It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by spookymusic
As a cartoonist, I find this statement ignorant
Originally posted by spookymusic
and offensive.
Originally posted by spookymusic
Cartoons generally do not have a "hidden agenda."
Originally posted by spookymusic
They're nothing more than personal opinions and expression. When I draw, I do it to express myself. I neither know nor care if I change anyone's opinion. Yes, the truth is very important, but it is also important to express one's own views and receive the views of others. Looking at a political or social situation through other people's eyes gives one a sense of perspective.
Originally posted by spookymusic
That, and I don't particularly appreciate someone telling people that I shouldn't get money for my work.
Political satire is a subgenre of general satire that specializes in gaining entertainment from politics, politicians and public affairs. It has also been used with subversive intent where political speech and dissent are forbidden by a regime, as a method of advancing political arguments where such arguments are expressly forbidden.
Originally posted by darkelf
These cartoons give us an opportunity to laugh at ourselves. It keeps us from taking ourselves too seriously. If you find yourself offened at one of these, pehaps you should examine yourself for the reason.
Originally posted by darkelf
I have been offended by some of these in the past and when I examined myself, I discovered that I felt like it was a personal attack on me or my beliefs.
Originally posted by darkelf
Political satire is covered under freedom of speech. I may not agree with it, but I do not want any laws to change it.
Originally posted by darkelf
Just keep in mind that not everyone feels or believes the same as you.
Originally posted by darkelf
All of us feel we are privy to the truth.
Originally posted by darkelf
Remember that one person’s truth is another person’s ignorance.
Originally posted by saint4God
Now, how many butt-head neighbors does it take to convince this statement is true?
Don't know the technical term for this but like it would say on a tanning booth "warning, long exposure to UV rays can cause cancer."
Even cyanide and love?
I'm not sure I understand the need for mental junk food.
ATS doesn't exactly toll the liberty bell. The greater the shock, the greater the play on ATS.
I do not want to remove YOUR choices. I want to remove my exposure to them, incidental or otherwise and stating a case as to why this is a good idea.
I would like to see the harmful motivations (money, political agenda) removed from these "cartoonists" to see what that cartoon would look like then.
What I'd like to stip the example down to though is rights. Do you feel that someone next to you smoking is violating your right to breath non-toxic air? Why or why not?
I agree we should be held accountable for the things we think and do. Why isn't that smoke held accountable for violating the rights of others?
I'm asking so many questions and being "nit-picky" here because I'm really liking these answers and feel they get into the meat of the initial proclamation. I hope this is seen more as a compliment than a fight as I have no intention nor desire to have an exchange without progress.
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Of course I cannot answer that, but at somepoint, the child may be convinced to start wondering about it. And if 15 people are telling the child his dad is an ass, maybe they're right. No matter. In the case of a child, it's the parent's responsibility to control the exposure and limitations of the influences their child has.
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I know in second grade, my own experiences (influences) convinced me that my parents were wrong about black people.
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
They weren't 'dirty' or somehow less than me. The external influence overcame my parents' influence and I made my own assessment. However, no amount of dishonesty, greed or corruption I experienced in the world overcame what my parents taught me about honesty, integrity and honor. Still.
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
So it's hard to say. But certainly there comes a time when a child will change his mind because of external influences. There is no pat answer to how much influence can a child bear before considering it. They're much more complex creatures (and deserve more credit) than that.
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
And it is known (or at least suspected) that long exposure to stimuli creates change.
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
That's how brainwashing happens.
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I'm with you on this. Long exposure to violence, for example de-sensitizes people to it. I believe that.
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I'm not convinced however that long exposure to political cartoons would change someone's political stance or opinions...
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
They just don't cut that deeply, if you know what I mean.
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Seeing a news story of a politician stealing $2 million has much more influence on a person and would cause him to reconsider supporting this politician than would a political cartoon of him doing the same.
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
OK, not everything. I assumed that it would be understood that poison, nuclear bombs and murder wouldn't be included... I think you get my drift abut everything in moderation.
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I wouldn't classify it as a 'need'... for me, at least. It's a balancer. It's a desire for variety. It's entertainment.
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I love to study people and I'm a singer, so I find American Idol extremely entertaining and fulfilling to a certain aspect of who I am. Kind of like a weekly Twinkie. I don't need it. I want it.
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I'm not, however, a reality show junkie. Some people OD on the things. To me, that's as unhealthy as OD-ing on anything. There's that moderation thing again.
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
But we are (at least I am) DISCERNING. We, as the complex human beings that we are, must be able to look at the whole and DISCERN which is valuable input and which is crap. You do that. By saying you want to take out the 'garbage' you have discerned which is which. To you. And that's very important because some of that garbage is treasure to others and frankly, you have no business judging whether they should enjoy that 'garbage' or not.
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
If you want to remove your incidental exposure then you're going to have to find a way to do that. But what you're talking about here is changing an industry... not just your exposure, but everyone's... and that's going to be pretty tough.
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Well, good luck with that.
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Like I said, I hope you are unsuccessful.
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I'd like to point out here that money and political agenda aren't inherently 'harmful'. Money is not the root of all evil, it's the LOVE of money that is. (Yes, even love in moderation...) And a political agenda that encourages equality, environmentalism and education, can be a good thing, indeed.
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Not really. Because there are plenty of places I could be that have less toxic air. Now, that's not to say I wouldn't ask them not to smoke. If it was a posted non-smoking area, I'd be the first to point it out to them and ask them to stop.
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
If it was outside and I could move, I might. Most likely, I would just stay and enjoy it. I smoked for 30 years and quit 5 years ago. I still love the smell.
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
In my world, accountability is something I take for myself. It's not something I thrust upon others. If others are to be accountable, it's going to have to be they who choose it. It's not my place to force or impose my belief system on others. True accountability is a difficult thing to embrace and it wouldn't be fair to demand that others live to my standards. I'm not saying they're higher standards, just different. They're mine. I have chosen them. Other people choose their own.
Don't misunderstand, I do wish people would be accountable, and I think they should, especially in the case of government and so on, when their actions impact me, but those are just thoughts.
Originally posted by saint4God
Let's template that with the "child" being the public, the "dad" being the government, and the "neighbor(s)" being the cartoonists.
How many cartoons get banged out about the president that are untrue that incite paranoia or thoughts that this is probably true?
Is it then the government's "dad's" responsibility to limit the influences? I would say no...
Do you believe their impression of darker skinned people was shaped by society's opinion or fact?
Certainly they've seen cartoons/joke about them, yes?
I think many of us are children on the inside most of the time, which is why I have no problem templating that example I'd started with in this post.
Do you believe that a person's political stance and opinions are so well rooted that they'd not be affected by the wind of word of mouth?
...unless the cartoon is about you or someone in your family...
Same with gladiator sports?
Originally posted by saint4God
Ah, but we are here to "deny ignorance", are we not?
If it is not true, then by the standards set forth by this site, it is garbage.
If there were a website named "politicalcartoons.com" then I know beforehand what I'm getting into.
Ah, so you're depending on government regulation to defend your right to fresh air?
I guess it's a good thing you're not in law enforcement .
By the way, isn't it our civic duty to ensure we're all following the laws and not violating each other's rights?
If someone is getting beaten on the street, is it "not your responsibility" to thrust your belief that this is wrong upon the assailant?
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I believe a child needs protection from outside influences to a certain extent, and that is one of the jobs of a parent. An adult, on the other hand, is responsible for protecting himself within the social and political framework in which he lives.
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Some. But the responsibility of perception, emotion, action, belief all lie with the observer. What I believe in this world of constant external stimuli and influence is up to me. What I decide is true is my responsibility.
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I would also say no, when it comes to Free Speech. The government has a responsibility to protect the citizens from true harm, but words and pictures do not harm.
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
It probably came from their parents.
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I doubt it. My parents were born in 1906 and 1916.
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I have the logic and reasoning mind of an adult. I am still childlike in ways and hope to always be, but my ability to discern the truth of a situation is pretty much all grown up. I will never again be as impressionable as I was as a child. And if I am, I doubt I'll be reading political cartoons, I'll be trying to eat my checkers.
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
It depends on so much. You're asking black and white questions and the only answers are gray. If I hear something that is pretty convincing, and has credible back-up, it's possible for me to change my mind.
Perfect example: Even though I have never supported GW. Bush, in the beginning, I did support the invasion of Iraq. I believed what BushCo said. Against even my husband's opinion, I supported Bush's actions. However, over time, I researched and read and listened and I changed my opinion about the war. I am now fully convinced that everything I believed about GW. Bush was untrue. And I have held this belief for 3 years now. And I can honestly say that not one political cartoon influenced me!
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
For one thing, I rarely see them. I actually think they're boring. For another, I know they're cartoons and not meant to be true. By the time I even noticed Anti-Bush cartoons, I had already firmly established the fact that I had been deceived. I got my information from credited news sources and from reading documents, not from word of mouth. My whole family hated Bush and the war from the beginning. I argued with them. It wasn't until I did my own personal research that I changed my mind.
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
If a cartoon is about someone in my family, I may feel offended, yes, but it wouldn't negatively impact my opinion of that family member! I wouldn't change my mind about them. And as I have said many times on this board and elsewhere, we DON'T have the right not to be offended. There is no such right.
We all get offended by stuff. That's what happens when we live with other people.
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I don't know what gladiator sports are, but I can speak to sports. I hate them! I HATE the whole idea of sports. Just very nearly everything about them. I think they are stupid and worthless and promote violence and competition to an unhealthy and corrupt degree. But I will defend the right of people to consent to participate in them, watch them on TV for hours, and get as involved in them as much as they want. It's none of my business.
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
That's one of the reasons I'm here. I also enjoy it. I'm entertained, educated and it keeps me in touch with the outside world.
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I'm not sure what you're judging as garbage, so I can't really say. And even then, I could agree with you that certain things are garbage, but the thread starter and participants might not agree. So, who's right?
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Who's to say whether something is TRUE or not? If I believe it, it's true to me. That's another 'gray' thing. Some people say the existence of God or the words in the bible are Truth and Facts. I don't agree. So, who's right? I can only say what's true to me with the exception of very concrete facts. And I'm not interested in exploring those.
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
You also know where you're likely to find them. Newspapers, magazines, websites. You can avoid those, too.
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I manage to miss most political cartoons and if I see them I don't have to look more closely and see what they're about or read them. And neither do you. 99% of the time, I scan right over them. I'm not interested.
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Where are you seeing them?
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Unlike pictures and words, second-hand smoke has been proven to be physically harmful. Big difference.
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
If I were, it wouldn't be about "holding other people accountable", it would be about "enforcing the law". Entirely different thing.
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
No. It's my civic duty to be sure I follow the law and not violate others' rights.
It is not my responsibility, no. I would do what I could to make it stop, but not to hold the assailant accountable, thrust my beliefs on him or tell him what he's doing is wrong. My concern would be to protect the victim. Because that seems like the right thing to do. My focus wouldn't be on the assailant, rather to help someone in need.
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I don't eat Twinkies, by the way.
Originally posted by saint4God
But it's enough for a court case? I'm not sure I understand.
They didn't make jokes about them back then? nor have baseless opinion discussions about them? The concept transcends the literal.
Though when we read cartoon after cartoon of him being an idiot, then become convinced by that, whenever we see his picture or video, we're thinking "idiot".
I don't think most of us are that well read in our daily lives, thus weakly rooted and easily swayed by opinions...especially cartoons.
Gladiator sports was in the Roman arenas, where two men took weapons and battled until one of them died, for example.
But then again...we don't have the right to impose our beliefs on others so I guess it's okay if that happens.
I ... want to know where you draw the line (if at all) between inaction and action needed on offensive materials.
Originally posted by saint4God
One statement in signing up is we must adhere to the truth, else lose membership.
You are kidding, right? How is that denying ignorance?
I'm sick of the "make Kerry/Bush fart"-type ads.
Should we go run psych studies on these cartoons to get our proof?
The law holds us accountable, does it not? (in theory)
Beautiful theory but in order to get that person away, the assailant has to be approached in one form or another. ... Will you or will you not help him/her by getting them to notice this error?
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I would do what I could to make it stop
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Go back to the beginning and read about slander and libel. And where I said each case must be analyzed.
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
If you want political cartoons taken out of the picture because you don't want to be exposed to them, then why are you reading one after another?
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I submit that you want their possible influence taken away from everyone, not just you. And it isn't because you are offended, it's because you're afraid they might have some influencing affect on people.
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Don't suppose you have any data on this idea that people are swayed by cartoons?
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Look how strongly people here on ATS hold to their beliefs, even in the face of people TRYING to sway their opinions with facts and real information.
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Well, that would be considered murder today in the framework of our society, wouldn't it? And... I'm against murder.
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Who said we don't have the right to impose our beliefs on others? I said I don't do it. I didn't say we don't have the right.
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
If it's simply offensive, it's not an action and requires no response.
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
(You have chosen to debate with one of the people on this board who probably is the least politically correct, most staunchly protects the first amendment and thinks people should mind their own business.)
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
If it breaks a law (disturbing the peace, public nudity, child abuse) or is a case of libel or slander, then I think it should be analyzed and resolved.
Is that a clear line?
Originally posted by saint4God
Originally posted by darkelf
These cartoons give us an opportunity to laugh at ourselves. It keeps us from taking ourselves too seriously. If you find yourself offened at one of these, pehaps you should examine yourself for the reason.
Firstly darkelf, I have found your thoughts on very solid footing so I give them the utmost consideration. I appreciate the posts you've presentd.
I used to laugh at the President, Prime Minisiter, and whoever else was in them. It wasn't until close self-examination and wide-scale impact analysis that I saw the negative effects.
Originally posted by darkelf
I have been offended by some of these in the past and when I examined myself, I discovered that I felt like it was a personal attack on me or my beliefs.
I've never experienced this from a political/personal cartoon so I'll take your word on it.
Originally posted by darkelf
All of us feel we are privy to the truth.
This is the complimentary side of ATS. We'll question things here. Questioning things is Biblical as well.
Originally posted by darkelf
Remember that one person’s truth is another person’s ignorance.
In close examination of this statement, it is possible for one person to know truth while the other person does not know. This is a given, which is why we send children to school, why people go to college, church, karate, along with other skill and knowledge acquisition activities. So I'm not sure what's being said here if you'd like to clarify or rephrase in a way I can understand.
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I believe that statement is that we're not to "knowingly post anything false". Then that should take care of it. If there's something false, the owners should be contacted. They do a pretty good job. But a lot of stuff is just opinion being passed off as "truth".
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I didn't claim it's denying ignorance. I said you could choose to avoid political cartoons by avoiding those media. If it's more important to you to avoid political cartoons, then you'll do that. If it's more important to you to deny ignorance, then you'll deal with the material contained therein. Your choice.
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I don't even notice them.
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I already know what I think. I don't need any more 'proof'. If you wish to prove something, you're going to have to find a way to do that.
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Not the way I mean "accountable". Individual officers might view it that way, or they might see themselves as simply enforcers of the law. I don't know. But the way I mean accountable, no one can do that to me. I choose it for myself.
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I couldn't care less whether the assailant 'notices their error' or realizes what they're doing is 'wrong'. I don't care. As long as they stop.
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
The Twinkie comment was an attempt at humor. I had mentioned a "weekly Twinkie" earlier and I don't eat them, it was just an example. Don't feel bad. People don't always get my humor.
Originally posted by Open_Minded Skeptic
I am opposed to censorship. Down that path lies danger.
Originally posted by darkelf
Wow! Thanks. Then you should understand where I am coming from. I never advocated laughing at others.
Originally posted by darkelf
If I find a cartoon funny, it is usually because it appeals to my weird sense of humor. The difference between a “normal” cartoon and a “poli” cartoon is that I often dissect the later. I often find them suspect and so I try to determine why it is or isn’t funny. I often see my beliefs mirrored in this satire. Satirical humor tends to offend some people. I have to determine if the cartoon is meant in fun or if it is mean spirited. More and more poli cartoons are falling into the mean spirit group.
Originally posted by darkelf
When I was in the Navy, I used to take offense at poli cartoons that depicted the military in a negative light. As I was a member of the military, I took offense that someone (who had probably never served) was depicting me in a negative light. I was offended at most religious cartooning for the same reason.
Originally posted by darkelf
Now, I just ignore it.
Originally posted by darkelf
Some people here are better at it than others are. That is some can question my beliefs without attacking me personally while others cannot. Here at ATS we always prefer the former.
Originally posted by darkelf
Saint I respect your opinions, candor and the way you present your arguments. But you and I know that there are some truths that can change you life if you are willing to open your mind. My last two statements were meant to be taken together.
Originally posted by darkelf
For instance: evolution, alien seeding, or creationism; which is true? Believing something is not what makes it true.
Originally posted by darkelf
I could choose any of the three as my answer and have any number of people who truly believe one of the other attack my position as being ignorant of the truth. We all feel we are privy to the truth, but some of us are in ignorance.
Originally posted by darkelf
Back to your original topic: You feel it is wrong to make fun of political figures in cartoons. I agree that much cartooning nowadays is more mean spirited than merely making fun. But the world we live in today is a place where people have become “lovers of themselves.” I agree that they shouldn’t be doing this, but that’s the way it is. We both know where this is going and what we should be doing.
Originally posted by darkelf
Maranatha!
Originally posted by saint4God
Originally posted by darkelf
Now, I just ignore it.
Same here, but it doesn't make the problem go away. Sweeping dirt under the rug doesn't mean the house is clean.
Originally posted by darkelf
Back to your original topic: You feel it is wrong to make fun of political figures in cartoons. I agree that much cartooning nowadays is more mean spirited than merely making fun. But the world we live in today is a place where people have become “lovers of themselves.” I agree that they shouldn’t be doing this, but that’s the way it is. We both know where this is going and what we should be doing.
Then let us take action. I would not ask for more. Sitting idle saying "that's not my job" is a similar isolationist attitude that we (U.S. and allies) had the onset of WWII that cost lots of lives. No pre-emptive striking, but reacting to that which is wrong. Defend what is right, good and true. Repel the attacks of spite, malice and intellectual warefare.
Originally posted by darkelf
Maranatha!
Lost me here