Satire Afire

Jul 14, 2008 18:42

Obama's campaign. Please chuckle and move on.

Leave a comment

Comments 17

jrianne July 15 2008, 00:27:10 UTC
looking at the presidential candidates, the only phrase that comes to mind is "the lesser of two evils."

Strange mag art though.

Reply

venaeli July 15 2008, 01:14:03 UTC
I've come to develop an opinion of politicians as being a necessary evil. Look who they're dealing with, eh? Perhaps the lesser of two evils isn't necessarily the best choice. If anything, such a choice will be ill equipped to deal with their backstabbing, two-faced peers, both nationally and abroad.

Reply

jrianne July 15 2008, 21:47:51 UTC
hahaha. oh, dear. meaning we should pick the worst of two evils in order to combat the rest of the evils of the world. But what then happens to our country? /sigh
what a state the world is in.

Reply

venaeli July 15 2008, 23:18:04 UTC
Yeah. It's kind of disheartening when you realize that evil is necessary. Hehe.

Reply


26376 July 15 2008, 00:30:21 UTC
I think the problem with what the New Yorker did is that while the New Yorker's readership tend to be erudite, there are a lot of stupid people out there who will see the cover only, say "See! See! We were right about him!", and continue to believe all the ridiculous rumormongered tripe about our state's junior Senator, rather than see it for what it is.

The rumors are tasteless. The compilation of them by the New Yorker not so much, I think, but it's the possibility of misinterpretation by those who don't read that concerns me.

Oh, and you, sir, given your reaction, are clearly in the erudite category and are in no way misled. Very good. Please don't think I criticize you at all.

Reply

venaeli July 15 2008, 01:12:39 UTC
Ignorance tends to root itself out in situations such as this. If the perpetrators attempt to solidify their lie-spun weaves, the only thing they could encourage (from my point of view) is for people to learn the truth.

I suppose I could see Obama's campaign getting in a tiff because they are forced to deal with the majority. This inevitably includes cretins that still happen to vote in their favor.

Thanks.

Reply

transientmind July 15 2008, 01:53:03 UTC
That's exactly how I feel about it. Had I seen that illustration alongside the article it wouldn't bother me. But it seems to reinforce the stereotype to those who already believe it or suspect it...who happen to be the type of people who would never look inside to find out what it really means.

Reply


learan July 15 2008, 01:28:36 UTC
I see what they tried to do there, and I do think it's funny... but jokes usually aren't funny when you have to explain them, y'know?

"Why did the chicken cross the road?"
"To get to the other side!"
"... but, why would he do that?"
"Uhm... see, it's funny because you don't normally think of chickens as being conscious of their actions. They're chickens! So, a chicken initially setting out toward crossing a road to simply achieve reaching the other side is ridiculous, and ridiculousness is funny."

See? It kills it.

Reply

venaeli July 15 2008, 02:24:02 UTC
Hehe, yep.

Reply


ex_miang438 July 15 2008, 04:54:27 UTC
Gotta politely disagree with you on this one. I thought it was in terribly poor taste, even as (what should have been obvious) satire. I don't ascribe malicious intent to anyone at the New Yorker, of course, but the situation for me underscores how obsolete the publication has become.

Reply

venaeli July 15 2008, 12:29:17 UTC
What do you feel should happen? Is it newsworthy, or should the Obama campaign actively pursue some sort of social compensation?

I suppose I implied that it was tasteful or humorous (I don't think so). My emphasis should have been more along the lines of "just move along, there are much bigger fish to fry".

Did you see my other comment regarding how I could see where the Obama campaign's concern would be justified? Perhaps it was arrogant of me, but you have to worry about that idiot swing vote.

Reply

ex_miang438 July 15 2008, 14:22:27 UTC
Totally not newsworthy IMHO. Obama's campaign would come off classiest if they met this with the sound-byte equivalent of an eyeroll and a pithy statement about rising above petty concerns and focusing on the Issues that Matter, &c.

I suppose I implied that it was tasteful or humorous (I don't think so). My emphasis should have been more along the lines of "just move along, there are much bigger fish to fry".

Yeah, the "chuckle" part of "chuckle and move on" gave me that impression. Sounds like you and I are much more in agreement than I'd originally thought. ;)

Speaking of that swing vote... Looking through the comments, the top voters seem to be the same kind of people who incessantly refer to him by his full name as though the "Hussein" implied something undesirable about his heritage and/or alliances. Sigh. People.

Reply

venaeli July 15 2008, 23:16:57 UTC
Hooray for communication. I appreciate your having the character to disagree with me AND speak your voice about it.

Chuckle has become an unfunny word for me. More flippant or smirking.

Regarding Obama's name - for a minute there I thought you were talking about Fox News.

Reply


jillthepill July 15 2008, 18:05:46 UTC
What worries me is how ill-informed the voter population seems to be. If we could just get them to understand satire and learn to form their own opinions and do their own research, well, surely Bush wouldn't be in office if that were the case. *SIGH*

Reply

venaeli July 15 2008, 23:13:06 UTC
Dunno how much of an impact we can make with that...

Reply

teppanyaki July 16 2008, 16:48:15 UTC
The problem is that our society is over-litigious and over-sensitive. Period.

On a different note, Ven - I replied in an earlier thread re: LS.

Reply

venaeli July 16 2008, 22:53:09 UTC
Gotcha.

Reply


Leave a comment

Up