The purpose of the NYer cover was, of course, to sell copies.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

Sure, it was satire. But it was castrated satire, half satire. Plausible deniability by satire. It was the worst sort of satire- bad satire. Barely better then puns. Unfunny even by the standards of the gabachos that read the New Yorker. It's a knock-knock joke without the punchline. American Dad without any character but Stan. Garfield minus Garfield, plus Garfield.

It is, of course, a blatant repeat and rip-off of Vogue's use of racist imagery in order to create a contraversy for the sake of selling magazines.



And that's clearly what's going on here. Sure, the cartoonist and editor pretend to be surprised by the reaction, but we're not New Yorker subscriber enough to fall for that one. The New Yorker's putting out racist imagery for the sake of generating buzz and selling more issues.

So the question isn't whether or not it's satire or racist, the question is whether or not it's appropriate to exploit racism for personal gain. And that's a question for another thread; although heads up, George Wallace and Strom Thurmond and Ronald Reagan and John McCain didn't really believe in segregation forever, they just wanted those votes.

[rug]

1. There's more stretch in that post than in a rubber band.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

2. You mean they weren't trying to sell copies?

Interesting.

[rug]

3. What's more interesting is that you see it as exploiting racism for personal gain.

How odd.