What's Mallard raving about today?
Grammar, People.
Ignoring the fact that Mallard, who massacres the English language on a regular basis, is not really a waterfowl by whom anyone needs to be lectured about linguistics...
Shorter Mallard Fillmore, Right-Wing Mouthpiece: I hate people because I am so much better than they are.
And the Republicans wonder why they are so deeply unpopular.
Correcting grammar is Elitist.
And, by the by, correcting grammar instead of remembering Mom? What are you, a Socialist?
9 comments:
I actually thought that MF was funny today (relatively, anyway.) It was original for once (if hypocritical), it wasn't rage-inducingly stupid, it wasn't mindless repetition of right-wing talking points... I guess even Tinsley can be alright once in a while.
Unfortunately, we'll be right back to torture and teabaggers tomorrow.
Oh this yarn again. In my linguistic background, this argument seemed to come up all the time, and it usually parsed out like this. Either:
a) the observer noted that the phrasing is sarcastic, and therefore shouldn't be taken literally;
b) the observer noted that the phrasing was a morpheme in and of itself, therefore meaning what we all understand it to mean, regardless of its literal definition; or
c) the observer was a bit of an asshat
Of course, I already figured where the duck fell in this argument before it came up, but it's good to have some confirmation.
Somehow, I really doubt Tinkley has ever read any Searle. You know, one of those thinking types...
OK, it's like this...
Let's just ignore the whole issue of idiomatic usage in language. ("House burned up" == "House burned down" anyone?)
And let's just ignore the distinction between informal and formal language usage. (Yeah, of course, while it's one thing to use a phrase like hanging around the water cooler, it'd be quite a different kettle of fish to insert this in any serious piece of writing --which, of course, no one would ever do).
But let's just cut to the chase:
Is this really the only kind of "gag" that a professional, really-gets-paid-for-it syndicated cartoonist can come up with? Or --even if he/she decided to make a joke about something like this-- is this the best that said cartoonist could be expected to come up with?
Just how is it possible that cr@p like this could actually get published?
In the spirit of Taquelli's category b), where the meaning is known regardless of literal content: cr@p like this gets published because papers are scared $h!tless of being called "librul", and if they're going to run Doonesbury, then by god there'd better be something overtly right-wing, too, no matter whether it has the teensiest shred of humor, artisitc talent, or original thought.
In short, it's a testament to the extent to which Republicans will embrace their own conception of affirmative action, when it suits their purposes.
THIS is what he picked for his Mother's Day strip?
Mallard Fillmore, having a pea-sized duck brain, is unfamiliar with linguistic concepts such as "idiom" and "sarcasm".
Did I say Mallard Fillmore? I meant to say it was Bruce Tinsley that has a pea-sized brain.
About today's "comic":
Could I care less?
Could you?
Crap like this gets published because of notions of equal opportunity. If we publish a popular, entertaining strip like Doonesbury, that snarks all sides and develops characters and is funny, we have to publish something that huffs and puffs for one side, with no characters except for straw men.
Wingnut Welfare is the American Way!
Post a Comment