Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 11:15 pm Posts: 25452 Location: Under my wing like Sanford & Son Gender: Male
Peeps wrote:
Orpheus wrote:
Can we please drop this "there are no criticisms of Obama because they'd be deemed racist" bullshit? The Onion has had far more articles lampooning Obama than Rush. They just had one that basically implied he was tired of leading the country and left to "get some cigarettes." Basically calling him a deadbeat dad. But Obama has a family and is a generally a pleasant person, so an article like this one about Rush just wouldn't be that funny. That's why they didn't write it. Their whole point is to make people laugh...remember?
yea, cause writing a article about wanting someone to die is LOL worthy
Obviously it is if a bunch of people find it funny, me included, and it appears in the #1 humor publication online.
_________________ Now that god no longer exists, the desire for another world still remains.
Can we please drop this "there are no criticisms of Obama because they'd be deemed racist" bullshit? The Onion has had far more articles lampooning Obama than Rush. They just had one that basically implied he was tired of leading the country and left to "get some cigarettes." Basically calling him a deadbeat dad. But Obama has a family and is a generally a pleasant person, so an article like this one about Rush just wouldn't be that funny. That's why they didn't write it. Their whole point is to make people laugh...remember?
yea, cause writing a article about wanting someone to die is LOL worthy
Obviously it is if a bunch of people find it funny, me included, and it appears in the #1 humor publication online.
sorry, i dont see it, and i have a fairly demented sense of humor. its not funny to wish someone to die, its only funny cause people want it to be true
Can we please drop this "there are no criticisms of Obama because they'd be deemed racist" bullshit? The Onion has had far more articles lampooning Obama than Rush. They just had one that basically implied he was tired of leading the country and left to "get some cigarettes." Basically calling him a deadbeat dad. But Obama has a family and is a generally a pleasant person, so an article like this one about Rush just wouldn't be that funny. That's why they didn't write it. Their whole point is to make people laugh...remember?
yea, cause writing a article about wanting someone to die is LOL worthy
This is kinda like that time when user: corduroy_blazer chastised me for my Harry Reid thread.
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 11:15 pm Posts: 25452 Location: Under my wing like Sanford & Son Gender: Male
If you don't see it, you don't see it, but it's pretty funny, as was the Glenn Beck one. Something tells me neither guy is crying on their piles of $1000 bills.
_________________ Now that god no longer exists, the desire for another world still remains.
Can we please drop this "there are no criticisms of Obama because they'd be deemed racist" bullshit? The Onion has had far more articles lampooning Obama than Rush. They just had one that basically implied he was tired of leading the country and left to "get some cigarettes." Basically calling him a deadbeat dad. But Obama has a family and is a generally a pleasant person, so an article like this one about Rush just wouldn't be that funny. That's why they didn't write it. Their whole point is to make people laugh...remember?
yea, cause writing a article about wanting someone to die is LOL worthy
Obviously it is if a bunch of people find it funny, me included, and it appears in the #1 humor publication online.
sorry, i dont see it, and i have a fairly demented sense of humor. its not funny to wish someone to die, its only funny cause people want it to be true
Does it not matter to you that this article was written by The Onion?
Context, as always, is key.
EDIT: Also, it's total BS to decide that this subject or that subject is "out of bounds" when it comes to humor. It's exactly that kind of mentality that makes it so difficult to have frank discussions about subjects as complex and emotional as racism, religion, suicide, etc.
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2005 1:04 am Posts: 2057 Location: The end of the spiral...
I understand what you said David. Certainly, there is a degree of naivety to my outlook, which is why I thought the "racism" thread could be a useful one to myself and others. But while my direct experience with racism is limited, my understanding of it's continued prevelance isn't. I would never suggest that the only key to riding this country of racism is to quit blaming it for everything, but I do believe we've got to at least consider that approach to some degree to make any progress on the issue. I think it's pretty safe to say we can point to a number of people and situations that have rolled race relations back by several years because the "race" card was played innapropriately.
This thread is a pretty classic example of that--once the race card is played, it tends to dominate the discussion and now it's derailed a thread that should have otherwise been devoted to this asshat known as Rush Limbaugh.
i dont care if it was written by the onion or not, i just think its in poor taste, but again, guess this is just my little ol opinion.
I don't have a problem with that.
I've always thought humor - be it in poor taste or not - is the best jumping off point for meaningful discussions on sensitive topics. As a means to an end, humor has the potential to be a tool to facilitate understanding. That's the point. And that's also what's so disappointing about your reluctance to do something as simple as googling "Lee Atwater" for no reason other than that you don't like the politics of the person who suggested you do so.
I'd never heard of him. But I read a bit about him, and began to better understand David's points. I don't necessarily agree with them, but that's not the point. If you're open enough to attempt to understand why the article was written, then chances are you're also open enough to begin to understand some of the nasty underbelly of politics and demagoguery. The point isn't the article or the joke; it's what the article or the joke can tell us about the real, and often under-discussed, dynamics at play.
_________________
Fortuna69 wrote:
I will continue to not understand
Last edited by thodoks on Fri Feb 05, 2010 6:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 7:19 pm Posts: 39068 Location: Chapel Hill, NC, USA Gender: Male
Man, this thread was on FIRE for two days.
_________________ "Though some may think there should be a separation between art/music and politics, it should be reinforced that art can be a form of nonviolent protest." - e.v.
Yesterday, when President Obama announced that the United States would be sending 100 special operations forces to help Uganda battle the Lord's Resistance Army, a notorious and brutal death cult led by Joseph Kony, a joke went around on Twitter that Michele Bachmann would soon be attacking the president for "targeting Christians."
Of course, to call the LRA "Christians" is to abase the English language. As the Atlantic's Graeme Wood put it in a profile of Kony last year, "An American diplomat in Bangui compared the group to the Manson family, but given that the LRA has killed 12,000 people, the comparison is self-evidently unfair to Manson."
Human Rights Watch's Ken Roth wrote of the group last fall:
Its cadre often descends on a remote village, slaughters every adult in sight, and then kidnaps the children, some shockingly young -- the boys to become soldiers slinging AK-47s, the girls to serve as "bush wives." Over more than two decades, many thousands have fallen victim to these roving mass murderers.
But Bachmann was too smart to fall into this trap, and instead it was Rush Limbaugh who jumped on the news to attack Obama. Behold:
Lord's Resistance Army are Christians. They are fighting the Muslims in Sudan. ... So that's a new war, a hundred troops to wipe out Christians in Sudan, Uganda, and -- (interruption) no, I'm not kidding. Jacob Tapper just reported it. ...
Lord's Resistance Army objectives. I have them here. "To remove dictatorship and stop the oppression of our people." Now, again Lord's Resistance Army is who Obama sent troops to help nations wipe out. The objectives of the Lord's Resistance Army, what they're trying to accomplish with their military action in these countries is the following: "To remove dictatorship and stop the oppression of our people; to fight for the immediate restoration of the competitive multiparty democracy in Uganda; to see an end to gross violation of human rights and dignity of Ugandans; to ensure the restoration of peace and security in Uganda, to ensure unity, sovereignty, and economic prosperity beneficial to all Ugandans, and to bring to an end the repressive policy of deliberate marginalization of groups of people who may not agree with the LRA ideology." Those are the objectives of the group that we are fighting, or who are being fought and we are joining in the effort to remove them from the battlefield.
Then, after a break, he (sort of) realizes his mistake:
Is that right? The Lord's Resistance Army is being accused of really bad stuff? Child kidnapping, torture, murder, that kind of stuff? Well, we just found out about this today. We're gonna do, of course, our due diligence research on it. But nevertheless we got a hundred troops being sent over there to fight these guys -- and they claim to be Christians.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum