Project Wonderful Banner

Sunday, November 15, 2009

Those damned Dinosaurs

What's Mallard raving about today?

Liberals, Dinosaurs.

Put this one in the category of Creepy Unintentional Self-Revelation because Mallard just admitted he believes that crimes which specifically target a victim because of their race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation are natural instincts.


Tog said...

Let me translate this into modern human terms, since slobbering moron Tinsley can't:

"I'm not beating you to death because you're gay...I'm beating you to death because I'm secretly terrified of f****ts!!"

Now you understand why Tinsley relies on cavemen and dinosaurs for this nonsense.

The flowering "i" in "liberals" is a cute touch. Because they're all pansies, right? Yet they wield such awesome, unstoppable power!

Ducky is Right said...

I think my brain just imploded.

So, basically, Ducky is against hate crime legislation because he believes it's perfectly natural and right to want to beat faggots and coons to death? How else can you interpret this?

The cutsey flower in liberals reminds me of the Lional Hurtz from the Simpsons, imagining a world without lawyers.

God, how AWFUL would it be if everyone was nice to each other and wasn't constantly worried about either killing or being killed by other people?

exanonymous said...

Liberals and their obsession with hate crimes. Hate crimes, who needs those? Islamic fundamentalists don't need them. Hitler wouldn't have them because it's awfully damned inconvenient for eugenics.

GeoX said...

I supposed that given the sea of stupidity on display here, it would be superfluous to point out that this is a deeply crappy rendering of a pachycephalosaurus?

rewinn said...

I was going to point out that one of the advantages of hate crime legislation is that it enables communities to call upon federal resources. If you're a small rural community whose churches are getting burned, you'd really like FBI crime labs to help out ... but arson is traditionally left up to the states. So you can either raise taxes to build a crime lab in every county, federalize the crime of arson, or decide that crimes that terrorize communities that cross state lines are federal in nature. The latter is the course we as a nation has chosen and it's worked pretty well for Christians and other religious groups, so why not for heterosexuals and other sexual orientations?

(Remember, the addition of sexual orientation to hate crimes legislation protects straights as well as gays ...)

BUT that's too serious a subject for something as cosmicly meaningless as another Tinshely lazy-day one-panel Sunday "comic".

Instead, I rise in defense of the noble pansy. Even in this cold November, the pansies brave the chill to provide a spot of color to passers-by. Yes, they are small (and tasty on a salad...) but that makes their courage all the greater.

dlauthor said...

Apparently, Tinshley thinks gay people are delicious, and therefore OK to eat. Yeah, no subtext there at all. Methinks the sanctimonious prick doth protest too much.

I hate chuck asay said...

This continues the theme--that racism is dead, and, according to the last dinosaur comic, never existed--saying that racism cannot exist, because violence is a natural urge. No matter how delusional and offensive the theme becomes, Tinsley, somehow, makes it worse.

Tinsley is trying to use irony, because he believes that minorities are, inherently, evil, and rich White Christian Republican American Objectivists are good. He has used the predator as a metaphor for th latter and the prey for the former, because that is the opposite of what he thinks has, constantly, occured throughout history and the world. This is like a Klansman beating up Black guys while screaming that he is being oppressed.

Word Verification: Persifis, a disease that causes a slow, painful, but is too good for Tinsley.

Frank Stone said...

So ... in Brucie's wet brain, liberals are OK with violence as long as it's not a hate crime?

(And I've always interpreted the flower on the "i" in "liberals" as representing the damn SIXTIES with their damn HIPPIES and their damn FLOWERS and their damn PEACE and LOVE and shit.)

Michael said...

This strip is a hate crime against art.

Kaitlyn said...

In addition to claiming that we can't just stop ourselves from committing hate crimes, is he implying that we just can't stop ourselves from committing crimes, period?

If that's the case, why have a justice system? Either everyone should be locked up (we're all dangerous) or no one should.

Hey Mallard, your privilege is showing. Again.

Also, my head hurts. We're not animals. Predator animals are supposed to kill their prey. Is he saying that minorities are prey and the majority is the predator? Then lock them up.

RJ K said...

How the fresh heck did this one get passed the editors at the syndicate?


Then again, how does any of this crap get through the editors? Who edits this, and what is he/she smoking?

steve-o said...

This cartoon doesn't make any sense. Oh, and he forgot to include a joke.

WV:redumeck, the people Tinsley's strips are geared towards.

MartyRotten said...

He wrote this down on Saturday night when he was laughing hysterically over it after having downed a bottle of Rebel Yell Whiskey and before passing out on the living room floor and wrote and drew it next Sunday afternoon when he woke up with a violent hangover.

At least that's how I think it came about.

XAnon said...

I don't believe we need more laws. Violence against anyone is already a crime. Why the special treatment?

I can however see the possibility of a new law to protect liberals from being slapped upside the head more than 3-5 times a day.

That may be one too many times for a few liberals. Wait, sorry...on second thought, 3-5 times does seem appropriate.

GeoX said...

Man, even the anonymous dimwit couldn't bring himself to vote "I agree" on this comic? What's the world coming to? I ask you!

dlauthor said...

We all know the root of Xanonyrast's slapping fantasy; it's just a question of who did it to him in the first place. Father? Uncle? Clergyman? And at least he's transferring it to the straw-liberals in his head, rather than taking it out on the local Boy Scout troop or something.

Not THAT Anonymous said...

Dear XAnon:

First, if you meantto make us confuse you with Exanonymous, you failed miserably.

Second: Rewinn explained the reasoning behind hate crime legislation above. I guess you fail at reading as well.

(Also: "I just think/just don't think" isn't exactly an argument. Is there anything you DON'T fail at?)

exanonymous said...

He also fails at realizing that our justice system does not define crime solely on the terms of end results.

Motive and intent separate manslaughter from cold-blooded murder.

Motive and intent separate the woman who shoots the man who attempts to rape her from the woman who shoots a man walking down the street.

Motive and intent separate those who beat up a guy because that guy slept with their wife from those who beat up a guy because that guy was black.

Hate crimes are about motive and intent, not about the results. Arson, graffiti, murder are all crimes, but they can have different reasons to be done and the justice system punishes them according to the danger they pose society.

Anonymous said...

I get the feeling that Xanonyrast would wholeheartedly support harsh sentences for a rape victim who shoots and kills her (or his) attacker.

rewinn said...

XAnonafool is against anti-terrorism legislation.

Killing people is already a crime, so why pick on the terrorists, he reasons.

Hate crimes are just small-time terrorists and terrorists are just big-time hate crimers; you're either with them or against them. And XAnon is with them.

Anonymous said...

"Hate crime" laws sound good, but are both unnecessary and ultimately divisive and unfair. Is it really worse for a criminal to hit an elderly woman over the head because (1) she's black, or (2) he wants her purse? Both are wrong, and the punishment should be identical. This doesn't mean it is perfectly fine to beat up gays or minorities, and it's ludicrous to twist the argument to make out hate crime opponents to be bigots. (Though some probably are!)
Not that Tinsley is capable of making a cogent point like this...

exanonymous said...

Unfair how?

Hate crimes don't impose a lighter sentence on crimes that are non-hate related. Hate crimes impose a stricter sentence based on the level of fear and helplessness it inflicts on victims above and beyond what the normal crime does. Someone beating up the lady to take her money wants her money. Someone beating up the lady because she's black wants her to feel afraid and helpless. The psychological impact isn't just greater, it's also intentional.

Sentencing for hate crimes would exist de facto because of this. The justice system isn't a rigid structure of offenses and penalties, hence the employment of "judges". Official laws however prevent bigoted judges from overlooking things as well providing larger support for more serious crimes (like church burnings) that aren't isolated cases.