirely, 100%, with the person who
publishes the Sambo cartoons. And not even 1 billionth of 1 percent
will reside with the New Yorker cartoonist.
Rush Limbaugh does some pretty egregious stuff with his song
"Barack the Magic Negro". But that does not mean that the person
who first wrote about the "Magic Negro" as a concept in film
criticism did anything offensive or blameworthy. The person who
wrote that was free to write it and morally under no obligation to
give even a moment's consideration to what some asshole might do
with what he was writing. One is morally responsible for the
meaning of one's own content and nothing else. Someone else
perverts it? That's their issue. Not yours.
Fluffy|7.16.08 @ 6:52PM|#
So, two hours ago, when you asserted that there couldn't
possibly be any objection to the racial caricatures in the cartoon
because everybody would obviously understand that author's intent,
so there was no way this cover could actually be read as being
about the Obamas rather than about the troglodytes, you were
completely talking out of your insular, provincial ass.
It's still not possible to read the cartoon as being about the
Obamas and be correct.
It's possible to read the cartoon as being about the Obamas if you
know nothing about the New Yorker. You'd be completely wrong, and
you would be in that state of error based on your own lack of
knowledge, but I am grudgingly conceding that not knowing about the
New Yorker is possible for a reasonably informed person.
I'm conceding that precisely because I decided it was unfair to
evaluate someone as "informed" or "uninformed" based on what may be
a regional or class interest. I always realized that the issue was
a distraction, because it placed the discussion in the wrong
place.
It is not necessary for me to argue that it is an
unreasonable error, or one that reflects on someone's
general level of cultural awareness, to argue that it's an error.
It's still an error even if you have to be an expert in media to
know it's an error.
And I have no doubt that you know all about the New Yorker, knew
before this incident, and never were in a state where you lacked
enough knowledge to understand the cartoon. So it's not relevant to
your dissembling on this matter either. So there was really no
point to my continuing to argue a bad point.
Fluffy|7.16.08 @ 6:56PM|#
one with a middle-school understanding of the relationship
between meaning and intent,
And your community-college postmodernist blathering on this topic
is really tiresome.
Funny how meaning is so easy to deduce, except when the Obama
campaign wants to be disingenuous to try to gain political
advantage.
Is this a preview of coming attractions? Can I expect you to
suddenly lack the ability to discern meanings in everything,
whenever doing so will enable you to claim that Obama has been
slandered? Will this become the Democrat equivalent of saying,
"Evolution is only a theory!" or any of the other "situational
positivisms" engaged in by the Christianists?
Something tells me it will be.
Episiarch|7.16.08 @ 7:01PM|#
I think we all realize that if the Obama campaign had laughed
off the cover, joe would have said "look at that great sense of
humor Obama has" and would then have proceeded to admit to finding
it funny himself.
Now Fluffy, you do realize that you fucked up by a) being a dick,
but then b) by admitting your wrongdoing, because now joe can focus
on your provincial elitism instead of responding to your
argument.
Fluffy|7.16.08 @ 7:07PM|#
Now Fluffy, you do realize that you fucked up by a) being a
dick, but then b) by admitting your wrongdoing, because now joe can
focus on your provincial elitism instead of responding to your
argument.
Yeah, there's a tradeoff.
|7.16.08 @ 7:09PM|#
The word has an actual meaning.
A cartoon does not have an inherent meaning the way a word does.
There is no one-to-one relationship between something as
complicated as a cartoon and a meaning; heck, there usually isn't a
one-to-one relationship between a word and its meaning, as words
often have multiple meanings and shades of meaning. Something like
a cartoon or a book have much more complicated meanings, that need
to be puzzled out.
This would mean that if you were to, for example, appear in a
play portraying a burglary, I should be allowed to throw you in
jail because someone else seeing that play might think that
burglary was now "normalized" and they should create actual
burglary Certainly not. Who's being thrown in jail over this?
I said I don't like the cartoon. It's like somebody saying they
don't like a movie because its portrayal of a burglary made it look
normal; or more precisely, they don't like a particular
anti-burglary movie, because they way they depicted the burglary
failed to make their point, and in fact, made burglaries look
glamorous.
If some other person sees the cartoon and says, "Hey, great! It
is now 'normalized' to portray Obama as Sambo, so I can publish my
magnum opus of Obama Sambo cartoons!" the moral blame for that
racist act will belong entirely, 100%, with the person who
publishes the Sambo cartoons. And not even 1 billionth of 1 percent
will reside with the New Yorker cartoonist. You still don't
understand that intention and meaning are two different things, and
yet you've spent the entire thread proclaiming yourself to be
arbiter of all things literary. That's funny.
It's still not possible to read the cartoon as being about the
Obamas and be correct. Yes, it is. Authorial intention is not
the final arbiter of meaning. Meaning is established via a dialogue
between the reader/viewer and the text/object. There may be better
or worse readings and readings that are more or less informed by
knowledge of the author's intention, but if he fails to convey his
intention to his audience, he has failed. Perhaps not a moral
failing, but an artistic one, but artistic failures can have
consequences, too.
And I have no doubt that you know all about the New Yorker,
knew before this incident, and never were in a state where you
lacked enough knowledge to understand the cartoon. So it's not
relevant to your dissembling on this matter either I have
never dissembled on this point. I have never stated that I
misunderstood the author's intention. I've made actual arguments
instead, and you are free to man up and address them any time you
feel like it.
|7.16.08 @ 7:11PM|#
And your community-college postmodernist blathering on this
topic is really tiresome.
Discourses on subjects you don't understand very well do tend to be
boring, but that does not make the lecturer incorrect.
MIchael Richards wanted his audience to get one meaning from his
"Look, a nigger!" rant, but they got a different one. They got a
different one, because Richards screwed up. His intention are
irrelevant to the question of the meaning of his words; the text
speaks for itself.
Episiarch|7.16.08 @ 7:12PM|#
Yeah, there's a tradeoff.
Indeed, but sometimes
you can't help yourself.
|7.16.08 @ 7:14PM|#
now joe can focus on your provincial elitism instead of
responding to your argument.
Ooops. Did somebody say something about ignoring arguments and
focusing on personality?
There is very little that is more ironic than you, Episiarch,
accusing me, joe, of abjuring meaningful argument in favor of
personal attacks.
Episiarch|7.16.08 @ 7:18PM|#
Oh, I was referring to your battle with Fluffy. I do it
too.
Now I'm off to practice my serve and then swim in the pool, because
I am an elitist dickhead. Ciao.
|7.16.08 @ 7:24PM|#
And I was referring to your assertion that I was going to ignore
the argument and just attack Fluffy personally, as he did me, which
you posted while I was writing two lengthy comments addressing
Fluffy's argument.
Now I'm off to sit on my front porch and drink, because I am a
"working class Irish Masshole."
Fluffy|7.16.08 @ 7:27PM|#
Authorial intention is not the final arbiter of meaning.
Meaning is established via a dialogue between the reader/viewer and
the text/object.
That's crap. And it's typical leftist crap.
How about this? I'll have a "dialogue" with the Constitution as its
reader and we'll mutually establish that it means that I can
torture you to death and the government has to pay me a million
dollars to do that.
Textualism of that kind was invented by people who actively wanted
to lie about the meaning of the texts they were interpreting, to
accomplish political goals.
There may be better or worse readings and readings that are
more or less informed by knowledge of the author's intention, but
if he fails to convey his intention to his audience, he has
failed.
This also is crap, and this discussion is a pretty good example of
why it's crap: because it elevates disingenuousness into an
argumentative method. If you can just be stupid enough, you can use
the results of your stupidity to attack your opponents as
culturally insensitive. To try to gain sympathy or pity, or to
seize the initiative. No sale.
Certainly not. Who's being thrown in jail over this?
We're talking about the assignment of moral blame.
they don't like a particular anti-burglary movie, because they
way they depicted the burglary failed to make their point, and in
fact, made burglaries look glamorous.
That would not give them the license to say that the film was
pro-burglary. Nor would it give them the license to say that the
film "caused" burglaries.
It also wouldn't give them license to say that the filmmaker was a
burglar. Or to feign ignorance when someone pointed out that the
film was anti-burglary. "Huh? Wha? There's no way for anyone to
know that."
You still don't understand that intention and meaning are two
different things
There are extreme cases where it can be the author's error
if the meaning is unclear - situations where the author doesn't
understand the material he is working with, or the language he is
using, well enough. But situations where the lack of clarity of
meaning is based on the reader's lack of knowledge don't count, and
using cases of the former as a blanket excuse for the latter is
morally obtuse. Again, this is based on a not-too-well-hidden
desire to elevate absurd or disingenuous misreadings to the status
of moral arbiter, as a tactic of argument more than anything
else.
|7.16.08 @ 7:53PM|#
Yes, yes, if you call it "leftist," it must be wrong. And also,
I am teh partisan.
Arguments' truthfulness does not depend on how politically
convenient you find them.
We're talking about the assignment of moral blame. I'm
not. I've never been. Maybe that's your problem; you got it in your
head that you needed to defend the honor of this shmuck cartoonist,
and decided that doing so required that you argue that there is no
way anyone could possibly fail to understand his intent.
I haven't been talking about moral blame at all. I've been talking
about the likely understanding of the work by those who view
it.
That would not give them the license to say that the film was
pro-burglary. Yes, it would. The film is what it is. A film
that leaves the audience thinking that burglary is kewl is a
pro-burglary film, regardless of the auteur's intent.
Look, we don't even need to go that far. Let's pretend it's 1878,
and the REAL MEANING of a work is solely determined by what its
author intended; this cartoon failed, because it is too easy to
misinterpret it. You told me hours ago that it isn't possible for a
literate person to misinterpret it by failing to understand that
its apparent subject is not actually its subject. EVERYBODY knows
the New Yorkers' politics; EVERYBODY KNOWS that smears about the
Obama's being scary terroristy moolims what hate 'Murica are
absurd. Well, no, neither of those statements are true. There is
nothing in the cover to suggest that there is an invisible
referent.
BTW, Jesse Walker has written some great stuff about authorial
intent. If you think you can stomach another "leftist" spewing
"bullshit" in order to "lie about the meaning of the text," then
look up the stuff he's written about Horkheimer and Adorno's
"Culture as Mass Deception."
Fluffy|7.16.08 @ 8:39PM|#
A film that leaves the audience thinking that burglary is
kewl is a pro-burglary film, regardless of the auteur's
intent.
Joe, this is idiotic.
If I make a film that dwells on the horrific effects of a burglary
on the life of the victim, that film will be perceived as "kewl" by
the audience if I show it to an audience of psychopaths and
sadists.
The author of a work cannot be held responsible for the moral
failure or intellectual vacuity of his audience, or of a particular
subset of that audience.
There is a very large group of American adolescents who consider
Apocalypse Now to be a pro-war film. That is because they
are morons. The namby-pamby cult of "inclusiveness" that seeks to
make the meaning of a work a negotiation between the author and the
reader would stamp absurdities of that kind with a seal of
approval. I understand the basis of the argument very well; I just
reject it, because stupid people don't get to say what things
mean.
You told me hours ago that it isn't possible for a literate
person to misinterpret it by failing to understand that its
apparent subject is not actually its subject. EVERYBODY knows the
New Yorkers' politics; EVERYBODY KNOWS that smears about the
Obama's being scary terroristy moolims what hate 'Murica are
absurd. Well, no, neither of those statements are true.
That was a bad argument on my part.
It does not matter what everybody does or doesn't know.
People with knowledge about those things will understand the
cartoon. People without knowledge of those things won't. Any
argument that relies on the claim that the interpretation of the
parties with more knowledge is not privileged is crap. I realize
that you are attempting to apply a theory of meaning that holds,
simultaneously, that "There may be better or worse readings and
readings that are more or less informed by knowledge of the
author's intention" but also that there are no "correct" readings,
and this is simply absurd. I do not treat that argument with
intellectual charity, because I have no respect for it. If my
"reading" of The Fountainhead is "This author really likes
Communism," that reading isn't "less informed"; I'm just a dumbass
whose reading is wrong. If someone reads Huckleberry Finn
and thinks that the character of Jim is designed to disparage and
demean black people, that person is a dumbass who is wrong.
Do you even realize that if your argument is correct, then the
cartoon can't be criticized even if it was meant literally? That's
what is forgotten by those who employ postmodernist rhetoric. If
there is no such thing as a correct meaning, then I can say that my
"interpretation" of everything Obama has ever said is that he's an
anti-American pro-Muslim traitor, and my "interpretation" of
everything Michelle has ever said is that she's a black militant
revolutionary.
If there are no correct meanings, there is no point to
communication of any kind, because any communication means whatever
the hell I want it to mean at all times.
ed|7.16.08 @ 9:40PM|#
From the AP:
"You know, there are wonderful Muslim Americans all across the
country who are doing wonderful things," the presidential candidate
told CNN's Larry King. "And for this to be used as sort of an
insult, or to raise suspicions about me, I think is unfortunate.
And it's not what America's all about."
Sheesh. Obama really does have sandals of clay.
ed|7.16.08 @ 10:01PM|#
OK, one more thing...threads like this are masturbatory...we all know it...some of us (like me) give it a quick couple of jerks and move on...others (like, oh, joe for instance) pound and pound and never quite reach orgasm...but they keep pounding...hoping...praying...pounding...I'm just happy I'm not around to see the conclusion. Here's a towel. Clean up after yourselves, please.
|7.16.08 @ 11:46PM|#
I suppose if self-promotion is the name of the game then Obama and The New Yorker are both winners, after a fashion.
MJ|7.17.08 @ 7:38AM|#
The right-wing's efforts to demonize the Obama's as Islamist
race terrorists is so pernicious and ubiquitous that the major
scandal about it is a poor attempt at satire of it by a left
leaning magazine?
If anything, the mainstream right has been walking on eggshells
about this and distancing themselves from anyone who wants to
engage Obama in this way. It almost seems as if this little
controversy were tailor made to create the notion that the McCain
campaign is dealing in this kind of rhetoric when they are not
|7.17.08 @ 9:13AM|#
Ok, I'm way late, but...
I grew up in Iowa, rural Iowa at that, and I've never read The
New Yorker from cover to cover. I've never lived on either
coast. I'm not well-read in the liberal arts sense of the term,
although I read about 100 books a year.
Yet, I'd estimate I've read maybe 5 of their articles and seen
about 100 of their cartoons over the years. So, I'm inclined to
think that most well-read Americans have at least a passing
familiarity with it. Of course a few, like ChicagoTom, do not. So,
without this tempest in a teapot, how many people would have
actually seen that cover and not understood it?
Maybe it's just a reflection of our respective attitudes about
personal responsibility, but I just do not understand joe's or
ChigacoTom's attitude about this. It's a magazine for adult
readers. If you aren't familiar with it and you can't be bothered
to read it, you shouldn't jump to conclusions about the meaning of
a cover cartoon that might or might not be satire. Communication
requires effort by both the sender and the receiver.
Speaking of which, iowan, you should take that provincial chip off
of your shoulder and work on your reading comprehension. Fluffy's
comments were well-written and perfectly clear.
Fluffy, that was outstanding work.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245