What's Mallard raving about today?
Voters, Advertising, Liberals.
Would you care to name "all of those liberals," Mallard? Or does it make it too hard to win your arguments if you can't make both sides of the argument?
It's also worth noting that Mallard views someone being convinced to vote as a bad thing.
16 comments:
So, first education and now Mallard's latest nemesis is democracy itself? Does he want everybody (or just everybody else) to go back to being illiterate serfs or something?
Apparently. Serfs would do all the work allowing Mallard unlimited TV-blob time.
As for the "quote":
Unfortunately, googling the words within the quotes come up with nothing. As far as I can tell, nobody said it. As for it being part of the liberal dogma, that's news to your average liberals. If I had to place the advertising filling a need thing to a particular political frame of mind, it fits better with conservative due to their stance on allowing independent businesses absolute freedom.
Yeah, why don't liberals mention this guy? This imaginary guy you just made up. Let me explain something to you, Tinsley. Liberals are just as mystified about who it is that likes Sarah Palin one day, then doesn't like her the next. Who are these "independents" who can't decide whether to vote for four more years of the policies of the worst president ever, who can't decide whether it's a good idea to gut Social Security, who just don't know if thirty years of deregulation of the banking industry is working out for us, who aren't sure about abortion, torture, the WAR, or fucking anything?
Actual conservatives, we understand. They've been deluded by religion, the corporate media, and thirty years of propaganda by well-funded right-wing think tanks to believe that liberals are going to make them gay.
I'm sorry. I admit it. It was me. I never mentioned that guy.
I will try to mention that guy once a day from now on.
Because WHAT IN HOLY FUCK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT
Exanonymous: I don't think I've ever heard anyone say that, but I've heard someone say something very similar. It was more to the effect that you have to create a product that fills a need that people don't even know they have. Want to know who said it? A high school kid at an entrepreneurship camp. It was in an article I wrote for a business newspaper about an event at this camp where the kids were supposed to come up with an invention from pieces of junk they picked out. If you're curious, here's the actual quote and context:
And although the inventions did not have to be operational, they had to meet a market need. Filling latent needs was one of the biggest business lessons Garrett Lamm learned at Idaho Business Week.
“Kind of like cell phones,” he said. “People didn’t know they needed them until they were there.”
(The story, if you're really curious, but I'm not sure why you would be.)
This kid is right. That really is the bedrock of entrepreneurship. THERE IS NOTHING AT ALL LIBERAL ABOUT THAT STATEMENT.
If you want to draw a parallel to voting, I guess the easiest analogy would be to convince someone to vote based on an issue they weren't even aware of until you told them about it. You know, kind of like how conservatives informed us four years ago about the threat that gays getting married poses to heterosexual marriage.
Today's strip exemplifies a basic logic error behind much of the propaganda of authoritarians.
"Advertising creates a need" can mean
A. "The only thing advertising does is create a need" or
B. "One of the things that advertising does is create a need."
Tinsley uses the extremist definition A to mock GOTV efforts whereas even the most severe critics of advertising use the common-sense definition B.
It's a standard tactic: take a statement out of context, interpret it in the most extreme way possible, and then mock the straw man.
-----
It's also funny that Tinsley is mocking ordinary Americans who aren't interested in voting ... that's more than a little bit elitist.
Good: Companies marketing products that people don't need.
Bad: Campaigns that encourage citizens to vote.
Okayyy...
exanonymous: I think you're right - Mallard would be happier with a semi-feudal society.
The "Strong-daddy authoritarian" model that he and other rightwingers champion gives everyone a comfortable place in the world; if not "comfortable" in the sense of "food and freedom", at least it's "comfortable" in the sense of "I know my place and have the comfort of disdaining those who don't".
A horse will run back into a burning barn; a conservative will put the master's chains back on his wrist ... because that's just the way it ought to be.
Gold-digging Nanny:
Ducky really does feel threatened by gay marriage.
Let's pass over the whole beastiality issue with the thing he has for Chantel; Mallard may violate Deuteronomy and the commandment against LUST, but at least he isn't GAY!
The problem authoritarians have with gay marriage isn't the sex itself (...if so, they'd criminalize gayness, and lose a lot of their staff...) but the challenge to the model that "Daddy is boss, mommy is subservient, and kids are silent". This threatens their sense of order both in their personal lives AND in the large family, that of the community and our nation.
George Lakoff explains it much better than I: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RkvV4GkRQU or read his book "The Political Mind" - frequently referenced by Thom Hartmann
michael - of course Campaigns that encourage citizens to vote are bad.
The aristocracy doesn't WANT you to vote, unless they are very very sure you'll vote FOR them and AGAINST your self-interest
Yeah, WE'RE the free market, rah-rah deregulation ones.
I don't know if it's true that increased voter turnout means more votes for the Democratic candidate, but this insanity is kinda convincing me.
What is so bad about more people voting, Mallard?
And why don't people have the TIME to read about the issues? You know, if only there was something simple, like a 30-second spot on TV, to tell people about the election, issues, or a candidate. Then people might know SOMETHING.
But hey.
At that meeting, there was talk about educating voters, but it was mostly in the context of getting them to read the non-sexy city charter amendments.
OH my god.
Tinz has access to my library records.
I just checked out a book related to advertising.
Not to mention all the blog posts about terrible ads I've read lately.
It was me!
rewinn: Thanks for mentioning Lakoff, I'm sure that was the person that Mallard is referring to, although he does it in his own completely incompetent way.
Regarding gay marriage:
I touched a clay pot while on my time of month and did not break and discard it.
I also wore a sweater that was partly polyester.
And I ate pork.
I am SO going to hell with the gay people. It's all in the same chapter!
Very interesting link, rewinn -- thank you.
Yeah, I'm not gonna lie, I don't get this strip. Who is this guy? Is Mallard happy that he's going to vote in defiance of the liberal ad-bashers? Does Mallard disdain people who are led to vote because TV told them to? This does not compute.
Post a Comment