Political Cartoons 2013: Click Here To Hate Yourself

First off: "Grinds your gears"?
And gay people are the last people who should be complaining about evolving language. ZING!
But seriously who cares? It happened to the Blacks, it happened to the Latinos, and I do it to those whom I call "The Uglies" (everyone who's not beautiful like me)

That hispanic pinata is priceless.

This drawing style really helps the donkey; for once he looks adorable.

Me gusta.

You know what we need?

I want to have sweaty monkey sex with this comic

Bennett is amazing.

The pissy red painter is so pissy! <3

Why labels in this one? :(

Color blind people? Anticipating the coming will be reproduced in greyscale?

Okay Bennett. You win this time.

Stop restoring my faith in the world, I know my aspirations will just be crushed all over again...

Nah, I don't buy it. Here's what it looks like in greyscale:



It's easy to see that the stripes are missing. The audience for this comic (Americans, presumably) knows what colors the flag is even if they're colorblind. The labels are utterly unncessary.

Also worth noting: a grayscale flag still has distinct color differences.



Aspirations: crushed. C'mon Bennett!

It's a matter of dehumanization. People on the wrong side tend to not think of minorities as actual, multifaceted humans, and when they use, say, "gay" as a noun, they literally take the people's sexuality and turn it into their entire being. While not everyone who uses adjectives as nouns full-out thinks of minorities as not human, using the same language used to dehumanize minorities just doesn't sit right with me. For instance: people who go "oh yeah, I love the gays, they're so good at fashion!" might think they're being positive, but their combination of stereotypes with problematic language shows that they think of gay men as more of fashion accessories than anything. Again, not everyone who uses that kind of language necessarily thinks that, but using the same language as the people you claim to be against is really iffy and just doesn't sit right with me. It's a really easy change in terminology to say "gay people" instead of "gays" and it doesn't harm the user to do so, but the usage of the former is harmful as it helps to make people think of gay people as a homogenous group to be pitied.

Changing people's opinions is not something that happens overnight. There's a spectrum that slowly evolves over time. So maybe that dude who says "Gays are so good at fashion!" was a dude who a few years ago was perfectly happy with calling them faggots. You don't just flip a switch and self-actualize.

You're talking about the country that invented the word "y'all" because "you all" is too long and "l8er" because "later" takes up too much of their texting time. I think 99% of the people who use gays as a noun have no obvious malicious intent but I understand what you're saying.

That peace talks table one is probably my favorite political cartoon. It's just perfect.

Yeah, I really don't think that it's with malicious intent, but just because someone doesn't mean to be offensive doesn't mean they aren't. I don't think it's a huge deal, but it does get on my nerves, hence me saying that it grinds my gears.

I... don't quite get your point? Are you saying we shouldn't try to educate people on how to not be offensive because they used to be more offensive than they are now?

Oh my god this guy. This guy. It's Kelly from The Onion! Check out some of his other work:




The only thing it's missing is a crying Statue of Liberty!




LABELS FOR EVERYONE! Although I am disappointed that the sharks aren't labelled "liberal media".

O-Bamacore? The hell does that even mean?

Of course not. I'm saying that it takes time for people to move from dehumanizing a group to humanizing it. Generations, sometimes. It's not binary, it's a spectrum.

So from your perspective, saying something like "The gays are great at fashion" is still dehumanizing. Which, sure, it is. But from that guy's perspective, maybe he's actually come a long way from simply hating and fearing all gay people to finding something positive to say about them as a group. That's a tiny step towards progress.

Why is Shakespeare clutching his knee? I thought he bit his thumb at thee?

He's having fun doing a cannonball into shark-filled waters. Because let's face it: nobody likes reading Shakespeare.

Ah, okay. I don't disagree with that, really, I just didn't understand why you were bringing it up.

LOOK, SOMEBODY'S GOT TO TAKE UP THE SLACK NOW THAT BRETT'S GONE.

The Common Core standards, I believe. The complaint is that it focuses more on reading Non-Fiction than on Literature. ELA will still study Shakespeare regardless, though, so his point is either incomprehensible or misunderstood.

A choir of angels is singing!

It's not a question of using adjectives as nouns; "gay people" defines them by their sexuality just the same as "gays" does. "People who are gay" would be the way to avoid that, similar to the movement to replace "disabled people" with "people with disabilities." Also, the only example you came up with of "gays" being "problematic language" was one in which someone was also stereotyping like a fiend, which kind of makes that argument not so convincing.

On the subject of nouning an adjective to make a shorthand term for a group: if it's good enough for Chuck D it's good enough for me. That's how I live my life, pretty much.

When I was in high school, you would get detention if a school employee heard you say "fag," and also I was taught that men turned out gay if they didn't have a strong male role model in the house. So really, I think teaching people to not use offensive words first and foremost is missing the forest for the trees.

Pff. Everyone knows that tent pegs in the butt are what make you gay.

I was momentarily thrown by the wingnut cartoon equivalent of Poe's Law into thinking you meant that guy is in fact Kelly or a Kelly-esque parody cartoonist. Nope, just batshit insane evil.

I don't really agree, but I also can't think of a proper argument, so I'm going to say you're right and I'm just being stubborn.

Er. "Again, not everyone who uses that kind of language necessarily thinks that, but using the same language as the people you claim to be against is really iffy and just doesn't sit right with me."

The problem is that dehumanizing minorities is a real trend that is the basis of the opposition. Regardless of the intent, using these adjectives as nouns helps with that because it's dehumanizing language and anyone who's already inclined to this dehumanization is going to see it that way, consciously or not.

So I shouldn't object to dehumanizing language because it's not the only offense? I wasn't trying to make a sweeping point about discrimination; I was talking about a very specific thing because the cartoons in question did it.

I can't help it if certain other English-speakers hold bad views. I'm not going to invent all new words because the old ones are tainted from having passed through bigoted mouths.

Oh, so using adjectives as nouns is dehumanizing because it's dehumanizing? Now I get it. Look, I'm not arguing that the language we use doesn't matter (because I'm not an idiot), I'm arguing with your bare assertion that using an adjective as a noun has a special dehumanizing effect that the widely-acknowledged-as-problematic adjective-before-noun construction doesn't also have. As I pointed out above, you weren't even able to invent a hypothetical example of this problem that makes sense, and since you seem to have gotten confused and responded with an apparent non sequitur I will explain why in detail: The problem with someone saying "gays are good at fashion" isn't the use of the word "gays," it's the fact that the person saying it is stereotyping, and it would be not even a tiny bit better if they had said "gay people are good at fashion" instead.

And again, this has already been hashed out with regard to people who have disabilities, but you didn't seem to be interested in that solution because the term "gay people" doesn't offend you despite having the same meaning, connotation, and effect as "gays."

Yeah seriously: why DOES the military have guns if they AREN'T going to conquer America for their dark god Obama and install him on the American throne for 1,000 years? Why aren't you answering THAT Obummer?

Just diving head first into oblivion.


Look at all those people not inconvienienced by the person...using amnesty as a literal shortcut to liberty Jesus Christ you incompetent oaf!

I get tired just contemplating all the ways this is stupid

I'm glad those lines are there or else his letters would be a mess!

FOX calls Obama a Communist Marxist Socialist Kenyan born terrorist who hates the American way of life. I'd rule this self defense.

Wait who's that?

They keep fucking them up but analogies are as easy as...dogs...driving poker...well I'll be damned, I guess analogies realy are that fucking hard.

Fascism like...I don't know...banning a medical procedure under any circumstances?
I'm glad guns (wielded by red necks) saved us all from those evils while not also being used BY those evils.
Also...ummm...the "abortion" hill is literally higher ground than the gun ground. Just sayin'


Complicated plots that mirror actual real life is the downfall of society.



WELL I'D SAY...oh, that's the point. Good cartoon...*cough*

LESS TALK MORE ROCK jeez you guys




Ahahahaaha that fucking stomach/hands pose OH I GOT IT! It's "fingers in front jeans pocket/belt loops" jesus WENIS Muir you are a lazy fucking hack.

I like how her left boob is several cup sizes bigger than the other.

Or they're pointed in some strange directions.

Also, who the hell has that skin tone? I don't know what to even call that. Mustard yellow?

DON'T MAKE FUN OF BLACK PEOPLE

Why are they always manhandling babies in Fuck You Day By Day?

"PRE-POSTIONED"

Again I note that the typo is the smallest barrier to comprehension in the strip.

If you look close, the top left tombstone is actually labelled "NAZI'S."

Awesome, I love it.

Just so we're clear on this one: this list of horrible monsters includes a corrupt sheriff and murderer, an arsonist, and a gay couple who want to open an orphanage and provide shelter for needy children.