|
Why the gently caress are you reading it, if you hate it so much, motherfucker. It's clearly not your child's choice either. I mean, what is the situation here? What could possibly happen next? How is anyone supposed to react to this? Why would this ever be? gently caress I hate these cartoons that are just weak tweets with B^U faces attached
|
#
¿
Jan 15, 2024 03:52
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 17, 2024 16:32 |
|
|
Trapezium Dave posted:First Dog on the Moon: Taylor Swift is leaving Australia already? But she just got here! Um, 'Cruel Summer' is by Bananarama
|
|
#
¿
Feb 26, 2024 15:41
|
|
|
idonotlikepeas posted:Ed Gamble A deep well of lol that the intent here is for the reader to sympathise with these miserable, pathetic, whingeing sadsacks. Just amazing. None of them have problems, and there's not even a joke! It's literally just whingeing!! "Bluh bluh you think it's bad now, bluh bluh coming massive government debt crisis." As opposed to a real crisis that is actually occurring and affects you in any way? Jesus christ. "Bluh bluh I'm just unhappy for no reason, I can't even draw happy people, bluh bluh bluh," GET HELP Anyway, weird that the newspaper printed the headline on the back of the newspaper, completely separate from the story
|
|
#
¿
Feb 29, 2024 06:04
|
|
|
Trapezium Dave posted:Spooner: Can't bring himself to write the words "Trump is a liar", even coming out of the Trump-hating character's mouth. "He can be inaccurate and boastful" — whoa, whoa, hey now, let's not say things we can't take back! Also:
The thing is, he's got Trump looking evil as poo poo and the dog looking quizzical at him, trying to make sense of the strange human — I'm sure Spooner thinks he's produced a balanced, even-handed cartoon here, sensibly acknowledging that yes, yes, he's certainly a colourful figure — goodness yes! — and can be divisive, but also wisely and bravely pointing out that hmmm, you know, if you consider his actions objectively, etc. etc. crusty wank Anyway, yeah, he draws about some extremely domestic American political poo poo that has zero relevance for him and his audience in Australia, and it's weird and sucks. Senility approaches. Go outside, Spooner. (Apropos of nothing, I still hate Mark Knight the most because his Albanese caricature looks nothing like Albanese, yet he persists with it. Drives me crazy every time. He's just decided, "Anthony Albanese must look like this, because I have drawn a stupid-looking man, and that's what he is!")
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2024 03:44
|
|
|
Skios posted:That particular type is known as a butterfly ballot, and it was at the heart of the issues with the 2000 presidential elections, specifically in Palm Beach County, Florida: O_o But like what... do you do with it? What is the actual mechanism of marking the ballot? Thank you for supplying a photo but even so, I can't really parse what I'm looking at.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2024 10:17
|
|
|
Trapezium Dave posted:Knight: Knight is right to criticise the real, or at least very likely, plan to build wind turbines on top of the Twelve Apostles. Technowolf posted:Clay Bennett This is loving sad. Sad America. Sad, sad Americans liberals. 
|
|
#
¿
Mar 15, 2024 09:56
|
|
|
Doomykins posted:We could have everything running by 2050? Great! The loving quote about a generation planting trees they won't live to enjoy the shade of, you vile clown. First Dog, the vile clown, correctly makes the point, in that comic, that by the time a nuclear power plant got up and running in Australia, we could already have transitioned to 100% renewable energy, more easily, cheaply, and safely. Maybe that's not the case elsewhere, but it's definitely the case in Australia, and the reason why there is no valid case to be made in favour of nuclear power in Australia, no matter who's making it or what the specifics are. I agree that the scaremongering is unnecessary, but largely because it's irrelevant, not because nuclear can't possibly be scary. It's cleaner than coal, and it may be nearly perfectly safe when there are strict regulations in place that everyone follows all the time... when no-one ever cuts corners to maximise profits at the expense of the environment and human lives... ah, what a world that would be. Randalor posted:I mean, if nothing else, Fukushima being the only major nuclear accident in almost 40 years, AND it took a major natural disaster to cause it shows that nuclear isn't the big, bad boogeyman anti-nuclear advocates make it out to be. Yeah, like most things, nuclear is perfectly safe, barring the unpredictable, which by its nature cannot be predicted, in which case it is extremely unsafe. Oh actually, earthquakes in Japan? Those are quite predictable, in fact. And yet a nuclear disaster still happened. Come here to Japan and complain about how irrational the nation's reaction was. Vincent Van Goatse posted:Indian reservation ? Again: Australia. Though, since we're on the topic of Indigenous populations... DalaranJ posted:It seems to me that if any place in the world could build a Nuclear power plant in a place that wouldn't harm humans if it melted down it would be Australia. Maybe! I hope that this would be discussed with the traditional owners of the proposed site. I'm sure such discussions would be appropriately deferential to Indigenous Australians, as they always are! While you're thinking about Indigenous Australians, you can think about them inhabiting — permanently or periodically — every part of the continent for many thousands of years. You can think about how the image of the vast desert plains as uninhabited, useless, valueless, etc. — a great place for a nuclear power plant — is an image seen, and promoted, only by the coloniser, coloured by western, capitalist, and indeed imperialist values. I'm sure in Europe or America or wherever the gently caress, supporting nuclear power is very progressive and leftist or whatever posters in this thread think of themselves as. And yet for all your progressiveness you're unthinkingly interpreting Australian issues through a European/American lens. (Even Australians aren't immune to this because we're influenced by the more culturally powerful western/English-speaking societies.) Just remember that the whole fucken world isn't the same and doesn't have the same problems and even where the problems are similar, the ideal solutions to those problems, in the local context, may not be. In America, if you needed a background check to buy guns, gun ownership and thus gun violence might go down! In Australia, if you only needed a background check to buy guns, way more people could have guns. You all understand this, right? OK well understand this too: nuclear power in Australia would be a step backwards for the environment, for sustainability, for safety, for global warming, for human rights. Our problems are different, thank gently caress.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2024 15:48
|
|
|
Guavanaut posted:Okay. The government should apologize for all the people that they killed. Where do I complain? Me, a strict utilitarian, in the most convincing tone I can manage: "So you see Obaasan, if an accident happens, it's actually very safe, because while you might get sick from the radiation, you'll get more sick from stress if we move you away from it!" Randalor posted:It took the tsunami following the most powerful earthquake ever recorded in Japan (and the 4th most powerful recorded in the world) to cause the disaster. I don't think this is quite the own you think it is. OK, so we're back to it being an unpredictable disaster, then. The kind which by nature can't be safeguarded against. (Also I can't agree that it was completely unpredictable... the scale goes up to 10, after all. And Japan knew for a long time that The Big One was coming at some point. But that's by the by.) What's your argument here? Are you arguing that a nuclear power plant should be built in Australia? Because that's what my post was about. (Fukushima factors in, incidentally but rightly, as an example of the supposedly safe becoming suddenly unsafe. But as I said at the start: regardless of whether nuclear is scary or not, it ought to be irrelevant because there is no good argument to be made in favour of nuclear power in Australia.)
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2024 16:34
|
|
|
Christ almighty.Randalor posted:... what's YOUR argument here? My argument is that there is no case for building a nuclear power plant in Australia. Thought that was pretty clear. quote:Since when did I say anything about building a nuclear power plant in Australia? I commented that Fukushima being the only really major nuclear accident in almost 40 years, and that required an actual no-poo poo natural disaster to happen, just shows that nuclear energy isn't the boogeyman the media portrays it as. Right, and it was in that context that you made your comment and that I quoted you. But I think I can see where we are misunderstanding each other: quote:Hell, other than First Dog being from Australia and comparing the area the Fukushima meltdown affected to Melbourne's area, there's nothing in the comic talking about building reactors IN Australia. No, see, the comic is completely about building nuclear reactors in Australia, because that is a current topic in Australian politics, hence the Australian political comic from Australia talking about it. This is — and I am not accusing you of this solely and completely — but this is the sort of cultural myopia I was complaining about : you see the Australian comic asking, "Why are we talking about nuclear power?" and you think that "we" means "All of us, anywhere in the world, especially wherever it is that I live, probably America," whereas in fact, when First Dog said "we," he meant, "we Australians, here in Australia". I do not love the First Dog comic. I don't agree with everything in it. But it needs to be interpreted in context. Please. Prism posted:Why is Australia's use of coal and gas magically so much cleaner than everywhere else in the world that there's no argument for moving against it? It isn't, and there isn't. I never even implied as much. quote:
As I said — though I'll try to make it more clear this time — in Australia, if we started seriously investing in renewables right now, the same amount (much less in fact) that we would have to invest in nuclear power, we would be running on 100% renewable energy long before a nuclear power plant could even be built. There is thus no good reason to even consider nuclear power. It is a current topic in Australian politics because the current batch of regressive conservatives have at last sensed the political wind blowing against coal, oil, and gas, so they are bringing up the idea of nuclear power in opposition to movement towards green/renewable energy. It is an annoying distraction; it's contrariness for the sake of it; it's not a discussion that needs to be happening... in Australia. Again, that's a whole different country. quote:Renewables would also be a good idea, of course. It makes sense to choose a point somewhere on a sliding scale of nuclear to renewables and the best point certainly differs by where you're at. Quite probably Australia's is much closer to the renewables end! Yes. Except, it is right at the renewables end. I know. It's the loving Twilight Zone. quote:But you say there's no good argument to be made in favour of nuclear power at all, but are short on reasons why beyond declaring people imperialist colonizers. Which people did I describe as imperialist colonisers? The imperialist colonisers?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2024 17:37
|
|
|
Murdstone posted:Why not an energon cubes-based energy policy? [eyes widen] Why, in social and economic terms, that would be transformative!
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2024 18:02
|
|
|
Prism posted:You can go there without scaremongering about nuclear power like the comic does and you followed up on. To be fair to First Dog, regardless of his personal feelings about nuclear power (I don't know what they are specifically), upon a re-read, I think that what he's getting at in that comic is that — whether it's rational or irrational — Australians are wary of nuclear power, and thus political unpopularity is another point against the likelihood of nuclear power in Australia being a worthwhile pursuit. Again, the message of the comic is really: Peter Dutton is not even serious about nuclear power. He knows it's not going to happen, and he knows it shouldn't happen anyway, he's just wasting everyone's time and attention because that's his job. And the media indulges him, and isn't that frustrating. quote:edit: I am also not American fwiw and I get annoyed when the Americans assume everything is just like it is there, too. Yes, and sorry to you and everyone else for snarking and generalising a bit. The generalising is, best case scenario, to make the general point I'm making more important than the specific people I'm quoting in order to make it. And the snark comes across probably worse than I intend it (depends who's reading), but I've been online for literally decades now and can probably do better. Thank you all for reading what I had to say!
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2024 18:33
|
|
|
Trapezium Dave posted:
Knight remains astonishingly, almost aggressively bad at caricature. It's not like David Attenborough hasn't been done before. For several decades! There's a bloodymindedness to being a political cartoonist by profession yet avoiding ever learning this one central and fundamental skill. I mean, it doesn't even have to be caricature, per se — just likeness would be enough! But can't even manage that. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that Knight has some form of prosopagnosia — the inability to recognise faces. But more likely it's just the inability to recognise his own flaws. Kellies nomination: worst caricature (or consider Knight's entire oeuvre for a lifetime award)
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2024 05:03
|
|
|
100YrsofAttitude posted:Brésil : Rio ne respire plus/ Brazil: Rio can't breathe by Vadot from Belgium [sternly, hands on hips] All right. Who cummed on Jesus? Who cummed on Jesus so much that he can't maintain the Jesus pose? Well, we'll just have to stay at our desks through lunch time then, won't we? Until we find out who cummed on Jesus so much. And all over the mountain! Or did that much cum just magically appear out of nowhere? Technowolf posted:Clay Bennett Jesus, finally loving sinking in, is it, Bennett?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 24, 2024 17:19
|
|
|
Skios posted:Steve Breen Oh no, the 1950s sci-fi robot is eclipsing the 1950s American everyman!
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2024 12:46
|
|
|
Stultus Maximus posted:Bitter old man ranting about how kids these days want to work collaboratively to achieve goals. Skelley really does seem like a genuinely miserable person.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2024 15:20
|
|
|
idonotlikepeas posted:Bob Englehart Click fill, click fill What are layers, what is flatting, I'm a professional
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2024 07:59
|
|
|
Trapezium Dave posted:Pope: Owns. Vicious and inspired. Justice with a tattoo pen is a memorable image. Kellies nomination: best overall quote:Knight: Just illustrating the famous quote, no twist. Typical of Knight's unimaginative, mid-tier competence. quote:Leak, Son of Leak: Now that Lehrmann — perhaps the pinkest man in the nation's history, with his round piggy face and his nasty little mouth — is officially an indefensible bad guy, he emerges from Leak's stylus as tan-skinned, thick-lipped, heavy-browed: vaguely 'foreign'-coded, basically. Leak just can't loving help himself.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2024 08:26
|
|
|
Cloud Potato posted:David Squires: Squires is such an exceptionally good cartoonist that I regret, every time, not knowing a loving thing about soccer. (Occasionally I recognise a name from Athletico Mince, but... well, that's not terribly much help.)
|
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2024 18:32
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 17, 2024 16:32 |
|
|
Trapezium Dave posted:
Wow, this cartoon has a lot more dark-skinned people than Knight usually draws! Maybe he's trying to be more progressive.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 21, 2024 11:33
|
|
