When did people lose their sense of humour?

edgarblythe wrote:

One reason that cover is not funny, it provides an image to be added to the other smear emails. To me, it seems almost certain the same bastards circulating the Obama smear emails will use it. There are more than a handful of people so frightened and ill informed they will accept it for accurate and send copies to friends and acquaintances in endless circles.

Yeah, but that's exactly what frightens me in this whole discussion. This implication that we (defined as you will: you, me, cartoonists, writers, media, comedians, liberals collectively) are now somehow obliged to look over our shoulder at everything we say, every joke we make or cartoon we publish. To make sure that it's foolproof enough that even the most ignorant or bigoted viewer will not take it the wrong way or use it for the wrong purposes.

That's an impossible standard - or at least, it's a standard that dooms us to mediocrity: no more edgy comedy for thee! Bubba might take it the wrong way, or use it for nefarious purposes!

0 Replies

Well said Osso.

Whatever his weaknesses, and he does have some, John McCain does have a wonderful capacity to poke fun at himself. I hunted for that YouTube clip where he, a notoriously bad singer, did a skit in which, since Barbra Streisand was trying to do his job, he would do hers. He had me laughing out loud. (They've apparently taken it down now with a notation that there was a copyright problem.)

Obama, Hillary, and McCain were all on SNL and McCain honestly was the only one who seemed to be really having a good time. He can't get around the issue of his age, which absolutely does not appear to be a handicap for him, so he uses it as the launching pad for his comedy routines. It is effective and, in my opinion, endearing. Obama could take lessons.

March. 19, 2007
WASHINGTON - John McCain, 70 and scarred, cannot deny his age. So he jokes about it.

"I'm older than dirt, more scars than Frankenstein, but I learned a few things along the way," quips the Republican presidential candidate, who tries to play down the ravages of time for the wisdom acquired over seven decades.

His body is battered from torture in Vietnam. The scar along his left cheek is a reminder of a different battle, with skin cancer. Yet, McCain packs his work days so tight that aides grouse. And the man who could be the oldest first-term president hiked the Grand Canyon from "rim to rim" last summer.
MSNBC LINK

McCain on SNL is a funny man
TWO CLIPS FOUND HERE

0 Replies

Most successful satire images play on a truth about the subject, such as McCain's age, Al Gore's foibles, and such. This one is at a fine line between stoking untruths and being funny. I don't advocate censoring such. It just leaves a foul taste in my mouth.

0 Replies

JTT wrote:

Edgar,

It seems to me that just because there is a seemingly endless fount of ignorance to be found in the US populace, that's no reason to dumb things down.

Those bastards will remain stupid ignorant bastards and if and when it's pointed up to them just what stupid ignorant bastards they are, it will likely only serve to move them deeper into stupidity and ignorance.

Not everyone has time to spend the day online or on A2K listening to your gospel, your highness. The politics of confusion are a game both sides play. It's a dirty business.

0 Replies

The subject of the satire was not the people portrayed in the cover drawing.

0 Replies

Of course it wasn't. That is what makes it so provocative and disturbing.

I think the New Yorker and the NY Times need a little behind the woodshed retraining.

0 Replies

Nimh writes

Quote:

Bubba might take it the wrong way, or use it for nefarious purposes!

Bubba? How dare you!!!! Just because every person who does not fall at the feet of Obama to worship and pay homage to him are rednecks driving pickup trucks with a gunrack across the back, a Bible on the seat, and bullhorns on the hood? Bitterly of course.

(ATTENTION oh ye plagued with humorless sensibilities: What I just wrote here is satire. Those who have followed this campaign understand every reference. Those who haven't think I'm seriously reaming out Nimh.)

I have had my problems with Nimh when he has taken direct and what I thought were unkind and unwarranted snipes at me. He probably feels the same way about some of my posts.

But here he is dead on accurate. Those so very quick to take offense at every little word or phrase or exaggeration or satire are those who would stifle free speech, free thought, and all artistic liscense in this country. Yes there are lines of decency and propriety that decent people do not cross. The New Yorker cover, on the face of it as some initially interpreted it--including the Obama campaign, probably did that. As it was intended, it did not.

The Obama campaign would have shown a lot of class if it had appreciated the satire and laughed it off.

I am reminded of an old Archie Bunker skit in which Archie, a gentle racist who was never unkind to black people but saw them in all their stereotypical images, rather increduously asked his young black neighbor, Lionel, if he worked at a certain place. And Lionel, college educated and quite intelligent, knowing Archie very well, flashed him a big grin and said enthusiastically, "Yes! I sweeps up! to which Archie nodded dead pan. In that moment, Lionel showed himself to be a pretty big man capable of seeing the humor in the situation. He would have been much less so had he lectured Archie about misconceptions about black people or racist attitudes.

So, I can appreciate Nimh's "Bubba" reference though I probably would have also included "Buffy" who drives her Volvo with the Obama bumper sticker on the back to the country club.

0 Replies

ossobuco wrote:

The subject of the satire was not the people portrayed in the cover drawing.

Precisely. That's a really good condensation of the issue.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Nimh writes

Quote:
Bubba might take it the wrong way, or use it for nefarious purposes!

Bubba? How dare you!!!! Just because every person who does not fall at the feet of Obama to worship and pay homage to him are rednecks driving pickup trucks with a gunrack across the back, a Bible on the seat, and bullhorns on the hood? Bitterly of course.

(ATTENTION oh ye plagued with humorless sensibilities: What I just wrote here is satire. ...)

No it isn't. It's sarcasm. Or rather, what purports to be sarcasm.

0 Replies

Thank you...

says Buffy. (No bumper sticker though.)

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Cycloptichorn

Horsey's cartoon is not actually on the cover of a national magazine, it is inside a local newspaper. Big difference.

0 Replies

The subject of the satire was not the people portrayed in the cover drawing.

That's the intent; no dispute. But, the image takes on a life of its own, and the intent can be no longer the dominating factor.

0 Replies

It's what I'd call a "lose lose". You insult the Obamas, and you insult the voters.

I think the NY is just desperate for readership.

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

ossobuco wrote:
The subject of the satire was not the people portrayed in the cover drawing.

Precisely. That's a really good condensation of the issue.

Agreed. And Nimh's point is that it isn't the duty of the satirist to explain that to those who just didn't get it nor should it be a requirement to do satire so that nobody can possibly misunderstand or spell it out so that the most uninformed or out of the loop people can't misinterpret it. Plenty of people did get it.

0 Replies

edgarblythe wrote:

That's the intent; no dispute. But, the image takes on a life of its own, and the intent can be no longer the dominating factor.

But even if that's the case, who's fault is that?

There was a previous New Yorker cover of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton in bed together, with a red phone ringing off the hook in the foreground and both of them grabbing for it. I thought it was moderately funny but it also minorly annoyed me -- something about the sexualization of a man and a woman running for president, etc. Was never a fully-formed thought, just got a smidge more than the usual "heh" that funny New Yorker covers usually get from me.

But nobody said anything about it. Non-issue.

The New Yorker had no particular reason to think that THIS would be plastered everywhere, with the image "taking on a life of its own." The media is in a froth over this one, and I don't think the froth is justified.

0 Replies

It makes no difference whose fault it is. It just turns out that way.

0 Replies

Well, this part

edgarblythe wrote:

the intent can be no longer the dominating factor.

seems to indicate that you think it's the New Yorker's fault. I don't think the New Yorker did anything wrong.

I'm in an argument on a local Obama email list about whether a (bigger) stink should be made about it. They're shooting for an apology from the New Yorker or a sticker (!) on the cover or something. I think that's flat-out ridiculous, and counterproductive.

0 Replies

sozobe wrote:

Well, this part

edgarblythe wrote:
the intent can be no longer the dominating factor.

seems to indicate that you think it's the New Yorker's fault. I don't think the New Yorker did anything wrong.

I'm in an argument on a local Obama email list about whether a (bigger) stink should be made about it. They're shooting for an apology from the New Yorker or a sticker (!) on the cover or something. I think that's flat-out ridiculous, and counterproductive.

I agree, completely. Use this obvious satire to ask every idiotic media personality who has ever been part of spreading this nonsense to rectify their mistakes.

0 Replies

edgarblythe wrote:

Most successful satire images play on a truth about the subject, such as McCain's age, Al Gore's foibles, and such. This one is at a fine line between stoking untruths and being funny. I don't advocate censoring such. It just leaves a foul taste in my mouth.

edgar said it best; see above.

0 Replies

When did people lose their sense of humour?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know