« Looking better now... | Main | No. 1 reason gay marriage must be a good idea: »

Something I already knew but need to remind myself of occasionally

Get Your War On rocks the hizbah.

Comments (3)

"They talk out of their asses so much their cushions are probably deaf"?

Geez, Reinder, I see this drivel posted constantly on DemocraticUnderground. Really surprised to see it on your blog.

This is political hate speech. You got your nose out of joint earlier when I posted something that was essentially true in the US, which is that our leftist cartoonists get far more press than cartoonists on the right; do you remember what you said about me in that post? You basically accused me of being a clueless idiot. Meanwhile, the fact remains. I'm not wrong on that point, although I'm certainly open to to be convinced otherwise. Then, when I tried to approach you about it, to make sure that you weren't unreasonably mad about reading my poor little blog, you didn't want to talk about it. We continue to be friends, but after firing a shot at me, you closed the door on your mischaracterization of me and what I said.

Political disagreement should be about debate. It should be about facts as much as ideology. I presented what was essentially a fact in my blog, you lashed out at me with an insult, and then refused to debate it. Here, you post a comic that contains absolutely no facts, but is wall-to-wall invective. It becomes acceptable only because it expresses an opinion that you share -- it's a direct and vulgar insult to everyone else.

Don't get me wrong... I've already left behind the previous incident, but it makes for an interesting contrast, here.

You might have a point about *GYWO*, but I've stopped caring. Or rather, I do care somewhat; I just no longer let it affect my preferences. I'd *like* to see political cartooning that is good and funny regardless of political affiliation, but I've learned to expect that "Good if you already agree with it" is the best I'm gonna get. The only real-world alternative is cartooning that is bipartisanly awful. See the collections at www.cagle.com for examples of that. I'd say Ted Rall and Mallard Fillmore both fall in that category.

I was going to blog about this, but I hadn't collected my thoughts about this to the point where I felt I had the right question to ask. What I get for that sort of thoughtfulness is that the quick, cheap, immoderate shots get posted and the things that I actually spend time thinking about do not. Arguably, *GYWA* is cheap, quick, immoderate, but dammit, it made me laugh. I expect that the "Gay Kerry" jokes in Below the Fold make you laugh, otherwise I can't see why you'd bother with it. (And didn't you use BtF's vulgarity as a selling point somewhere?)

Carson, you'd better get used to me posting inflammatory political stuff. If you're going to post a long angry reply every time I post something that annoys you, you will find your energy sapped. That, incidentally, is the reason I don't post long, angry replies to your blog. I know of what I speak.

You have not convinced me that I mischaracterised you earlier. Maybe I'm not the clearest writer, but what I objected to was your selective interpretation of the facts. Ted Rall and the likes probably do get a lot of press (I do not have a statistically significant selection of the American media at my disposal, and I'd have to acculturate for years to know which outlet skews where), but what I have seen of it online is predominantly negative across the political spectrum. You presented it as if the Unified Collective Hivemind of the Left consistently cheered him like good little apparatchiks. That is Just Not True.
You also seemed to be bent on portraying yourself as a lone right-wing voice in cartooning. You countered my list of known conservatives in webcomics by saying that 1) they're still rare in the wider world of comics, and 2) the ones I mentioned for the most part weren't very vocal.
I have no way of knowing if 1) is the case, so I'll concede it. As for 2), that's a difference of strategy. When Howard or Jeff express their politics, they are usually very convincing even if ultimately I can't agree. They keep their powder dry, and come across as well-argued and trustworthy when they use it.

I should have separated these two issues and kept my thoughts about your self-portrayal for a different, more general post. The way some conservatives portray themselves, against all common sense, as a beleagered minority is a long-standing bugbear with me, and probably influenced my response to the selectiveness issue.
As you may remember, I chastised another friend on the left over the selectiveness issue, and I think I'd have got my point across better if I'd stuck to that point.

(As a tangent, in your second response you brought up the story of an artist I for one hadn't heard of before he came into the news with the story you quoted, a story which - correctly - portrayed this artist's character in a very negative light and was passed on to you by a blogger who broadly agreed with the content expressed in the artist's work! I think bafflement at the notion that that somehow proved that left-wing cartoonists are being unfairly showered with Pulitzers is a perfectly appropriate response here)

To get back to your new comment: I think the line "Political disagreement should be about debate. It should be about facts as much as ideology", while true, isn't all that relevant here. What sort of facts could I present that aren't already at your disposal? What debating point could I make that hasn't been discussed to death elsewhere, by people who are in a better position to know the issues inside out than you or I?
I could stuff the blog with links to stories like this one:
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,6903,1168937,00.html
or this one:
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=523724
Or this one:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1221658,00.html
or this one:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/05/20/iraq/main618637.shtml
or this one:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1225600,00.html
or this one:
http://www.paknews.com/articles.php?id=1&date1=2004-05-26
or this one:
http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/world/ny-woabus0526,0,2008882.story?coll=ny-top-span-headlines
or this one:
http://www.lex18.com/Global/story.asp?S=1891343&nav=EQlpNN9R

Or any other of a hundred articles that have convinced me that the opinions expressed in *GYWO* hit the nail on the head, that the US and the UK have stopped acting like the good guys, that the administration has let itself be duped by its enemies, that they are every bit as incompetent as they have been presented by the "political hate speech" you decry. But you either already knew all of the above, or you could have known. I am not a journalist or a commentator. How much of my time do you wish for me to spend on feeding you information?

[Edit: I have abused my administrative privilege to remove some uncivil, un-called-for, wording from this comment. If Carson has seen the previous version, I apologise for those particular lines]

Correction. I *thought* the Micah Wright story was from Cory Doctorow of Boing Boing, whose politics seem close enough to my own, but I checked and it was at Ninth Art. I have no idea what the Ninth Art writer's political affiliation is, but he does say that the book is "beautifully designed, full of wit and it has a positive humanistic message", which indicates sympathy. So the first I heard was indeed an author who was sympathetic to the book's content, taking the artist to task for his dishonesty.

About

This page contains a single entry from the blog posted on May 27, 2004 8:02 PM.

The previous post in this blog was Looking better now....

The next post in this blog is No. 1 reason gay marriage must be a good idea:.

Many more can be found on the main index page or by looking through the archives.

Creative Commons License
This weblog is licensed under a Creative Commons License.
Powered by
Movable Type 3.34