Fister Roboto posted:

No ring.

Raised By Birds posted:

Nenonen posted:

Technowolf posted:

Adam Serwer and Jasmine Walls on T. Thomas Fortune.

Technowolf posted:

1

Sandpuppy posted:

4

Sandpuppy posted:

12

Sandpuppy posted:

12

ryonguy posted:

Okay, but are we supposed to read this as being sympathetic to the business people? The rest of his work isn't particularly pro-capitalism.

Sandpuppy posted:

12

Somfin posted:

In 2024, Rall has Rallston not recognise a fellow political cartoonist who's boozing it up with a former President and a former rock superstar at a Club Med. making GBS threads on a recently deceased member his own profession for no loving reason at all. Same diff, right?

count_von_count posted:

Hand Knit posted:

Hello friends, I am trying to find an old Tim Krieder cartoon. I can't find it on The Pain archives, probably because I can't remember its name.

The one I'm looking for is the one where he's old and he's telling his grandkid (in fetishwear) about pets and his kids are offscreen yelling at him for using the "p" word.

Hand Knit posted:

Hello friends, I am trying to find an old Tim Krieder cartoon. I can't find it on The Pain archives, probably because I can't remember its name.

The one I'm looking for is the one where he's old and he's telling his grandkid (in fetishwear) about pets and his kids are offscreen yelling at him for using the "p" word.

bunnyofdoom posted:

It's a Marty Two Bulls I think actually

fishing with the fam posted:

Pretty sure this is the fella.

http://www.thepaincomics.com/weekly010905.htm

fishing with the fam posted:

Pretty sure this is the fella.

http://www.thepaincomics.com/weekly010905.htm

quote:

Artist's Statement
Frequently Asked Questions About This Cartoon:
1a. and 1b.) What are you, some kind of (a) pro-slavery racist (b) animal-rights-hating rear end in a top hat?
Oh my goodness no. No no no no no. No. I'm not equating slavery to pet-owning, or implying that that slavery was as harmless as owning pets--or even, necesarily, that owning pets is harmless. All I'm pointing out in this cartoon is the somewhat random and unpredictable nature of moral trends. (Did I say moral trends? What am I, suggesting that morality is relative, rather than absolute--a matter of mere fashion? Well, no, no, not really. I mean sort of, I guess, yes. Yes.) And it's impossible to predict what the moral standards of the future are going to be and try to live up to those. Who knows what future generations will condemn us for? Owning pets? Eating meat? Driving cars? Having babies?

I don't want to get into a while big thing here. Well, I guess I'm already into one. poo poo. Look, I'm not saying that morality is relative, so whatever, man. I realize that there there are plenty of people today who are holding themselves up to what they imagine the moral standards of the future ought to be, fighting for good causes that now seem fringy and hopeless--animal rights, reparations for slavery, the abolition of corporations--just as there were plenty of people who opposed slavery for hundreds of yers before it was actually abolished. I'm trying to do this myself in my own paltry impotent little way. It just seems arrogant and hypocritical of us to assume that people of a hundred or two hundred years ago were somehow morally inferior to us. Because let's not forget that the Abolitionists were a vocal minority, a fringe group, considered a bunch of fanatics and wack-jobs by the majority of responsible people, who, like most of us, went about their business and didn't really care about politics and figured that the way things were was probably about as good as they could get and making a fuss wasn't going to change anything. Maybe they disapproved of slavery in the abstract but it didn't really affect them, and what could they do about it, anyway? So let's not get on our High Horse.

For the record, I do own a pet, a cat which I call the Quetzal and treat with creepy doting affection.
2.) Except but why is that little boy wearing S&M gear? Like, what are you, some sort of pervert?

Ha ha, oh my land no of course not. I was just trying to imagine what outlandish fashions children might wear fifty years from now. I considered the usual little spacesuit with the clear plastic helmet and those art deco flared discs around the shoulders, but the funniest idea I came up with--well, actually, I believe maybe my girlfriend Allison came up with it--was that they'd wear leather. If you think about it, it's only an extrapolation from the increasingly sluttly fashions that prepubescent girls are wearing in imitation of various pop stars these days. At the moment it's the girls who are sex objects in our culture, but that can change. Young boys have been eroticized in lots of societies. And homosexual culture is a pervasive influence on the tastes and styles of mainstream American culture. So who knows? Fifty years from now maybe you'll be ranting about decency and shame while your own kids shrug and roll their eyes as they buy cock rings and dog collars for your eight-year-old grandson, explaining that all the other kids are wearing them and they don't really mean anything anymore, it's just a fad, so why not?

If you want to get pretentious about it, which it seems like I usually want to, the boy's dress also further complicates the cartoon's central issue, which is about fluctuating cultural (and moral) norms. It's extremely hard to predict trends (much less something as arbitrary as fashions) but the one thing we do know for sure about the future is: we're going to hate it.

Sandpuppy posted:

17

Samurai Sanders posted:

Yeah pretty much. But also in the pre-cellphone days I felt like that when my internet went out. every alternative to whatever it is I was trying to do also involves the internet somehow.

Nowadays I can even have the internet on cross-Pacific flights so my expectation of having it always has only gotten stronger.

SerialKilldeer posted:

This is what Peters is referring to: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/2019/01/half-male-half-female-cardinal-pennsylvania/

Cloud Potato posted:

Mail:
PAUL THOMAS on... MPs jumping ship

Cloud Potato posted:

Guardian:

"Steve Bell on three Tories joining the Independent Group – Three Conservative MPs who resigned to join a new independent group on Wednesday said Theresa May had allowed their former party to fall prey to hardline Brexiters"

Hihohe posted:

Do you brits have , like , an alien infiltration thing going on, and you dont realize it?

Internet Kraken posted:

I worry about this person. They seem to spend 100% of their time dwelling in the depths of despair.

count_von_count posted:

I guess I shouldn't be surprised at Rawl making GBS threads on a more talented and successful cartoonist again, but a quick googling didn't reveal any particular beef between him and MacNelly; am I missing something? And speaking of MacNelly let's take a look at his ability to coherently lay out a 3d space by way of contrast:



Even his simpler stuff has more impact and energy:



I guess he retired to Florida and did some beach paintings http://www.jeff-macnelly.com/images/dog-beach%2072.jpg

count_von_count posted:

I guess he retired to Florida and did some beach paintings http://www.jeff-macnelly.com/images/dog-beach%2072.jpg

Apple Pie Hubbub posted:

1

Lightning Knight posted:

I am genuinely not sure what the point of this one is but how kind of him to give a nice long space on her arm to photoshop "mike lester beats his wife" onto.

Apple Pie Hubbub posted:

1

Jerusalem posted:

I think the intended meaning is that the people that Democrats (ALL Democrats, in 100% lockstep at all times) support or are friends with turn out to be horrible monsters or dishonest creeps, and therefore Democrats (ALL Democrats) are dumb and so goddamn crazy.

Of course, the way that I read it is that Democrats judge people based on their actions and don't blindly support somebody (sadly this also isn't true) just because they're part of their "tribe". The mixed messages of making the Democrat a giant, ugly woman (?) also muddies the waters quite a bit, and throwing in the pussy hat is also incredibly hosed up.

Lightning Knight posted:

I don't know why Ford or Stormy Daniels is on there if this is the message, although I guess Lester doesn't live on the same planet as me.

Jerusalem posted:

Basically, Ramirez has two Pulitzers but also is horrible at his chosen craft.

Edmund Lava posted:

Conservatives talking point has been: Judge Beer got confirmed which proves Ford was lying.

Scaramouche posted:

IIRC Rall's beef with MacNelly was that that he was successful and of a previous generation and it was obviously these "old boys" that were the ones keeping comic genius Ted Rall down/from more success. Part of this was he claimed no one was interested in his unique "style" because they only wanted MacNelly like art. MacNelly was actually a pretty good cartoonist, he also made Shoe and Pluggers.