don't mock me for not liking the New Yorker cover

[CreekDog]

...by suggesting the following about me:

1. that i want to ban it or have the government regulate it
2. that (i think) the publication should require a warning label for satire
(although i do think the New Yorker would be served well if it labeled what it intended to be funny since it's often not very obvious :eyes: )
3. that i don't like satire

you can disagree with me all you want, just don't make a straw man out of my arguments to make yourself sound more correct and me sound more ridiculous. you New Yorker readers really shouldn't be able to get away with that in good conscience. :eyes:

[AZBlue]

1. You forgot: "you're just not smart enough to understand satire"

It's a favorite this evening.

[CreekDog]

2. i saw some of what they called you

asses. :eyes:

[AZBlue]

22. Thanks!

:hug:

[mrreowwr_kittty]

15. That's bullshit. I'm sorry that happened.

Of all sites on the Internets, DU should be a safe harbor from judgmental pricks and bullies. Sadly, it's often not.

[AZBlue]

23. It's ok, it happens.

Thank you for your kind words!! :hug:

[Lorien]

46. Yes, only "thin skinned uneducated hayseeds" who clearly lack any sense

of humor aren't laughing their erudite asses off at that ever so witty piece of "satire". :eyes:


DU has gone mad. First they scream at some of us for seeming like "intellectual elitists", then they scream again that we DON'T seem like "intellectual elitists" for embracing a cartoon by a faux intellectual elitist. :crazy:

[Skittles]

54. you know it, Lorien

I'm getting more and more dismayed at DU

[mrreowwr_kittty]

3. I'm wasn't bothered by the cover but I respect your opinion

After reading all the impressions of it here on DU, I can see why some people are taking offense.

[CreekDog]

4. and the afro is a stereotype on a woman that does not wear one

without any indication that it is mocking that stereotype.

perhaps the N-word on the cover would also have been non-offensive.

[redstate_democrat]

7. I remember someone on DailyKos posted a picture of

Michelle Obama being hung up by a tree and the KKK torturing her, with the back of her dress ripped. Some people called that satire. A lot of people, especially African Americans, were PISSED off about it because it was racist. The imagery was just too gross to appreciate the underlying message the artist TRIED, but failed, to get across.

There is a FINE LINE with satire. Some people have it, others don't.

[HardWorkingDem]

9. Entirely two different things....

these two are completely different things....

[CreekDog]

18. when you engage in stereotypes, even as satire, you have a responsibility

do you think a New Yorker cover that depicted jewish stereotypes would be acceptable too?

[HardWorkingDem]

24. Let me ask you this....

Do you think there is a segment of the American people that believe Barack Obama is a Muslim, is not patriotic, would be weak on terrorism and that Michele Obama is a militant black woman right out of the 60's?

[CreekDog]

27. do you think there is a segment that thinks of Jewish people as anti semetic stereotypes

and would it be okay for the New Yorker to do a cover depecting those stereotypes?

[HardWorkingDem]

34. You are purposely misrepresenting the contex of the cover...

thus, making your continued argument ridiculous.

I could understand your argument more if the context was what many here are imagining it to be.

But to answer your question, if say Joe Liberman was running for office and there was a segment of media trying to paint him in rumor and innuendo, then yes, I think it would be okay for an artist to make a piece of artwork depicting that ignorance.

[CreekDog]

37. so if they portrayed Joe as a Jewish stereotype

that would be okay with you? :wtf:

[LowerManhattanite]

43. It. Would. Never. Happen.

The hell they caught for the infamous Hasid kissing a Black Woman cover (relatively harmless as it depicted an act of tenderness) was otherworldly.

This isn't the 1930's when Peter Arno routinely depicted well-rendered, but incredibly racist images of Muslims and Native Americans on the cover.

They would NEVER IN A THOUSAND YEARS depict a prominent Jewish person that way.

Black folks? Ehhhhh, not so much. :(

[HardWorkingDem]

44. If under the same circumstances, yes....

Go pick up copies of The New Republic, Mother Jones, The Progressive or any other liberal magazine and you will find they have portrayed politicians in similar ways. I have seen cartoons of republican politicians dressed in bed sheets, as blood thirst oil people, et cetera.

Why you are trying to state this cover is something it is not, I do not know. I have given my interpretation of it and have read the artists comments and it is clear what message he is trying to create and it is not one of the Obama's being racial stereotypes, but that those that fear them are making them out to be just that.

There is a very large difference.

[CreekDog]

48. name one cover that had a Jewish stereotype

that you thought was as acceptable as this cover.

just one.

[HardWorkingDem]

49. IF...IF...IF.....thought you were done with me...

you've worn me out...

[CreekDog]

50. not one example of a Jewish stereotype

that was acceptable to you.

it's okay to admit you were wrong, even if just a little bit. :think:

[polmaven]

63. While I understand

your dislike of the cover, your premise of naming a "Jewish stereotype" on a magazine cover is not really comparable.

There has not been a Jewish presidential nominee. Lieberman was the VP nominee, not the presidential nominee. The VP is not ever given the same attention as the president.

If/when there is a Jewish nominee for president, and he/she was seen with the same type of misconceptions as Senator Obama, then there likely will be this kind of satire.

[AspenRose]

61. Yes.

Absolutely.

[redstate_democrat]

51. It may be two different things in that the NYr cover is supposed to be poking

fun at the media or people who believe these smears and that the other picture was just an illustration of what the author believed was a "lynching" of Michelle. But what both of these pictures have in common is that the visuals seem to absolve the perpetrators to some extent.

In the NYr illustration, the perpetrator is not shown...you have to draw your own inferences about the culprits...it doesn't place the blame anywhere in particular or poke fun at anyone in particular

The Lynching picture just shows Michelle hanging by her wrists from a tree and masked men are the culprits ... their identities aren't known either ... and those who should be ridiculed are not and wouldn't recognize themselves to be the object of ridicule

[mrreowwr_kittty]

10. I took in the context of my experience with the New Yorker.

But after reading some of the criticisms of the cartoon, and the article that accompanied it, I realize that it probably did go beyond the bounds of acceptability. There are probably ways that it could have been drawn to make it clear what the intent was, and that the author failed in the presentation. I don't think the the intent was malicious, but the execution was grossly flawed.

At this point, I believe that the New Yorker should issue an apology.

[HardWorkingDem]

35. THAT is the point of provocative art.....

and I imagine the outcry will force the New Yorker to make an apology, but what is bothersome is that so many people have to have art and expression explained to them.

[CreekDog]

39. that's it, you're off the deep end...by your standard, anything you class as "art"

can say anything.

done with ya. go argue with the others. you've made your position abundantly clear.

[HardWorkingDem]

45. Wow....you like the First Amendment, don't you...

nt..

[CreekDog]

53. did i say anything bout legality?

anywhere.

and you won't answer my very easy questions.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

42. I understand what you're saying, but the apology will still need to be made.

I was all ready to defend the New Yorker, until I realized the article within was a smear job on Obama for being a "typical cutthroat politician". If the article were about the absurdity of the rumors it would be one thing. But that's not what it was about.

[HardWorkingDem]

47. Often times.....accompanying articles do not match the cover...

I have not received the issue yet, so I don't know what is inside.

[AdHocSolver]

66. What is bothersome is that so many latte liberals ignore the negative effects this "art" could have

on Obama's campaign.

The majority of people who see this picture are going to absorb the caricature of the Obama's displayed in the picture. They will not appreciate the nuanced interpretation that you latte liberals can appreciate from spending so much time contemplating your navels.

We are in a fight to save our country and I, and many others, are not amused by the efforts of latte liberals to "express" themselves when their efforts could, in any way, help the right wing maintain control.

[MonkeyFunk]

36. It's a satire on the IMAGE some are trying to create of them

the gun and the afro indicate a 60's-era black radical, a Black Panther-type.

It just gasts my flabber that people here take this to be anything other than what it is - a satirical swipe at right-wingers.

[CreekDog]

38. it could appear in total seriousness on the cover of American Spectator

that doesn't make it good satire.

[MonkeyFunk]

41. If you want to argue over the artistic merits of it, go ahead

but many here seem to be making political arguments about it.

It's just plain stupid not to see this for what it is.

[AdHocSolver]

65. The political arguments are totally valid. It's the latte liberals who are stupid for not getting it

[johnnydrama]

57. who are the protagonists of this piece

Is it the Obama's or the right wing smear artists?

[last_texas_dem]

40. If shoulder-length hair were placed on a (short-haired) white male politician

in order to mock attacks on him being some kind of "if it feels good, do it" hippie-type, would that be equally offensive?

I think the bite of most satire would be substantially weakened if the creators went above and beyond the call of duty to explain what they are trying to say, but that's just my take.

[Frances]

12. I wish all DUers could see some of the racist emails about Obama that I have

received. Then I think DUers would get why I find this cover offensive. Racists will just see the cover as justifying their prejudice. They won't get the satire.

I wouldn't want to see a cartoon making fun of McCain's time as a POW either. Some things just aren't funny or good subjects for satire.

[Skittles]

32. make sure you Reply to All and BLAST the senders, Frances

that's what I do - I make 'em sorry they every even thought about sending me garbage like that

[Frances]

58. Most come from a relative

I did that back in 2004 when I wrote a heart-felt email about how attacks on Kerry's medals were attacks on my husband's Navy fighter pilot combat medals. I created quite a stir.

But the email making fun of Obama's relatives in Kenya was an appeal to racism so deep and engrained for so many years that I have decided that the relative sending it to me will go to her grave not "getting it."

[redstate_democrat]

5. Don't trip. Most people are with you.

Yeah, we can recognize it as TRYING to be satire, but it really missed the mark,

and it doesn't even GO with the damn article.

[CreekDog]

6. i know most of us agree

and i thought the same thing about the cover v. the article

i was just annoyed at a substantial number of comments that didn't simply disagree with my sentiments but turned them into straw mean arguments.

[DeepModem Mom]

8. I'm a subscriber, and I'm outraged. No mocking from me. nt

[CreekDog]

25. thanks for saying :)

:hi:

[last_texas_dem]

11. Perhaps those who dislike the New Yorker cover should refrain from claiming

that all of those who did find it funny are racists. (Not that you did it, but some did, so, you know... just sayin'...)

[AdHocSolver]

67. There is a fine line between clever satire and mean-spirited caricature.

The New Yorker magazine cover by Britt poorly conveys the message that this is satire. He evidently aimed the cover at latte drinking, liberal snobs to whom mean-spirited caricature is synonymous with satire. However, there is a greater world out there full of people who don't have the mind-set of such liberals (fortunately).

Many of them will absorb the image, and it will reinforce the right-wing meme that the Obama's secretly adhere to the values portrayed in the picture.

Since we are trying to retrieve control of our country from a right-wing cabal, even poking fun at our candidate in this way is an act of gross stupidity. More so than the people who are decried for "voting Republican against their own interests", the so-called liberals live in a fantasy world that has allowed the right-wing to gain control of the government and rip off this country royally. The right wing could not have succeeded without the help of "idiot" liberals.

[Bluerthanblue]

13. very nicely said-

thank you.

[Jed Dilligan]

14. The cover is the following

1. As satire, facile and devoid of creativity.

2. As artwork, dull and literal.

3. As a picture to be put up in newsstands across America at this exact moment, by a putatively liberal magazine, either monumentally stupid or satanically devious.

Subscription cancelled. I'm sick of the low quality crap they print every week, most regularly in the Shouts and Murmurs section. What passes for a sense of humor in New York these days!?

[The_Casual_Observer]

16. I'll bet you have never read the New Yorker in your life.

Outrage yourself all you want.

[CreekDog]

20. why can't you believe that someone has read the New Yorker regularly

and disapproves of this cover?

[The_Casual_Observer]

21. Impossible

ANYONE who actually can get through a New Yorker couldn't possibly be stupid enough to bothered by that cover.

[CreekDog]

29. so one has to be stupid to be offended?

i think it's time to question your intelligence, but at the very least we've got enough evidence of your lack of empathy.

[AZBlue]

26. I agree with the OP and I'm a subscriber.

That's about as clever as a post as the person who told me earlier I've obviously never even been to New York. Because I'm actually from NYC.

[Youphemism]

17. The true sin of most satire deemed "offensive" is that it's just not funny enough...

This is why even the stiff, pompous justices of the Supreme Court sided with Larry Flynt. The image of Jerry Falwell endorsing the booze he preferred to drink while masturbating in an outhouse was funny enough to outweigh the notion of depriving the country of that sort of humor.

The New Yorker, as always in its attempts at humor, falls short.

[JVS]

28. Not masturbating, losing his virginity to his mother

[Youphemism]

30. No, his mom passed out. He had to finish all by himself...

But top marks for being thorough. See, *that's* satire.

None of this "Oh aren't we just so terribly clever, Rodney?" crap.

[polmaven]

64. Except that,

how many people really believe that Jerry Falwell had sex with his mother? How many e-mails have you gotten saying that?

If you are going to give examples, PLEASE be realistic about it?

[Blondiegrrl]

19. I'm with ya there. Some people here are being really nasty about it.

Thankfully, it's only a handful of jerks.

[Skittles]

31. 4. that I don't recognize (attempted) satire

I know satire and I know BAD satire.....yup, lots of arrogance here tonight

[CreekDog]

33. excellent point.

:)

[Skittles]

52. thanks

the simplistic thinking seems to be you either get it and like it or you don't get it and don't like it. Well, I get it AND I don't like it. No INDEED.

[CreekDog]

55. count me as another vote for: get it, don't like it

:rofl:

[WinkyDink]

56. Interesting how many "free-speechers" here are telling others to STHU about not liking this cover.

[thewiseguy]

59. But you are just reacting like those muslims to the Mohammad cartoon!

:sarcasm:

[AspenRose]

60. You're good people CreekDog

Peace :hi:

[Goblinmonger]

62. Well,

in your description of #2 you basically say that you think #2 is correct, so can we mock you for that since you agree with it because it is a pretty stupid idea. Should All in the Family have had a warning label at the beginning that said the writers of the show didn't believe the things Archie was going to say and that the show is actually satire aimed at the views of those like Archie?

And, why can't I say you don't like satire as a possible reason why you don't like the cartoon? Maybe you think you do but you don't?