Guess what's this is all about:

[MrScorpio]

[ZombieHorde]

1. It's about identity. nt

[jtuck004]

2. The Fun House of Mirrors at the Carnival...n/t

[BumRushDaShow]

3. K&R

A modern day parable!

[tblue37]

4. KnR. nt

[Android3.14]

5. A poorly executed inaccurate metaphor?

[MrScorpio]

6. Actually, I think that it's quite appropriate, accurate and well done...

However, if you'd like to explain why you think that it's a poorly executed inaccurate metaphor, I believe that we can discuss our differences.

[Android3.14]

8. Of course you do

You posted it.
The cartoonist seems to be making a statement about how an entire group of individuals defined by some characteristic (race/wealth/religion/occupation?) mistreats all other groups.

Tell me, what group on the planet, in its entirety, mistreats everyone else?

[MrScorpio]

9. Groups that negatively affect others via racism, sexism, ablelism & various forms of discrimination

It describes how people who derive privilege from some status that they're born into go out of their way to deny that such privilege even exists. They deny how those systems negatively impacts those who do not belong to that privileged status.

This is how all systems of privilege work.

[LiberalLoner]

10. +1

[Android3.14]

11. The bigotry is what makes it a poorly executed and inaccurate metaphor

A more accurate and less divisive way to state this is many people who derive privilege from some status that they're born into will go out of their to deny that such privilege even exists.

I'd even hazard to say that the artist would have had a more powerful cartoon if he or she had made the rat into a seagull attempting to raise the awareness of other seagulls.

[MrScorpio]

16. The artist showed that those who're victimized by bigotry are voiceless to their victimizers

Last edited Mon Oct 27, 2014, 08:03 AM - Edit history (1)

That the victim's own perspectives are usually skewed, and that attempts to draw attention to the victimization are misrepresented as inaccurate and divisive attacks. Such as whenever those who benefit from racist systems lodge accusations of "reverse racism" and those who derive privilege from patriarchy come back with "misandry."

It couldn't have been any clearer to someone who's willing to admit that such systems exist, even if they oppose them.

A curious thing though, the post that I gleaned this from Tumblr came with a caption:

A comic about Seagulls.

If you feel like this comic doesn’t accurately represent you, and that you personally don’t act like this, good. That means this comic isn’t about you.

If you DO act like this, and are working on a counter argument about how not all _____ are ______ , well that’s just disappointing.

http://mrscorpio.tumblr.com/post/101075390474/pepperonideluxe-a-comic-about-seagulls-if-you

The artist knew exactly what they were trying to say. When I'm dealing with people who derive privilege from white supremacy and deny how this and patriarchy harms women and people of color, this is exactly how they behave.

[Heather MC]

22. +1000

[gwheezie]

76. Yes, nt

[Rex]

78. Spot on!

[Android3.14]

83. MrScorpio showed

That the only way a person can defend a poorly executed and inaccurate metaphor regarding racism and privilege is to try to show that anyone who disagrees with him is a privileged racist.

Privilege does exist, but that is not my criticism. The work itself is flawed.

[nomorenomore08]

85. Again, how would you personally improve upon the "metaphor"? n/t

[Android3.14]

92. Make the rat a gull

And point out how the other gulls turn on those within their privileged group when he or she points out the problem. This eliminates the hypocrisy, provides a role model, and retains the humor.
Maybe even pull back for that last three panels and show actual (white?) people remarking on the cruelty of gulls.

Probably should be shorter as well.

[Warpy]

79. Privilege is invisible to those who have it.

Criticism has to come from the out group.

[JaneyVee]

7. Sarah Palin and rightwing persecution mentality.

[nomorenomore08]

86. Yep.

[Fairgo]

12. Bravo!

I agree with the previous poster. This is a modern fable; a new commentary on an ancient human foible. The french fry is a genius MacGuffin. Loved it.

[MrScorpio]

17. Some people wish to see it

While others consciously avoid seeing it.

[bemildred]

13. The dangers of harassing creatures that like to eat you? nt

[Adrahil]

14. GamerGate. NT

[MrScorpio]

18. That's one such example nt

[nomorenomore08]

87. That too.

[seveneyes]

15. Allusion to gullibility

Attributing wild animal behavior to domesticated humans.

[MrScorpio]

19. Well, the animals are conversing with each other in English

Very few animals are able to communicate in a common lingua franca across species, right?

Let's just say that it's a metaphor.

[bemildred]

20. "Gullibility". Heh heh heh. nt

[BumRushDaShow]

21. Personification is an old literary tool

to illustrate the human condition. So many examples of it out there (Animal Farm, Charlotte's Web, Br'er Rabbit, and on and on). Science Fiction "aliens" are designed to do the same.

[Prophet 451]

23. Victim mentality, on both sides

The rat refuses to try and help with excuses and lumps all gulls in together while the gulls take offence to teh rat's frustration. Neither of them are in teh right (although teh rat is somewhat less wrong).

[MrScorpio]

25. "Not all gulls..."

Of course.

[Prophet 451]

26. Given that the author refuses to say what it's about...

My interpretation is as valid as yours.

[MrScorpio]

34. The funniest thing is that I've spent the last five months on the Discnst...

Conversing with people who sounded EXACTLY like the gulls. Word for word in many cases.

Which is why the comic resonated with me so much, the fact that recognized the language:

- The obtuseness (The off-subject remarks about French Fries)

- The negative stereotyping against minorities (the attacks on the rabbit, the rat and eventually the pigeons)

- The expression of persecution where it doesn't exist ('Not me, I'm not doing that' 'No, is YOU who are attacking us')

- The utter lack of self-awareness about their own hostility (Saying that they're not defending cruelty when that's exactly what they're doing)

- The role reversals, as if the victims of bigotry actually have the power to stop their own victimization

- The inability to admit that they derive benefit from systems of privilege and others do not

- Accusations of "reverse racism" and "misandry" to deflect from their own racism and misogyny

- The inability to recognize injustice

- And the tendency to claim hurt feelings to justify engaging in further injustices, as if the victims of bigotry deserve the treatment they're getting.

What's also clear is that both the gull and the rat are exemplifying the dichotomy between conservative language and liberal/progressive language. Neither are talking the same and as usual, the winger (gull) isn't even in the very realm of reality.

You're never going to get conservatives to admit that they derive benefit from unjust systems of privilege. They think that that shit is perfectly justifiable.


What's interesting here was that I was able to break all of that down for you, that's because it's all in there for anyone to see. And as I've said, I've had the opportunity to obtain practical experience in dealing with this sort of discourse, face to face, with right wingers.

It's pretty obvious.

[Prophet 451]

40. You see what you want to see

As I said, the author doesn't say what it's about so you impute your own meanings to it.

[MrScorpio]

44. If you understand how systems of privilege work, then the comic is analogous to all of it

Racism, sexism, homophobia and others, they all apply.

Usually, this where some people respond by saying that none of that stuff exists at all, or at least NOT to the extent to which those who are victimized by these systems say that they are.

[Prophet 451]

48. As I said, you see what you want to see

Racism will not be conquered through black people shouting that white people are awful and that's why people hate them. Sexism will not be conquered by women shouting about how awful men are and that's why people hate them. Homophobia will not be conquered by gay people shouting that straight people are awful and that's why people hate them.

If you lash out at a group blindly, people in that group will be defensive, even if they initially agreed with you.

[MrScorpio]

52. Racism will stop when white people in this country cease serving the ends of white supremacy

Sexism will end when men end the systems of patriarchy.

Homophobia will end when straights stop being bigoted against anyone who isn't straight.

Silencing the voices of those who are victimized only serves to benefit those who are victimizing them.

[Prophet 451]

62. I just wrote a long post explaining this

so I'm just going to c/p it:

No, stating that you are not part of a group doing bad things is not "making it all about yourself". It is a natural, normal human reaction when someone does something wrong to want to disassociate from it. Saying "you blacks can be awful cruel" when a black person commits some crime would be instantly (and rightly) shouted down as being too broadbrush and black people would rightly seek to disassociate themselves from the criminal before expressing their condemnation. That's not making it all about yourself, that's establishing that you are not like them and therefore, that you are interested in what the other person has to say. The use of "you seagulls", complete with pointing finger, is an inherent accusation of likeness, it is entirely normal to want to rebut that assumption.

When frustrated, the rat promptly yells that "this is why people hate seagulls", an inherent accusation that gulls are all the same. In his anger, even justifiable anger, he accuses all members of the group of being the same. "This is why people hate blacks", "this is why people hate women", "this is why people hate gays". Lumping people into a shared group on the basis of a characteristic is a bad thing. The anger might be justified (and again, differentiating yourself from those doing something horrible is not making it all about yourself, it is saying that you are not like them and are willing to listen) but that doesn't matter much because as soon as you start saying "this is why people hate gulls/straights/men/whites", members of that group stop listening.

The gull starts by differentiating himself from the group of horrible people, a normal and natural reaction that says that since you are not like them, you are willing to listen. By removing himself from the group, the gull isn't defending them, he is condemning them by saying they are not like him. Not sure what the fries thing is about since they don't appear in the strip. Then the rat says "seagulls are attacking people". He doesn't qualify it by saying "some", he just says "seagulls". The gull, having pointed out his difference from the killers, says it doesn't involve him. Which it doesn't. Holding people responsible for something a member of their group does is a bad thing, it's collective punishment. Where the metaphor breaks with reality is that the seagull doesn't condemn the wrongdoing. That's a break from reality because most members of a group, having differentiated themselves from the wrongdoers (and thus, since most people think of themselves as good, condemning them) will willingly agree that some members of the group can be bad people.

Then the rat accuses the gull of defending it. But he hasn't defended it in any way. He's pointed out that he isn't one of the wrongdoers, that's it. The rat refuses to try and help and offers some justifications, then says that the gulls might listen to another gull. Reasonable argument. Then we have our second break with reality as the gull says "rats attack gulls all the time! I feel attacked right now!". That's not how real people act. That's almost the right-wing caricature of the left, always feeling victimised by something.

Two panels later, the rat asks the gull to acknowledge that those gulls are doing a terrible thing. Then we have our third break from reality as the gull refuses to. Again, real members of a group, once they've established that they're not one of the wrongdoers (condemning them by disassociation) are more3 than willing to admit that some members of that group are assholes. So we get the exaggerated parody of how real people act when the gull accuses teh rat of trying to demonize all gulls. Then there's the french fry thing again. Then the rat starts ranting about "this is why people hate gulls", an inherent accusation that all gulls/blacks/gays/women/men are all the same and claims that leaping to your own defence is defending the wrongdoers, rather than condemning them by disassociation. Most gulls/blacks/men/gays/women will willingly agree that some gulls/blacks/men/gays/women are assholes. Differentiating yourself from them is not defending them, it's a normal desire to avoid being judged as the same as them. Then the rat condemns them as all the same.

I never said the gull was innocent, I said he was wrong. But I also said that condemning a group by the actions of individual members of it, which is what the rat does with "you gulls" and the pointing finger. When you point a finger in someone's face and say "you people", an inherent accusation, don't be surprised when people defend themselves.

[MrScorpio]

64. The gulls represent those who belong to privileged groups...

I know that you're going way out of your way to deny that the comic was about the callous tyranny of privilege. But it's quite clear that your convoluted explanation doesn't fit with either the narrative, or with reality. Repeatedly, myself and others have all pointed that out and all you've done was try to deflect the conversation to some narrative where the victims are in fact the victimizers.

Basically, the cartoon even addressed that tactic, which is why it's so remarkable that you're engaging in this very thing.




You do understand that this isn't about you, right? No one is demanding you to identify with the oppressors. Others who derive benefit from systems of privilege and oppressive choose not to.





Let me ask you this, do you recognize whether or not you belong to a particular privileged group? Any one will do. System of privilege are complex, in that people can either belong to some, none or all. If you do belong to any, which ones?

[Prophet 451]

67. "No one is demanding you to identify with the oppressors"

Saying "you gulls/whites/straights/men" is inherently an accusation, it inherently lumps the subject in with the oppressors. The unselective speaking about gulls/whites/straights/men is inherently an accusation that all members of that group can be judged the same. Seeking to differentiate oneself from that group is an entirely normal reaction. Holding a group responsible for the accusations of some parts of it, especially when membership of that group is unchosen, is always a bad thing.

Do I belong to a group with privilege? Well, I'm male so that's one. I pass for white (therefore, being constructed as white in the eyes of others) so that's another. I'm of a minority faith so not there. I'm not sure whether being bisexual counts as privilege or not because, on the one hand, bigots hate me as much as gay people but on the other, the fact that I'm not actually gay probably buys me some privilege. I'm a university graduate (and studying for my second degree in Forensic Psychology) but tuition is a lot less expensive here (I'm British) and student loans are a lot more reasonable so I'm not sure that counts. Did I forget anything (no, that's not sarcasm)? That said, all of that is also irrelevant because one doesn't have to be part of a group to see when it's wrong to judge that group collectively. When John Edwards was talking about poverty, it didn't matter that he was personally rich (although he later turned out to be a slimeball for unrelated reasons).

Look, I get that systems of privilege exist. I'm not denying that and never have. All I am saying is that firstly, when you talk about "you people" or make an unselective blanket statement about gulls/whites/straights/men, it is entirely natural for people to want to differentiate themselves from that group and secondly, that one should not judge an entire group by the actions of the worst members of it. We wouldn't stand for judging all black people by the standards of, say, OJ. We wouldn't tolerate someone saying "you blacks can be awful cruel" because it disparages a group because of the actions of a minority of that group. We shouldn't be any more willing to tolerate it when applied to other groups. It shouldn't matter whether we are talking about black people and accusations of criminality or priests and accusations of diddling children, it is wrong to judge a whole group by the actions of a few of it's members, talking about "you X" is inherently an accusation of belonging to the protested group, collective punishment is inherently wrong and it alienates potential allies.

[MrScorpio]

69. Alright, clearly you identify with the two most privileged groups in a white dominated country...

Whites and males. White males only make up one third of the population of America (If you're living in Britain, the ratio is probably much higher), however, there's no question that white males, as a social group, retain a greater amount of privilege than other identified groups.

Now, while it's completely out of your control, as all you had to do was to be born in such a way that would relegate you to that privileged status, you do derive those privileges whether you wanted them or not.

But that's OK.

Again, these things which are totally beyond your own direct control. No one is asking you to account for any privileges that you've been given without your consent. No one.

The first thing that we need to consider is that when privileges are automatically given at birth, without the consent or any action required by the recipient, we're not talking about an individual model of status. It's not like you took a test or worked hard to become a privileged white male in whatever white male dominated country you're living in. You had nothing to do with that, thus it's not your fault that you do derive privilege from either your whiteness or your maleness.

Now, what IS asked of you is that you understand that under social systems which are dominated by both patriarchy (including the UK, where the monarch is a Queen) and even in the US (where the President is not white), whiteness and maleness are the norm by which all else is judged, white males dominate the social constructs and are served by them. Neither of us live in a matriarchal and non-white dominated society, thus, you're not going to find where white males are dominated by, identified against and relegated to a lower social hierarchy beneath non-white women, or any women at all (The one notable exception in your case, being Her Majesty, The Queen).

So… This is not about you as a person. This is about the systems in which we live and the mode in which those systems operate.

Beyond that, you can take a particular stand, one of three:

- You can oppose the oppressive systems of patriarchy and white supremacy, from which you derive inherent privilege without your consent.

- You can excuse and ameliorate those oppressive systems, through your tacit acceptance and endorsement, which would mean that you're admitting to and justifying their very existence.

- You can choose to do absolve yourself from any responsibility, whatsoever, and even employ these systems of privilege to justify your denial of their very existence.

Again, there's no question that all whites and all males retain unearned privileges in a system dominated by both whiteness and patriarchy. No individual is responsible for any of these privileges either. What a person who retains these inherent privileges are responsible for is what they're going to DO with them.

You're concerned whether or not you're being judged. Well, merely existing as white male, while there may be the possibility that you'll be classified as "not an ally" to oppressed people without your prior direct input, your words and actions can set aside those concerns, if you were to choose the first of three previously stated choices.

No one is looking for any white male guilt from you. None of that is going to do anyone any good, as it's not your fault anyway. However, you are asked to be an ally. You are being asked as an ally to be self-aware enough to know when you're either helping or hurting. You are being asked as an ally to no longer play the game of white supremacy and patriarchy, because under those rules, you will most assuredly fail as an ally.

And what does it take to be a good ally? Here's an excellent example right here. If you're interested, I suggest that you read it and take heed: http://theangryblackwoman.com/2009/10/01/the-dos-and-donts-of-being-a-good-ally/

Remember… This is NOT about you. The first thing that you should do is to STOP making it about you. Once you detach your own individuality from the oppressive systems of white supremacy and patriarchal domination, I'm sure that you'll have an easier time dealing with those of us who are negatively affected by these systems and are unabashedly vocal about it.

[Prophet 451]

72. I am going to say it one more time

1) Differentiating the self from the subject of a "you people" is not making it about yourself. It is that simple. It is that clear. I have tried explaining this every way I know except doing it in German. It's not acceptance, defence or endorsement, tacit or otherwise. You either refuse to understand this or simply don't care.

2) I already know everything you just posted, much of it I agree with (again, I do not deny that systems of privelege exist or that I benefit from some of them) but until you accept point 1, there cannot be any agreement between us. You are asking me to accept everything you posted but utterly and flatly refusing to even consider the numerous times this has been explained to you.

3) Do you care to continue this conversation? Because if you dispute point 1 for one single word of your reply to this, I'm blocking you for being too fucking pig-headed to bother with, the same reason I block creationists and climate deniers. I don't waste time on people who will not accept facts, no matter how clearly they're explained. Yes, I am annoyed, being continually misrepresented and patronised has that effect.

[MrScorpio]

73. There are only four instances where the phrase "you people" was used in this thread...

And that's beside what I've just typed in the reply title. However, the ONLY other person responsible for employing that phrase is you.

For some reason, you took it upon yourself to personalize the cartoon. Even when repeatedly assured that the cartoon is not either about you or "you people," that is, unless it's your choice. It's was never necessary for you to do that.

Verstehen Sie, mein Herr?

[Prophet 451]

74. Goodbye

[nomorenomore08]

89. The gull *isn't* willing to listen, though. That's the point.

He's too puffed up with his own sense of entitlement and false persecution complex to recognize genuine injustice. And when pointed out to him, he arrogantly dismisses it.

[Bluenorthwest]

30. Your argument 'the rat refuses to help' is one given by the gull in the comic...did you miss that?

The rat is actually 'helping' from the first frame in that he is advocating and making strong arguments for better treatment of his kind, perhaps to the one seagull who seems most reasonable. What other forms of help would you suggest? Since you discount reason, advocacy, communication and empathy as being unhelpful, what would you suggest that rat do to 'help' those who kill rats?
And is it really about the rat's errors? Or is it all about the gulls killing rats for being rats?

Does it upset you because you think the gulls are white people and the rats black people or because you think the gulls are religious people and the rats are LGBT people?

[Prophet 451]

32. No, I saw that

The rat refuses to help with the excuse of "they always ignore me", a self-fulfilling self-justification that excuses making the effort to help. Advocacy is fine but lumping all people into a group by saying "gulls can be awful mean" is firstly, divisive and secondly, alienates those who might be allies. Communication and empathy are all good but not if you're going to start screaming when people don't instantly agree with you. If the gull seems like the most reasonable of his kind, as you suggest, he already knows that gulls can be mean, he just resents being lumped into a group with those who are mean just because he shares a characteristic with them.

[MrScorpio]

36. If the victims of bigotry actually had the power to stop that bigotry against them...

Don't you'd think they'd stop it themselves?

[Prophet 451]

38. If the victims of bigotry spend much of their time alienating allies

Which is what unqualified "gulls are awfully cruel" stuff does, then they will never remove that bigotry. The victims are usually in the minority. Simple raging unselectively at the oppressing group alienates those who would otherwise help. No-one wants to help the people telling them that they're horrible.

[Bluenorthwest]

42. You misquote the rat. You say he uses the 'unqualified' gulls ARE awfully cruel' but he really says

"Gulls CAN BE awful cruel" while watching gulls kill someone. He speaks about the behavior he is seeing. He does not say 'Gulls are cruel' as you claim.
Words mean things, which is why you changed them to fit your narrative.

[Prophet 451]

46. Fair enough, I got that one wrong

Sometimes a slip is just a mistake, not changing things to "fit a narrative" (Freud's theories about that have been largely disproven). Shortly thereafter, the rat shouts "whenever a seagull does a horrible thing, instead of condemning them, you jump to your own defence". This is where the metaphor breaks down because most reasonable people (as you say the gull seems to be) are perfectly willing to admit that some gulls do horrible things. The author strains the metaphor to fit their own narrative by having the gull refuse to admit that.

Then the rat leaps into "this is why people hate seagulls". When people say they hate black people because of crime, we call them on lumping a group together due to a single characteristic. Then the rat does exactly that, saying that the fact that some gulls kill rats is why people hate gulls. The rat generalises about a group and then is surprised when that group gets defensive.

Short version: Generalising about groups based on a sole characteristic is a bad thing. It makes people defensive and alienates potential allies.

[Bluenorthwest]

51. Um, no. You presented it incorrectly, took specific issue with things that were not there and used

that made up stuff to make your point.
Your own posts prove that the metaphor you say breaks down is actually spot on.

Short version: Murdering people alienates potential allies. The use of violence far outweighs some complaint about the words used to object to that violence. This comic starts with murder. And you are talking about how the killer's friend got insulted and how the victim's advocates sounded sort of angry....

[Prophet 451]

61. I just wrong a very long post explaing myself in great detail

I would suggest you read that one before you deliberately misunderstand me again.

[LanternWaste]

68. You should write a heavy-handed, non-cited, pedantic critique of Lewis Carroll's work too.

You should write a heavy-handed, non-cited, pedantic, yet fundamentally empty critique of Lewis Carroll's and George Shaw's work lacking both objectivity and and a rational conclusion also... to better follow up this one.

[Prophet 451]

70. Wow, good for you.

You sure showed me. Feel free to congratulate yourself at having put me in my place and successfully having ignored every point I was making.

[Bluenorthwest]

39. The rat is helping in the only phsycially safe way he can by advocating against a murder

which is happening directly in front of them. The rat points out that he is also a target for such murders, but he does that directly to a gull at risk of his own safety. The rat opens by asking a question, which the gull refuses to answer. He did not start screaming. A murder is happening in front of them, so clearly this is not about 'instant agreement' but as the rat asks, it is about the gulls apathy toward a murder which he could possibly stop, which the rat can not stop. The rats only hope is an appeal to individual gulls, who then make it all about them.
The context is a bloody murder in front of the gull. And you think it is about respect for the gulls? The life being taken is of less importance than a possible slight toward gulls from those they murder?
Note that here, again, I ask you questions. I asked you questions in my first post, which you did not answer, much like the gull does not answer the questions put to him by the rat. People who ask questions do so for a reason, people who refuse to answer them, they also have their reasons.

[Prophet 451]

43. As before

Making things into "X are horrible" alienates those of X who would be willing to help. General condemnations of a group make all of that group feel defensive, not just the ones who are actually guilty. The gulls make it all about them because the rat is accusing them. Yes, some of the gulls are guilty but the rat just lashes out at gulls in general, alienating even the one who was listening.

And I ignored your questions because they're beneath both of us and irrelevant. As I said above, you see whatever you want to see and since the author doesn't tell us what it's about, any interpretation is valid.

[Bluenorthwest]

49. The rat says to a gull who is casually watching a murder 'gulls can be awful cruel'.

How much more would you want that statement mitigated at the scene of a violent crime? How is it a general condemnation?
That gull makes the choice when asked, not to advocate for the victim at his feet, but to make it all about himself. That is a personal, individual choice. The apathy toward others and the focus on imagined slights to himself, that's his choice of priorities.
Your objective is that we don't talk about the murder going on in frame one, but about the bad attitude displayed by the victim's friends and advocates who upon witnessing the death of their loved one, got a strong tone of voice that the gulls find unsavory......

[Prophet 451]

60. And later on, he says "this is why people hate seagulls"

No, stating that you are not part of a group doing bad things is not "making it all about yourself". It is a natural, normal human reaction when someone does something wrong to want to disassociate from it. Saying "you blacks can be awful cruel" when a black person commits some crime would be instantly (and rightly) shouted down as being too broadbrush and black people would rightly seek to disassociate themselves from the criminal before expressing their condemnation. That's not making it all about yourself, that's establishing that you are not like them and therefore, that you are interested in what the other person has to say. The use of "you seagulls", complete with pointing finger, is an inherent accusation of likeness, it is entirely normal to want to rebut that assumption.

When frustrated, the rat promptly yells that "this is why people hate seagulls", an inherent accusation that gulls are all the same. In his anger, even justifiable anger, he accuses all members of the group of being the same. "This is why people hate blacks", "this is why people hate women", "this is why people hate gays". Lumping people into a shared group on the basis of a characteristic is a bad thing. The anger might be justified (and again, differentiating yourself from those doing something horrible is not making it all about yourself, it is saying that you are not like them and are willing to listen) but that doesn't matter much because as soon as you start saying "this is why people hate gulls/straights/men/whites", members of that group stop listening.

The gull starts by differentiating himself from the group of horrible people, a normal and natural reaction that says that since you are not like them, you are willing to listen. By removing himself from the group, the gull isn't defending them, he is condemning them by saying they are not like him. Not sure what the fries thing is about since they don't appear in teh strip. Then the rat says "seagulls are attacking people". He doesn't qualify it by saying "some", he just says "seagulls". The gull, having pointed out his difference from the killers, says it doesn't involve him. Which it doesn't. Holding people responsible for something a member of their group does is a bad thing, it's collective punishment. Where the metaphor breaks with reality is that the seagull doesn't condemn the wrongdoing. That's a break from reality because most members of a group, having differentiated themselves from the wrongdoers (and thus, since most people think of themselves as good, condemning them) will willingly agree that some members of the group can be bad people.

Then the rat accuses the gull of defending it. But he hasn't defended it in any way. He's pointed out that he isn't one of the wrongdoers, that's it. The rat refuses to try and help and offers some justifications, then says that the gulls might listen to another gull. Reasonable argument. Then we have our second break with reality as the gull says "rats attack gulls all the time! I feel attacked right now!". That's not how real people act. That's almost the right-wing caricature of the left, always feeling victimised by something.

Two panels later, the rat asks the gull to acknowledge that those gulls are doing a terrible thing. Then we have our third break from reality as the gull refuses to. Again, real members of a group, once they've established that they're not one of the wrongdoers (condemning them by disassociation) are more3 than willing to admit that some members of that group are assholes. So we get the exagerated parody of how real people act when the gull accuses teh rat of trying to demonize all gulls. Then there's the french fry thing again. Then the rat starts ranting about "this is why people hate gulls", an inherent accusation that all gulls/blacks/gays/women/men are all the same and claims that leaping to your own defence is defending the wrongdoers, rather than condemning them by disassociation. Most gulls/blacks/men/gays/women will willingly agree that some gulls/blacks/men/gays/women are assholes. Differentiating yourself from them is not defending them, it's a normal desire to avoid being judged as the same as them. Then the rat condemns them as all the same.

I never said the gull was innocent, I said he was wrong. But I also said that condemning a group by the actions of individual members of it, which is what the rat does with "you gulls" and the pointing finger. When you point a finger in someone's face and say "you people", an inherent accusation, don't be surprised when people defend themselves.

[Gothmog]

24. Thanks for posting

[Dr. Strange]

27. Cops? Muslims? MRAs?

Pro gunners? Anti gunners? Dallas Cowboys fans?

[MrScorpio]

35. Take any system of privilege and you can apply it universally nt

[Fumesucker]

28. The way people with privilege treat America's most hated and distrusted minority?

[Jamastiene]

29. First they came for the rabbits, and I did not speak out—

Because I was not a rabbit.

Then they came for the rats, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a rat....


At least that is what I took from the cartoon. The gulls are clueless to their own cruelty. They seem to think it's fine to pick on something smaller than them just because they can. They are assholes, at least in this cartoon.

[nomorenomore08]

91. The cool thing is you can interpret the comic in any number of ways.

It applies to so much of human thought and behavior.

[Bluenorthwest]

31. It's genius. I love this.

I love this because I expect it will upset the gulls.

[unblock]

33. speaking as a white putz, i feel vaguely attacked

i'm rather considering alerting this post.

right after i finish my french fries.


mmmmm, french fries!

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

37. Anything and everything?

I see both sides of this all over the place, although this particular version of it is, of course carefully worded to make the 'good' side seem completely blameless, where when I see it used in various ways in the real world, most of the gulls aren't actually laughing, or even watching, and there are plenty of 'squirrels' who never do do the 'just admit that these particular gulls are horrible', and broad brush all gulls over and over, and then act all put upon when it's pointed out to them.

And the real life 'gulls' are actually more than willing to condemn the behaviour of the 'gulls' who are acting poorly, but do get annoyed at being broad-brushed repeatedly.

So do I know which specific thing this cartoon is supposed to be about? No. But I'm pretty sure it was written by a 'squirrel' to paint the 'gulls' as being evil and complicit.

(Edit: Having now read the other comments, I'm surprised that it was supposed to be about 'privilege', since I don't see what the 'privilege' is anywhere in the comic. The privilege to eat french fries? Do rabbits eat french fried?)

[MrScorpio]

41. Try this, replace gull privilege with avian privilege...

And you'll have the pigeon speaking out against the bigoted actions of fellow birds. The gulls themselves would represent a certain type of bird in the avian world, the bigoted beneficiaries of avian privilege. The pigeon is anti-privilege, even if he/she still derived privilege from being another avian.

So, when it comes to avians as a whole, it's not really broad brushing.

Edit: The reference to French fries is an attempt to deflect the conversation about the gull's own privileged status. It's akin to when certain whites try to derail the conversation about racial inequality by saying things like, "I don't see race," and "we're all human."

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

45. If I had rewritten this cartoon to more closely reflect what I've actually seen and read

It would start out with the squirrel running up to several gulls who were simply talking or eating, obviously not paying attention to anything beyond what they themselves were doing. The squirrel would then go"Hey, look, there are gulls attacking a rabbit over in that enclosure over there! Why do you gulls suck so much? You need to go stop them!'

The gulls would look around, maybe one would actually laugh, while another would say, 'Wow, that is horrible, but all I can do is the same thing you're doing - say that it's horrible. I can't actually get through that enclosure any more than you can. I'm sorry that's happening.'

The squirrel would then go on insulting 'gulls' without specifying 'those gulls' long enough to irritate even the gull that agreed with him, at which point that gull would roll his eyes and fly off. And that gull would then keep an eye open for the squirrel and avoid sticking around anywhere the squirrel went, to avoid having to listen to more about how much 'gulls suck'.

Thus showing, in fable form, how sloppy, overly broad attacks drive off those who are sympathetic, and allow the status quo to continue.

[MrScorpio]

50. Basically, this is about most conversations with winger trolls on the internet

The kicker was the part when the gull told the rat to do something about it while they're having an exchange.

That's a tried and true winger tactic to derail conversations.

Here's my conversation with one "Gull" in particular: http://www.discussionist.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=48202

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

54. I'll take your word for it. I've never yet found

any desire to go to Discussionist, it sounds like a horrible place. So I was casting it in terms of what I see happen on DU.

But if I'm supposed to read 'avian privilege' rather than 'gull privilege' and gulls as actually all being trolls, that makes more sense, as it would cast the pigeon as being the potential ally. But to be honest, that still leaves the squirrel as being rather naive in thinking he could ever get the trolls to do anything but support oppression. He would have been better off trying to get the pigeon to talk to the gulls, or to try and get a bunch of pigeons and rats to work together to overcome the gulls.

[MrScorpio]

56. People try to use facts to talk sense into trolls all of the time, usually without avail

But that doesn't stop those who are the targets of those trolls from defending themselves.

Trolls will be trolls.

However, if the gulls are all operating from a position of privilege, getting to change is not as easy as it sounds.

[BKH70041]

47. Easy Peasy

The gulls are a species who perceive themselves as victims who are taking out their frustrations on individuals of other species they view as having wronged them in some way. Note in the first frame next to the park bench they have already "worked over" some other species, and are now on the rabbit, with the rat to follow, and likely the pigeon next.

The gull being addressed is one who feels the same way as the other gulls, and who isn't actively participating in the current attack, but who does approve. The gulls excuse for doing so, which is in the frames prior to those shown here, is that these other species are hoarding more French Fires than they should.

In the drawings of the trees, bushes, grass, etc... the cartoonist has hidden key words that explain what is going on. See if you can find them.

[MrScorpio]

53. Very astute… French Fries could be a metaphor for affirmative action and welfare programs

Basically, any particular cause where wingers say that the "undeserving" are getting things that they should be getting instead.

[BKH70041]

63. Did you find the hidden words?

Or the fries are something that all have available to them, but some are willing to earn them while others want them given to them.

Another slant, which has been brought to my attention by things others have indicated, is with the gulls and the pigeons both being birds, one might reach the conclusion that the pigeon should agree with what the gulls are doing. In this case, because the pigeon does not agree, it could be the gulls will view him as a sell-out to his own kind.

[MrScorpio]

65. I can't see the hidden words

Which is normal for me, because it's hard for me to see that kind of stuff.

What are they and where are they? I'd appreciate it.

[Nye Bevan]

55. Why is the squirrel just standing there delivering a self-righteous lecture to the seagull

as opposed to intervening to try to save its fellow rodent from being pecked?

[MrScorpio]

59. Why indeed.

[VScott]

57. I like them French fried potaters.

Uhmmmm....

'Reckon I'll have me some of the big 'uns.

[IMG][/IMG]

[Solly Mack]

58. K&R

[raouldukelives]

66. K&R Perfect. nt

[Brigid]

71. I have a splitting headache now.

[NutmegYankee]

75. Privilege.

Racism and sexism in particular.

[Blue_Tires]

77. Do you have a link for the rest of that artist's work??

I'd love to see it

[leeroysphitz]

80. Funniest Chick Tract I've read in years. n/t

[Kali]

81. good thread, Mr. Scorpio

[etherealtruth]

82. Excellent!!! K&R

[Voice for Peace]

84. crabs walk sideways?

[LostInAnomie]

88. A bigot blaming all blacks for thug culture?

A bigot blaming all Muslims for the acts of extremists?

A bigot blaming all whites for abusive police?

A bigot blaming all men for the acts of misogynists?

Hmm... I'm running out of things bigots complain about.

[WillyT]

90. HUGE K & R !!! - Thank You !!!

Apparently went over some people's heads.

Thanks again.