|
Too much work when you can just draw two generic white guys and collect your cartoonist money.
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 11:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 23:12 |
|
|
Fulchrum posted:Also, the last election proved that America loving despises acknowledgement of faults and accountability. Trump won a minority of votes.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 11:58
|
|
|
That Bors is fine, what the hell y'all on about
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 12:16
|
|
|
World Famous W posted:That Bors is fine, what the hell y'all on about Fulchrum is a tool. He spouts this sort of poo poo all the time.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 12:20
|
|
|
Is there any reason why it's 57% specifically? Did Bors just pick an arbitrary number, or was that the approval rating it had when Obama flipped, or what?
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 12:27
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:Obama's approach was to get backed into a corner by Joe Biden, and then just say he evolved. I don't see the slightest problem with people who had bad opinions updating them and becoming better people. We all have done it, unless you personally were perfectly woke at 18 and will remain entirely current for the next 70 years without changing your opinions at all.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 12:42
|
|
|
Jerm! He's not writing captions for his cartoons on his site anymore, so I'm just as lost as you are. I will never understand British cartoons, either.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 12:49
|
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:I don't see the slightest problem with people who had bad opinions updating them and becoming better people. We all have done it, unless you personally were perfectly woke at 18 and will remain entirely current for the next 70 years without changing your opinions at all. And yet, the cartoon, which people are defending for criticizing exactly that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 12:51
|
|
|
The only thing I understand from British cartoons are all politicians are animal anuses and poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 12:52
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:And yet, the cartoon, which people are defending for criticizing exactly that. No, the cartoon is criticizing people for only having good opinion when it benefits themselves.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 13:00
|
|
|
Political cartoons 2017: Stop arguing with Fulcrum.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 13:02
|
|
|
World Famous W posted:The only thing I understand from British cartoons are all politicians are animal anuses and poo poo.  Observer:  "Theresa May's MPs discuss her future – Chris Riddell on reaction to the prime minister’s disastrous conference speech" Sunday Telegraph:  EU holding secret talks with Corbyn as they believe he could be PM soon Independent on Sunday:  Sunday Times: 
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 13:21
|
|
|
Post 9-11 User posted:Jerm! Media say things good; but things actually bad Given the unicorns and hearts and bunnies and rainbows I'll hazard a guess that it must be about the gays. Jerm is there to warn us that they will raze the country to the ground if they are not repressed and oppressed out of existence. I mean, it's Jerm; what other message does he ever have?
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 13:21
|
|
|
Over the years, I've gotten used to how vile the political cartoons posted in this thread get. But I think I'll never get used to just how willfully dense the posters are.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 13:55
|
|
|
Cloud Potato posted:
All those bodily fluids plus Theresa May's dicknose. Yep, it's another cartoon from GB 
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 14:59
|
|
|
Alhazred posted:No, the cartoon is criticizing people for only having good opinion when it benefits themselves.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 15:27
|
|
|
Kopijeger posted:Why is Bernie Sanders accepting the Nobel Prize and who is the dude handing them out? 
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 15:31
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 16:04
|
|
|
Lord Hydronium posted:How do you know which is which, though? That's my main problem with the cartoon, it seems to assume that the default reason that a politician would change their opinion is a cynical attempt to follow polls; when in fact, politicians are people too, and it's likely that a lot of them changed their mind on gay marriage for the same reasons the rest of the population did. It's a criticism that I think says more about the person making it than the target - the politicians I like change their opinions honestly and for valid reasons, while the ones I don't like change because they're cynical weathervanes. For that matter, there's a difference between "wanting an outcome" and "being willing to spend political capital toward that outcome." I find it helps to think in terms of political capital, that things are "inexpensive" and "costly" rather than "easy" or "hard." If something's "hard" then you're just lazy if you don't do it, but if something's "costly" then it's only natural that you can't do it all day long. Public opinion being on your side makes things less costly, so you can do more of them. If you blow all your resources on something loud and expensive, you're not gonna have much left for boring but equally important like keeping awful poo poo out of the budget.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 16:32
|
|
|
Post 9-11 User posted:Jerm! Not gonna lie, just scrolling through real quick, I thought this was a new Lester about "how the media reports on BLM."
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 16:40
|
|
|
the_steve posted:Not gonna lie, just scrolling through real quick, I thought this was a new Lester about "how the media reports on BLM." He and Lester does have really similar style.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 16:59
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 17:06
|
|
|
That's a Ramirez-level botched metaphor.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 17:12
|
|
|
Alhazred posted:No, the cartoon is criticizing people for only having good opinion when it benefits themselves. We're criticizing it because it's saying politicians only change to have good opinions because it benefits them. As if everyone who changes their mind only did it for self interest and not a result of self-reflection. That regular people can change their mind (thus making a position more popular in polls) but politicians only change their minds to win and never because of the same reasons regular people change their minds. The first sitting Republican congressperson to come out in favor of gay marriage did so because his son came out to him and it made him reevaluate the issue. He wasn't looking at polls, he changed his mind. But sure, let's just poo poo over everyone who agrees with us now for not agreeing with us ten years ago. That's a very productive attitude to take about how politicians can never be people with changing and evolving views and only scummy self-interested poll watchers. That attitude certainly doesn't erode confidence in the political system and will certainly help more people come over to our side in the future.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 17:30
|
|
|
I think it's a little fair to be annoyed that the politicians who, ten years ago, were saying that gay rights was a losing wedge issue and tried to push it back into the closet suddenly turn around and act like they were always 100% supportive and just waiting for the "more convenient season". If you were someone who advocated for gay rights in the late 90s and early 2000s, it feels a little disingenuous for the politicians to decide the season is now right after you spent 15 years pushing back against both them and conservatives to force the issue out into the public sphere. It would be like if after LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act he turned to MLKjr and said "See, I told you I was always on your side!". They were a best indifferent and at worst hostile to all the selfish trouble those activist were causing, but those activist are the petty ones for holding a grudge apparently.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 17:42
|
|
|
I think while it is partly because they're opportunistic a-holes, it's also in part because for some reason a politician changing their mind ever is seen as a bad thing ("flip-flopping"), so these politicians are trying to avoid that stigma. Of course they don't understand that that only works for the right because they have Fox News to imprint their 'always thought so' claims in their viewers' brains. I think Democrats need to learn that it's okay to say 'we were wrong' (as long as they actually follow that with appropriate actions). And they should do so fast so they have time to actually show they mean it before 2018 election time.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 17:49
|
|
|
Saying Democrats were indifferent to LGBT right for the 90s and early 2000s is more a disingenuous lie than anything I've heard from Democratic politicians on the subject. Democrats have been pushing the outer edge of what's publicly acceptable for a long time and they are a large part of how the public changed their minds. Yeah, only a very small minority handful were for say marriage equality in 2000, but they kept the ball slowly moving forward. Obviously not them alone, but to act like they were some kind of neutral observer with no stake is just a lie. And this is I think why that cartoon's so frustrating for me. All progress happens a little bit at a time. And rather than celebrate that we've gone from X to Y, you're attacking people for taking six intermediary steps before finally getting there. If you want a candidate to start at Y, in a time when Y would lose them the race, you're asking for political failure and ensuring we never actually get to Y. Especially with this added strawman that Democrats don't admit they used to be wrong. I've never heard prominent democrats who change their mind on an issue pretend they never held the old issue. That's not a thing that commonly happens.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 18:13
|
|
|
Cpt.Americant posted:And this is I think why that cartoon's so frustrating for me. All progress happens a little bit at a time. And rather than celebrate that we've gone from X to Y, you're attacking people for taking six intermediary steps before finally getting there. If you want a candidate to start at Y, in a time when Y would lose them the race, you're asking for political failure and ensuring we never actually get to Y. It's like the progress on marijuana legalization. I've heard a lot of libertarians say that the Democrats are no better than the Republicans on this. When on the Republican side you get Jeff Sessions pushing back against legalization, while the Democrats slowly open minds to legalization in the most gradual of fashions (refusing to prosecute federally in states that have legalized it.) Most big cultural changes happen gradually over time. It'd actually have been very strange if we went from the Stonewall riots to gay marriage in 2 weeks, wouldn't it? People change their minds over time, for the most part.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 18:22
|
|
Tibalt posted:I think it's a little fair to be annoyed that the politicians who, ten years ago, were saying that gay rights was a losing wedge issue and tried to push it back into the closet suddenly turn around and act like they were always 100% supportive and just waiting for the "more convenient season". If you were someone who advocated for gay rights in the late 90s and early 2000s, it feels a little disingenuous for the politicians to decide the season is now right after you spent 15 years pushing back against both them and conservatives to force the issue out into the public sphere. Actually that cartoon is more like MLKjr saying "We know you only voted for this because it was convenient, scum." and then holding a petty and counterproductive grudge. As far as I can tell you are in favor of getting politicians who might be convinced to support your cause voted out in favor of ones who are ardently against your cause because you see purity of ideals as more important than actually accomplishing your goals, this tells me that your real goal is ideological purity instead of whatever you falsely claim to be your cause. The fact that you want to attack people who did not support your cause until it became viable for them to do so, the people who joined in for the final push to see the goal actually achieved only reinforces the fact that this was all about ideological purity and not about the goal you were pretending to pursue.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 18:32
|
|
|
 
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 18:33
|
|
|
Stiglich thinks black people are terrifying.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 18:44
|
|
|
AVeryLargeRadish posted:Actually that cartoon is more like MLKjr saying "We know you only voted for this because it was convenient, scum." and then holding a petty and counterproductive grudge. Gay marriage had a solid majority of support for a while before it magically became "politically viable". That's the whole loving point of the toon. Like seriously gently caress yourself for tut-tutting at anyone expecting more of their politicians. Social change simply doesn't happen without people who won't take "not politically viable at this time" for an answer.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 18:50
|
|
|
Just post more cartoons please, Jesus ChristCloud Potato posted:
This is so loving dumb and I love it
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 18:53
|
|
|
 1 2
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 18:54
|
|
|
oh no it's raining condoms
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 19:15
|
|
Dr Cheeto posted:Gay marriage had a solid majority of support for a while before it magically became "politically viable". That's the whole loving point of the toon. Did it have majority support in all of the states of the individual politicians who needed to support it? You are talking about national support, which is largely irrelevant to this discussion. Also stop putting words in other people's mouths, the only people I "tut-tut" are people who expect politicians to commit a political suicide which hurts the cause they claim to support out of idiotic ideological purity.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 19:16
|
|
|
I don't think that political inconvenience is a good excuse when it comes to not standing up for human rights. On other issues, maybe.
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 19:22
|
|
|
 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 19:23
|
|
|
Jimmy Fallon, famous for being an ardent partisan who never gave li'l Donald Trump's hair a good ol' tousle
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 19:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 23:12 |
|
|
Fister Roboto posted:I don't think that political inconvenience is a good excuse when it comes to not standing up for human rights. On other issues, maybe. A lot of people seem to think it's a binary position. Either you give full-throated support for something or you're ardently against it. In reality, politicians have to represent their constituents and if their constituents aren't in favor of something, being in support of it means you won't get elected and instead it'll be the guy with tremendously lovely positions who does. You can't change anything if you don't have power. You want to make changes? Elect whoever the gently caress you can who is sympathetic to your position, then hold their feet to the fire. With the GOP controlling all the branches of the government, we're seeing exactly what happens when we put ideological purity above pragmatism. None of these people give one single flying gently caress about anything remotely leftist and will not budge a goddamn hair towards human decency. I'd rather have 51 Hillary Clinton clones in the Senate than 51 Mitch McConnells because I know I can actually reason with one of them
|
|
#
?
Oct 8, 2017 20:10
|
|
