Funny (well, Republicans won't find it funny)
 

Trollish.

Hey, it's not like you weren't warned in the title of the thread. :)

Trollishly funny.

its pretty tame, it could have been a lot more cutting.

I can't really see how political satire can be considered trollish.....

Although this refers specifically to usenet, I believe there's a pretty strong correllation to the internet in general

To utter a posting on Usenet designed to attract predictable
responses or flames;

Rarely will you see a better example of the definition than the post that started this thread.

This deserves the big :rolleyes:

Who are you going to flame for that, Jon? Me? For posting it? The satirist for drawing it?

It's just an interesting correlation, that's all. And a humorous one to boot.

If you equate political satire with trolling, then perhaps an Internet message board isn't the place for you to be.

And it's not like you weren't warned by the title. That you're here means that you're interested enough in the subject matter to post, twice, on this subject.

Have a nice day!

I admit I am by nature a conservative, so I'll start there. But...which one of those little boxes can be considered "funny"? Anyone laughing out loud....a glimmer of a smile, maybe?

Sometimes the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

Why bother flaming you Blackie, you're just trolling.


Actually, if trolling with "political satire" is your thing, I'd suggest this isn't the place for you to be. The forum would be a better off without you or any of this sort of garbage.


No Blackie boy, I had a little time to kill & was curious what sort of trash was piled on my doorstep, no more no less.

I got a laugh out of it

Actually, Jon...

When the day comes on FOFC that someone can't post a political satire 'toon published in the mainstream Internet/press with a warning on the title of the thread that the thread is political in nature and partisan without being called a troll/trollish, this board deserves to be shut down.

And if you don't want to see this "garbage", I suggest you choose a place that's more in line with your views, where there are no different opinions to threaten you so much. We all know how pathetically afraid you are of anything outside your close-minded little world.

I just think it proves the theory that people can be so far apart personality-wise that they look nearly identical.

Good, why don't you lead the exodus? I'm sure we'll all be right behind you.

Hey, at least we have partial agreement on something in the world.

Somehow, against all odds, maybe something worthwhile came out of this thread after all. It ain't water-into-wine or anything, but I guess we have to take little miracles wherever they appear.

It's the whole theme. You see, Bush has opinions people don't agree with,

so he is EEVIIIL

am not

are too ;)

SI

They forgot one distinction - one man is running the most powerful country in the world while the other is hopping from hole to hole in the desert with no place to call home. I guess we know which side "God" is on ;)

You don't see the irony in the comparisons made?

I guess that means Bush is both powerful and humble - lucky us :p

Well, its certainly not like rain on your wedding day.

But aren't the meek supposed to inherit the Earth?

Or aliens with disruptor pistols.

SI

Yes, but only after everyone else is finished with it.

Not with out-and-out lies. For example, what desert does Bush like to hang out in? Does bin Laden even have an opinion on stem cell research?

Now, both liking to blow things up, sure, that's funny.

Granted, some of the examples utilize artistic license (I'd hardly call them "out-and-out lies") - the note about the deserts is obviously a stretch on the part of Bush (it being a reference to his invasion of Iraq), and an assumption is being made that the highly fundamentalist bin Laden would oppose stem-cell research (though I have no doubts he does oppose it).

With those caveats, pretty much everything else that's listed in that cartoon is a fact.

I disagree. If Bush actually becomes Supreme Leader of the Earth, his daughters are hardly meek, so they will not inherit it.

I took that as a reference to Texas, fwiw.

Hmm, I suppose that might be it. FWIW, I would hardly consider Texas a desert - much of what I saw in my visit was quite pretty and with plenty of flora, though I'll admit that the less attractive portions I happened to drive through at night. The area around Austin and to the west was very lush.

That said, I'll agree that that comparison was the weakest one of the bunch.

That is the most moronic "comic" I have ever seen. Anyone can be made to look like a villain if one tries hard enough, and twists the truth to fit one's own agenda.

I'm certainly not a big fan of Bush or the current Replican party stance on a lot of issues, but when I see idiocy like this from libs, it makes me shake my head. No wonder you guys can't win an election. The party of the "peaceful" and the "open-minded" are more combative, immature and close-minded than the people they villify. I'm just getting tired of the stupidity.

It's one thing to take a stance in something you believe, state facts, and act like a mature citizen of this country. It's another thing to constantly attack people, religions, and certain moral stances, and then hide behind the veil of "tolerance". Grow up.

It's a political cartoon - it's designed to provoke reaction.

With that said, most of those comparisons are dead-on facts. Or would you care to dispute that?

What's a "lib"? I am assuming that it is the correct, mature citizen's manner for speaking about liberals. Does that mean conservatives are "cons"? :D

No, they're Replicans which sounds eerily accurate to me. ;)

Dude. I could make a ton of "comparisons" between certain people, but that doesn't make them anything alike in actual reality. For example, I'm sure I could come make a cartoon comparing Pol Pot with a great Theravada Buddhist teacher such as Ajahn Cha, but that wouldn't make them even remotely similar in the most important areas of their beliefs.

As far as what you said regarding a a political cartoon being designed to provoke a reaction - Isn't that the definition of being "trollish"? Just wondering.

New contest:

COUNT ALL THE SILLY POSTS IN THIS THREAD!!!

Ready? Go.

That could very well be the case. ;)

But seriously, I think that's the problem with us all during this time: We all want to fit in with a label or a group, so much so that we forget to personally discern each individual issue. We simply apply to a party and react to those things that we think we should.

Yes, cartoons are always supposed to 100% reflect reality and that's what makes them so very, very funny, you know, that capturing of 100% reality. So very important.

Also, are you now saying that a political cartoonist can even possibly be considered a troll? I mean, are we going to really stretch the definition of troll to include venues where it doesn't even apply?

If we do decide to do this though, what we've done is dilute the meaning of the word troll because, with very few exceptions, everyone does/says things designed to provoke a reaction in their life therefore everyone, with few exceptions is a troll, therefore, being a troll is not a bad thing at all.

I guess we need a new term to describe the negative phenomenon we notice on usenet and internet boards until people decide that they simply don't understand that definition either and another term is ruined.

Don't overgeneralize my man. Some of us have absolutely no desire to be labelled or accepted by any group that doesn't exist for the sole purpose of deriving an income from it.

Personally, that is me. I have standards. I'd never want to be a member of any group that would have me as a member. :)

All of them (even mine). I win!

You're on - I'd love to see that comparison.

Obviously there are a great many differences between Osama and GWB, and lets be clear that all this cartoon does is point out some similarities. Any judgements one makes on reading that is up to that individual - the cartoon isn't saying GWB is evil.

Another thing you might be overlooking is that any comparisons you make between people will only hold as much validity as the truth and relevance of those comparisons. The underlying factor through this comparison of GWB and Osama is that both are fundamentalist end of their religious spectrums, and while many aspects of their religions and religious philosophies differ, there are also some interesting similarities.


I'm not sure I understand your point. Are you accusing newspapers and magazines of being "trolls" for publishing political cartoons? Are you accusing Blackie of being a troll for posting this cartoon here even though he clearly marked the thread title as being something potentially offensive to Republicans?

I'd like to submit my "are too" and GWB's "am not" as two of the more legitimate and content heavy posts in this thread.

I think that some people in this thread need a giant dose of "Lighten up, Francis". Yeesh.

SI

Probably but the whole thread makes for entertaining reading.

One of the best observations in the thread was Schmidty'a observation about people wanting so badly to belong to a group. It's one of the main reason I'd never want to be part of a group. You tend to give up your individuality and become not unlike a trained parrot.

It's sad and I truly admire those who don't lose themselves in this way but reality is, the vast majority don't even want to. That would mean thinking and it seems to me, not having to think is one of the biggest draws of being part of a group in the first place. Groupthink > individualthink.

Hey, it works pretty good for the ants and bees. ;)

No, no, Replican'ts not republican'ts.

Does that make the Democrats "Republican'ts"?

No, it makes them "Replican'ts"...

That makes them look like some Sci-Fi alien. Like they're Klingons or something.

SI

What I like about it is how it plays to the theme about groupthink. Replican and Replican't sounds like clones who simply parrot off the line of the first clone and all of them sound exactly alike and say exactly the same things and you can accurately understand the conversations they'll have without even having to listen to it. :)

Very good point. I think that's why I get into to so many debates with my friends - I have a real resistence to simplification, unfounded assumption and either/or arguments. My views certainly tend towards the liberal spectrum, but does that make me a "liberal" or a "democrat"? Relative to someone who's more conservative than me, yes, but I often find myself feeling very conservative when I debate with friends of mine who think that Al Gore was no different than GWB, or the likelihood of a massive voting booth conspiracy in Illinois, etc.

I pride myself on looking for subtleties, for seeing the vast shades of gray rather than black and white, and I resist being classified in a box, yet it happens all the time. If you disagree with someone on a certain point, they put you in a broad category of people that you may have very little in common with. One of my favorites is when professed conservatives categorize liberals as anti-sports in general and anti-football in particular.

Simplification is a natural reaction to the complexities of the world, and to some degree it becomes necessary to deal with everyday existence, but it also hinders our ability to get at the truth. That is a sacrifice I'm unwilling to make.