At least 11 people shot dead, including 11-year-old boy, since Tuesday in Chicago

[fskimospy]

Oh, I understood the point it was intending to make. But it's funny that it's trying to make it by drawing an analogy that doesn't support that point, while at the same time the whole comic supports a bad message. A building engulfed in flames is a terrible metaphor for anything you want to somehow protect/save, making any behavior surrounding it a terrible analogy.

There's a reason professional political cartoonists can do what they do repeatedly, and a large part of that is not making such mistakes.

It wasn't a mistake. The point is obvious, and the house engulfed in flames is a perfect metaphor.

You have to remember, that cartoon is not made to speak to people who are desperately trying to find ways to declare it wrong.

It is amazing and pathetic that you guys are trying so hard to determine how viable a flaming cartoon house is.

 

[realibrad]

That panel is not head scratching unless you are deliberately trying to make it so.

It is simply amazing to me that so many people who consider themselves smart are conveniently unable to understand a simple comic strip.

That is, when that comic strip tells them things they don't like.

Its a comic strip, but I think I understand it well enough to criticize.

The implication of the comic strip is to say that ALM will give out resources equally to everyone, even those who are not being mistreated or disadvantages. Thus, resources would be wasted trying to help people that are not being hurt, aka the guy watering a house that is not on fire. The problem there is that I think that is disingenuous or ignorant about the argument that all lives matter.

I will state the obvious that some in the ALM camp are there because they feel like blacks should not get help, and they want to take the focus off of blacks. That sentiment has not been the prevailing opinion of the people I have seen arguing ALM over BLM, and it surely is not my opinion. My argument is that Blacks are mistreated, but so are other people. By putting the focus on one group, you run the risk of missing others that could also use help. In focusing on blacks over other groups, you are giving the signal that blacks injustice matter more than others.

Take for example that Native Americans have a higher poverty rate when compared to Blacks. If we were to target Black poverty over Native American poverty, how could we say anything other than "Black poverty matters more"?

I agree there is an issue. This report shows that Blacks deal with things at different rates than Whites do.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1447171/



You and I have talked about this a little already, and I am not a fan of BLM, because I feel it puts the focus on a group of disadvantaged and abused rather than all that are disadvantaged and abused in this country. For me, the reason I would argue for All is because, if racism is the issue here, then you solve it by treating all races equally. You can treat people differently based on the things they have done, but not an entire race of people. By targeting Black issues over other race's issues, you are saying that their problems are more important to solve.

 

[Cerb]

It wasn't a mistake. The point is obvious, and the house engulfed in flames is a perfect metaphor.

You have to remember, that cartoon is not made to speak to people who are desperately trying to find ways to declare it wrong.

A) It's not, for reasons already noted, and B) no one is desperately trying to find ways to declare it wrong. It was obviously so the instant after processing the last panel; yet ironically fitting with the problems it's talking about, at the same time.

It is amazing and pathetic that you guys are trying so hard to determine how viable a flaming cartoon house is.

We're not. We're, pointing out how obviously bad it is, to the point that it's not even good at supporting what it was intending to. Meanwhile, supporters of the very same movement are doing just that, themselves. It's a fitting irony: a bad message that encapsulates a large part of what's wrong with those trying to get the message out (dividing themselves from those outside of their group, rather than trying to get support for it; which supports the counter-message ALM, who's apparent purposes are to isolate BLM, while also egging their worst on, to hasten a self-destruct event).

 

[fskimospy]

It's obviously bad to you because it says things you don't want to hear.

You don't like the metaphor because you don't like what it says about what you want to believe. The message is indeed bad, but that's just how horrible the 'all lives matter' argument is. There's no defending it.

 

[Cerb]

It's obviously bad to you because it says things you don't want to hear.

When they're bad arguments, of course, which is the main problem (I don't like that about things that I do want to hear, for that matter). A movement that intends to do something useful needs to be clear in purpose, and filter its speech for that clarity of purpose. BLM did not sufficiently do that, and so begged for the creation of ALM. Both give talking heads and politicians plenty of fodder, and waste energy.

You don't like the metaphor because you don't like what it says about what you want to believe.

I don't like the metaphor for the same reason other don't: it's terrible, even fully inside its intended context. I'd put it right alongside all the confederate flag defense content being posted months ago.

The message is indeed bad, but that's just how horrible the 'all lives matter' argument is. There's no defending it.

On this I think we can agree.

 

[fskimospy]

When they're bad arguments, of course, which is the main problem (I don't like that about things that I do want to hear, for that matter). A movement that intends to do something useful needs to be clear in purpose, and filter its speech for that clarity of purpose. BLM did not sufficiently do that, and so begged for the creation of ALM. Both give talking heads and politicians plenty of fodder, and waste energy.

This is revisionist history. The 'all lives matter' nonsense began basically instantly after the phrase 'black lives matter' was coined. It was very clearly a deliberate attempt to cloud the issue. Blaming a movement for the inevitable attempts to attack it is silliness.

I don't like the metaphor for the same reason other don't: it's terrible, even fully inside its intended context. I'd put it right alongside all the confederate flag defense content being posted months ago.

I guess we are all entitled to our opinion. I happen to think that a person's house embodies the thing people most want to save, which makes it an excellent metaphor. Your argument against it appears to be that there are a few too many cartoon flames being drawn around it to be a good metaphor, which I seriously find to be a forehead-slapping argument. That's basically 'tigers can't talk'.

If you would like to compare your perception of a few excess drawn flames to defenses of the Confederate flag I'm all ears.

On this I think we can agree.

Great!

 

[Cerb]

This is revisionist history.

No, it's how it went down. The disorganized v. the organized. In the time it took for any organization to come about, damage was already being done.

The 'all lives matter' nonsense began basically instantly after the phrase 'black lives matter' was coined. It was very clearly a deliberate attempt to cloud the issue. Blaming a movement for the inevitable attempts to attack it is silliness.

The issue was clouded to begin with. The term lacks implicit context (I mean, have you seen the sky lately? It's blue...), most people are very much disconnected from the context, and are content enough with the status quo. Yet, early rhetoric was assuming everyone and their dog understood the context, resulting in BLM alienating outsiders, rather than gaining support (that in this group's mind, whites don't care about blacks; which is not how most whites see things, but has truth behind it nonetheless, and it is a perspective that needs explaining). It was also spawned from an event that didn't turn out like it was originally portrayed, which, by that time, was somewhat expected by most, to boot. Regardless of what it was to be called, something like ALM was begging to be created.

I think it's quite fair to criticize a movement for being too democratic, because it invariably encourages malcontents, and emotion-fueled talk without enough who will get the most attention. As a problem, it goes back to union formation, and 2nd-wave feminism, so it's not like that's a new thing. Allowing the media to have a field day with rabble rousers (like the Sanders' hijackers), and radicals (that reporter that got all in the news for being intimidated/harassed away from a demonstration for being white) only feeds opposition more, and was both predictable and preventable. None of that helps get a good point across, and makes up for many times as much positive work. A movement's message being what someone who says they're for it wants it to be is too much flexibility. It needs to be defined clearly ASAP, not assumed.

 

[MagickMan]

The total lack of self awareness here is hilarious. The fact that you immediately see bias in an opposing viewpoint and then assume that you're an objective evaluator is kind of amazing, except I think you're actually serious.

You should be embarrassed, but I doubt you're aware enough to realize why.

I'm being preached to about self-awareness by a fucking goldfish, it's too priceless for words. :awe: Compared to you proggie dipshits, I'm a model of objectivity.

 

[fskimospy]

I'm being preached to about self-awareness by a fucking goldfish, it's too priceless for words. :awe: Compared to you proggie dipshits, I'm a model of objectivity.

Which is of course the funny thing. I have no doubt that you think you are a model of objectivity.

 

[MagickMan]

Which is of course the funny thing. I have no doubt that you think you are a model of objectivity.

Compared to you and your ilk? Absolutely. In general, not really, though I can be when I choose to. That's one of the major limitations of the Progressive mindset, it takes over the same areas of the brain that are normally fulfilled by religion and then calcifies, obstructing your ability to view such of topics objectively. As an ideologue, for most intents and purposes, it is your religion, and like other zealots, nothing short of a personally catastrophic event will shake your faith in it.

 

[Jaskalas]

Police are militarized and killing / harming people of all color.
All people's civil rights are being violated.
To make that subject racist is to defeat yourselves before you even begin.

 

[fskimospy]

Compared to you and your ilk? Absolutely. In general, not really, though I can be when I choose to. That's one of the major limitations of the Progressive mindset, it takes over the same areas of the brain that are normally fulfilled by religion and then calcifies, obstructing your ability to view such of topics objectively. As an ideologue, for most intents and purposes, it is your religion, and like other zealots, nothing short of a personally catastrophic event will shake your faith in it.

Amazing how you are so fortunate to be a bastion of reason while those with whom you disagree just happen to be irrational ideologues motivated by quasi-religious fervor.

I always find it amusing on here when the most ideological ranters go on about how all those other people are the actual ideologues.

You have so little self awareness it's sad. Look in the mirror someday, guy. You're everything you claim to hate.

 

[MagickMan]

Amazing how you are so fortunate to be a bastion of reason while those with whom you disagree just happen to be irrational ideologues motivated by quasi-religious fervor.

I always find it amusing on here when the most ideological ranters go on about how all those other people are the actual ideologues.

You have so little self awareness it's sad. Look in the mirror someday, guy. You're everything you claim to hate.

I could have written your reply, including your outrage and insults, because you're that predictable. Read your last 2 replies again, you're only confirming my points. At no point have I said I'm a "bastion of reason" or a "model of objectivity", and that gem "everything you claim to hate" (I hate very few things, that's a toxic emotion). Stop and think about what you're doing there, if you have the self-awareness you claim... :hmm:

 

[fskimospy]

I could have written your reply, including your outrage and insults, because you're that predictable. Read your last 2 replies again, you're only confirming my points. At no point have I said I'm a "bastion of reason" or a "model of objectivity", and that gem "everything you claim to hate" (I hate very few things, that's a toxic emotion). Stop and think about what you're doing there, if you have the self-awareness you claim... :hmm:

Haha, I am in no way shocked that you're not able to consider why you have happened to be so lucky as to have your political opponents all be irrational. Do you honestly think that's actually very likely?

You either know better and are just trying to avoid uncomfortable thoughts or you are motivated by the same irrationality you claim to see in other people. Classic psychological projection.

Seriously, invest in a mirror, haha.

 

[MagickMan]

Haha

*sigh* I didn't think you could.

I am in no way shocked that you're not able to consider why you have happened to be so lucky as to have your political opponents all be irrational. Do you honestly think that's actually very likely?

There you go again. Is it your ideology that has made you so intellectually lazy, or were you attracted to it because you were that way already?

You either know better and are just trying to avoid uncomfortable thoughts or you are motivated by the same irrationality you claim to see in other people. Classic psychological projection.

Seriously, invest in a mirror, haha.

I saw the cartoon both ways but you couldn't, how is it that I'm the one "avoiding uncomfortable thoughts"? Obviously your projections are the issue here.

 

[smackababy]

Sounds like just another weekend in Chiraq.

 

[fskimospy]

*sigh* I didn't think you could.

There you go again. Is it your ideology that has made you so intellectually lazy, or were you attracted to it because you were that way already?

Ah yes, because nobody who is a liberal could NOT be intellectually lazy, the only question is whether they were always so or if they became so. This is of course, ironically, intellectually lazy thinking.

So now we have it that progressives are all intellectually lazy and irrational. I'll ask you again: does that seem likely?

I saw the cartoon both ways but you couldn't, how is it that I'm the one "avoiding uncomfortable thoughts"? Obviously your projections are the issue here.

Haha, that's some pretty sweet revisionist history. You said basically 'I see what he is trying to say but he's wrong and the cartoon is dumb'. That's not seeing it both ways, haha. That's just showing a basic ability to interpret a metaphor.

The fact that you label black communities as already lost and that you criticized a cartoon for being unrealistic shows pretty obviously that you were searching for a way to avoid the message it gave.

You are literally and repeatedly doing all the things you say progressives do and even when someone comes right out and shows you how you still try to ignore it. Why?

I'm prepared for more excuses, haha.

 

[MagickMan]

Ah yes, because nobody who is a liberal could NOT be intellectually lazy,

It's like I'm talking with someone with brain damage. Where did I say that? I am liberal (and in elections I vote Dem 75% of the time), I'm simply not a prog liberal. Do you understand what you're doing? How can someone who professes to be self-aware not see this?

Haha, that's some pretty sweet revisionist history. You said basically 'I see what he is trying to say but he's wrong and the cartoon is dumb'. That's not seeing it both ways, haha. That's just showing a basic ability to interpret a metaphor.

The fact that you label black communities as already lost and that you criticized a cartoon for being unrealistic shows pretty obviously that you were searching for a way to avoid the message it gave.

You are literally and repeatedly doing all the things you say progressives do and even when someone comes right out and shows you how you still try to ignore it. Why?

and there's more of it from you... jesus fucking christ, man. You clearly have no idea that you're doing it.

I'm prepared for more excuses, haha.

Then you gleefully laugh in your ignorance, bloody goddamned hell. This must be what it's like talking with someone from WBC or a Scientologist.