Political Cartoons 2013: Click Here To Hate Yourself

extarbags IOU 1 hug

Edit: that is to say I often don't mention things so that there will be something for others, who aren't fueled by a dark well of eternal hatred, to point out. Thank you for pointing that last one out.

Specific terminology used to dehumanize people: exactly the same as the word "with."

Yeah, that sentence of mine was pretty stupid.

"I'm going to say you're right and I'm just being stubborn."

Not sure what non sequitur you're referring to; is it the last paragraph I wrote, that you haven't otherwise addressed? But that aside, I think you're right.

"I'm going to say you're right and I'm just being stubborn." I probably wasn't clear in that sentence, because by "I'm just being stubborn" I meant "you're right but I think you're wrong but I'm probably wrong but my mind doesn't want to admit that."

EDIT: What would your preferred term to refer to "gays" be? I'm seriously just asking because I want to know, because I'm now trying to reassess my opinions and I'm not sure if you're against "gay people" but not "gays" or if you dislike both or what, because you seem to be right and so modelling my ideas off of yours would make sense... if that makes sense?

The preferred term to "gays" is "people who are gay".

You're pulling my leg, right?

"People who have lots interesting characteristics, one of which happens to be their sexual orientation, which is gay"

No? I dunno, my general instinct is to not stereotype people and to just refer to people as people, but if I have to refer to people by subset I generally use the "superset -> descending subsets" angle rather than the reverse. Which makes no sense applied to math. So don't pay attention to me, is I guess what I'm saying.

(I also tend to say things like "people who have experienced <tragic thing>" or "persons who have been the victim of <thing>" rather than "victims of <tragic thing>" and I'm not quite sure why.

So they are "people who are left-handed" instead of "lefties," "people who are white" instead of "white people," "people who play games" instead of "gamers."

That's fucking dumb.

Gay people is shorthand for "people who happen to be gay." I don't know any gay people who are offended by being called gay, and I happen to be on a street filled with rainbow flags and pink triangles.

Our city is super gay. It's awesome because it keeps the bros at a safe distance.

In my head, "gay people" is closer to "gays of the person persuasion" than "people of the gay persuasion".

The rest of your post is needlessly, pointlessly combative, so I think I'll bow out now, because you clearly uh feel very strongly about language and right now I'm too tired to give a fuck.

...queermosexumables?!

Fixed that for you.

I personally have no problem with anyone calling me "gay" or saying "gay people". However, "the gays" is obnoxious and ignorant. Just my feels.

How about "teh gays"?

That's ghey.

As a gay, before you first caught the gay did you ever feel gay towards other gays?

One example would be in the field of history where enslaved people has, in many cases, replaced slaves in the academic parlance, or it is simply noted that they are enslaved and then they are described by the terms that they used to self-identify or what have you. One of the reasons is that you have a historically marginalized, de-historicized* group that is often talked about simply in terms of their state of subordination to others, and another is that you are dealing with the very tricky issue of double consciousness, since modified with many other historical concepts, when you look at their self-definitions. So the idea is to try to start from the human up in terms of how you orient them rather than from the enslavement down.

Now, again, this isn't something where people are going to get in trouble from the pc police or something, but when you look at the furor over political correctness, a lot of it was sparked well-intentioned lay people and academics trying to take that same kind of discursive reform to the popular sphere. If you're not in a place where the people you are talking to already share the same base in terms of how important the placement of words is in terms of how you situate ideas before analyzing them, then it's going to often lead to self defeating implosions where otherwise smart, well-intentioned people get bent out of shape over the sanctity of their right to say stuff.

What this means about people who include LGBT as part of their identity is that they are in kind of a complex space in terms of societal labels. Calling someone "gay person" makes about as much as sense as calling someone a heterosexual person or any of the other myriad labels, which is to say it makes sense sometimes in terms of contrasting sexual preferences and corresponding lifestyles and corresponding rights, and becomes steadily more problematic the more you imply it is necessarily the key variable by which their identity is assessed. I mean, it may be the key aspect of their identity, but it's not something that I feel comfortable imposing on other people as a matter of course. It's really, really important not to conflate the effect of a label that is used to assert a presumptively normative or "neutral" place (ie whiteness in US society) versus one that has a much more complicated history in terms of classifying the "other".

I think there's a lot of truth to what madkevin said above, in terms of what progress looks like. I also think there's a lot of useful ground to be gained by people being more thoughtful about the degree to which they label others, no matter what you think all of the x really feel. And I really think you have to choose battles wisely in these kinds of things unless you are pretty clear on discriminatory intent, in a purely strategic sense, but I also understand when something just pushes your buttons so you take the hit tactically in order to get your point across. It's tricky, because you don't want to alienate people but the conversations about these things in and of themselves matter, and we all have our own lines for what's useful re-labeling (for instance, I don't find cis etc something useful) once certain boundaries of decency are set.

Oh for sakes who are fuck.

Just go read L_K's post.

Of course in real life, Jim Nabors just kinda' came out, Andy was a drunk...and well Opie is a normal guy.

And WTF does (Fuck you) day by day mean? ever?

Horny.

Actual cans of paint have labels with their colors on them. True story!

"The King who is a Lizard" is the preferred nomenclature.

Oh god stop talking about this or Lizard_King will post more!

I laughed :)

I had something but just fuck this. I'm the last person to say fuck this bullshit since I get some joy out of this mindless adobe-whatevered-over-porn spewing latrine-extract. This is a non sequitur that makes me feel like a barfbag for knowing what it might be trying to say.

etc bs so and so

So is "Purge" a common girl's name in the States? I've not seen it as a name before, so I thought that character was just making Tourette's-like outbursts.

No.

Ha, no. It's a terrible joke. It's Purge Daley because she purges daily because supermodels are bulimic, so funny right? Also it doesn't make any sense precisely because Purge is not a name.

He should have named her Belle E'Mya.

But then the labels should have said Impromptu and Ablaze.

I. Pyookalot

I just remembered most of you are jerks to me. As punishment:



I know what this means. I'm not going to tell you. YOU figure out what this means.


So...these shootings are a conspiracy? But the Second Amendment gets shot too (and is just as great a tragedy)?

Due to lowered government spending. I guess not completing a sentence is like making a point.

Stop beating up the economy Obummer!!

Dry Bones responds:

Netanyahu: just as important to Judiasim as Mohammed is to Islam

Oh god BOK??? Of all fucking people Bok gets this right???

Getting things in exchange for money: slavery

But all last week was how bad Hollywood violence is! If there's strict crackdowns on Hollywood movie violence won't that sharply reduce the incidence of people being killed by movies with guns?

Haha yeeeeah! There ya go! Have some Rall! You like that dontcha?? Teach you to be jerks to me!


Nailed it!

Yeah-oh, this is kinda true...

Oh no! That poor women! Damn you Obama and your radical long term highly effective plans to kill women!

But some of you are nice. All the jerks I mentioned in the first one ignore these:



:3



BOOM

I just think this one is super adorable


\

I was going to gripe that it wasn't even a mobius strip, but then I realized that the elephant and donkey are actually on opposite sides and will never meet. Change the labels to something else (bi-partisan gun law reform, perhaps?) and it could be in the running for Good Cartoon!

Obama prefers the challenge of a century old rifle with the scope on backwards for trap shooting. A good cartoon.

You missed the British Empire gravestone marked 1781, presumably commemorating the battle when the American national anthem was written.

<narrows eyes>

I don't know what it means, and I don't think I want to figure it out. Whatever it is, I'm sure it would raise my blood pressure, though. Why do you want me to have high blood pressure?

I wish I could say I was surprised at people getting the vapors over the women in combat thing, but I'm not.

I still don't get it.

*snert*

Liberal Strawwoman is expressing how disappointing she is in Karl being a priest (or "religious nut" because she's a Liberal)

but says she'll wait for him to come back to her

meanwhile she'll keep banging Blowjob Russian (who might or might not be right behind her) until he does.

YOU ASKED!!

Republicans are dumb idiots who don't understand that the debt ceiling does in fact need to keep being raised in order for the government to function. Democrats try to explain this to them but can't get through, because the people they're trying to explain it to are dumb idiots. A good cartoon.

God, I was afraid that was what that middle panel meant.