On days like today I wonder why Mallard doesn't just write "Don't you just hate the same stuff I do?" and be done with it.
Progressive anti-spanking policy? Seriously?
16 comments:
Tog
said...
Is there an example anyone can provide of liberals saying teabaggers should not be allowed to have their little hatefests?
...Because I can provide plenty of examples of the Wrong Wing's media-darlings calling for people they've disagreed with to be "shut down" or "shut up, by force if necessary."
(Personally, I find the teabagger/birther sideshows to be utterly hilarious, so long as they don't act on their violent rhetoric.)
What, so he becomes conservative for corporal punishment for wanting a tea party? Whether or not that makes sense depends on your definition of "Tea Party".
Oh, and I'm really, really sorry people aren't beating their kids as much as they used to, Batshit. (I was so occupied with the outrageously false conflation mentioned above that I overlooked your mocking "sissy liberals don't whip their little brats" bit.)
Libruls are just so violent hur hur. That never gets old.
You know, when progressives urge people to do things like repeal don't ask don't tell, it's because some of them are gay and those that aren't recognize it are part of being naturally human. When a conservative pushes for liberals to admit to violence, I can't help but wonder what they think is normal and why they're so desperate to have it validated.
My outrage is that a comic strip with such incoherently bad writing and art direction is carried by a major syndicate, while so many far better strips flounder.
A child stooped over halfway up a staircase, a disinterested man clutching Sheaf Of Papers, and a woman with her head turned? What?
Well, we're liberal, and when we adopted our daughter we had to promise the Chinese government we wouldn't use corporal punishment on her. Interestingly, most of our party seemed to be of a much more conservative Christian bent, and they made the same promise. (These are the real compassionate conservatives. Many of them already had kids, but wanted to adopt at least one more from the goodness of their hearts.)
Come to think of it, we bought her a tea set, but now that she's eight, she's not very interested in it any more.
I don't know if this has ever been mentioned specifically on D&C but I just found this interesting term called "plen-T-plaint coined by Thomas Frank in the book What's the Matter With Kansas (full disclosure: the application of this term to Tinsley was made by an amazon.com reviewer of Bruce's smash publication of his stuff from 10 years ago or whenever it was that some publisher tried to find an audience for reprints of his daily brainfarts).
I've never read Frank's book but a helpful online review excerpts the section where he defines the term (sorry for weirdly pasted margins):
Everything seems to piss conservatives off. And they react by documenting and cataloging their disgust. The result is what we will call the plen-T-plaint, a curious amassing of petty, unrelated beefs with the world. Its purpose is not really to evaluate the hated liberal culture that surrounds us; the plen-T-plaint is a horizontal rather than vertical mode of criticism, aiming instead to infuriate us with dozens, hundreds, thousands of stories of the many tiny ways the world around us assaults family values, uses obscenities, disrespects parents[...] It offers no resolution, simply reminding us that we can never win. The plen-T-plaint is the rhetorical device that makes Bill O’Reilly’s TV show a hit, as he gets indignant one day about the Insane Clown Posse and gets indignant the next about the Man-Boy Love Association [NAMBLA].
Even before I began to subject myself to Mallard on a daily basis (would that I could go back in time a stop myself) I noted these daily things that my wife would tell me about that she heard listening to the radio, or I'd hear her conversations with her sister (who must have been listening to the same stuff) and they'd tut-tut about the decline of our country and both eventually be swept into that same Kansas-like phenomenon of falling under the sway of the Republican strategy to prop up all this nonsense and equate it with the insidious plot by liberal/hollywood/hip-hop/gay/etc. to strip us of our once glorious society.
Of course, Bill O'Reilly gets the shout out in the book because Tinsley is just a pimple on the ass of this movement and hardly worth anyone's bother.
So Bruce is angry because we don't spank our kids enough anymore (because the "progressives" have stripped us of that privilege)? Or he's angry because the eloquent dissent of the "tea partiers" is being quashed by strictly anti-free speech forces (not sure who: the media, teachers, the GOVERNMENT!?) Conflating these things is, I think, supposed to be the joke, but I can't laugh at it because of how upsettingly distorted both points are. But what do I know, I'm just a humorless progressive stereotype strawperson who says whatever words are scrawled next to my idiotic caricature.
Once again, I find myself wondering what the number is for Child Protective Services in Tinshley's particular sector of Indiana. "Hello, there's a an alcoholic racist with two kids who's complaining loudly in a public forum that people don't hit their children enough any more. Can you swing by with some social workers and a taser and check it out?"
So he's saying that liberals secretly don't believe any of their espoused values or are willing to forgo them in moments of anger? The concept could be good, could be funny. The thing is that something like that would usually need more panels or a better buildup. As it is it seems sort of odd.
This would probably be Nickyrast's favorite Mallard ever, given the content, but it seems like he's not around these days. Must have violated the terms of his parole or something.
Toots McGee, I found another thing that pisses off conservatives: pointing out that they're fretting over a fake. I've been posting some Snopes URLs in response to various rumors at Facebook, and the liberals I know tend to say, "Oh, good. I was worried over nothing." The conservatives attack Snopes instead.
For eight years and longer, Snopes defended GW Bush (and before that, Dan Quayle) from internet exaggerations, but as soon as they debunked a lie about Obama, they were Marxists. An elephant never forgets a slight, or remembers the truth.
16 comments:
Is there an example anyone can provide of liberals saying teabaggers should not be allowed to have their little hatefests?
...Because I can provide plenty of examples of the Wrong Wing's media-darlings calling for people they've disagreed with to be "shut down" or "shut up, by force if necessary."
(Personally, I find the teabagger/birther sideshows to be utterly hilarious, so long as they don't act on their violent rhetoric.)
What, so he becomes conservative for corporal punishment for wanting a tea party? Whether or not that makes sense depends on your definition of "Tea Party".
Also, those stairs are way too high. I told you dog.
Oh, and I'm really, really sorry people aren't beating their kids as much as they used to, Batshit. (I was so occupied with the outrageously false conflation mentioned above that I overlooked your mocking "sissy liberals don't whip their little brats" bit.)
Obviously Daddy's belt did YOU a world of good.
Libruls are just so violent hur hur. That never gets old.
You know, when progressives urge people to do things like repeal don't ask don't tell, it's because some of them are gay and those that aren't recognize it are part of being naturally human. When a conservative pushes for liberals to admit to violence, I can't help but wonder what they think is normal and why they're so desperate to have it validated.
I don't get it. How did the wife from "The Lockhorns" get in this strip only to throw her back out on the stairs?
WV: twity. No, really.
My outrage is that a comic strip with such incoherently bad writing and art direction is carried by a major syndicate, while so many far better strips flounder.
A child stooped over halfway up a staircase, a disinterested man clutching Sheaf Of Papers, and a woman with her head turned? What?
Well, we're liberal, and when we adopted our daughter we had to promise the Chinese government we wouldn't use corporal punishment on her. Interestingly, most of our party seemed to be of a much more conservative Christian bent, and they made the same promise. (These are the real compassionate conservatives. Many of them already had kids, but wanted to adopt at least one more from the goodness of their hearts.)
Come to think of it, we bought her a tea set, but now that she's eight, she's not very interested in it any more.
I don't know if this has ever been mentioned specifically on D&C but I just found this interesting term called "plen-T-plaint coined by Thomas Frank in the book What's the Matter With Kansas (full disclosure: the application of this term to Tinsley was made by an amazon.com reviewer of Bruce's smash publication of his stuff from 10 years ago or whenever it was that some publisher tried to find an audience for reprints of his daily brainfarts).
I've never read Frank's book but a helpful online review excerpts the section where he defines the term (sorry for weirdly pasted margins):
Everything seems to piss conservatives off. And they react by
documenting and cataloging their disgust. The result is what we will
call the plen-T-plaint, a curious amassing of petty, unrelated
beefs with the world. Its purpose is not really to evaluate the hated
liberal culture that surrounds us; the plen-T-plaint is a horizontal
rather than vertical mode of criticism, aiming instead to infuriate us
with dozens, hundreds, thousands of stories of the many tiny ways the
world around us assaults family values, uses obscenities, disrespects
parents[...] It offers no resolution, simply reminding us that we can
never win. The plen-T-plaint is the rhetorical device that makes Bill
O’Reilly’s TV show a hit, as he gets indignant one day about the Insane
Clown Posse and gets indignant the next about the Man-Boy Love
Association [NAMBLA].
Even before I began to subject myself to Mallard on a daily basis (would that I could go back in time a stop myself) I noted these daily things that my wife would tell me about that she heard listening to the radio, or I'd hear her conversations with her sister (who must have been listening to the same stuff) and they'd tut-tut about the decline of our country and both eventually be swept into that same Kansas-like phenomenon of falling under the sway of the Republican strategy to prop up all this nonsense and equate it with the insidious plot by liberal/hollywood/hip-hop/gay/etc. to strip us of our once glorious society.
Of course, Bill O'Reilly gets the shout out in the book because Tinsley is just a pimple on the ass of this movement and hardly worth anyone's bother.
So Bruce is angry because we don't spank our kids enough anymore (because the "progressives" have stripped us of that privilege)? Or he's angry because the eloquent dissent of the "tea partiers" is being quashed by strictly anti-free speech forces (not sure who: the media, teachers, the GOVERNMENT!?) Conflating these things is, I think, supposed to be the joke, but I can't laugh at it because of how upsettingly distorted both points are. But what do I know, I'm just a humorless progressive stereotype strawperson who says whatever words are scrawled next to my idiotic caricature.
Once again, I find myself wondering what the number is for Child Protective Services in Tinshley's particular sector of Indiana. "Hello, there's a an alcoholic racist with two kids who's complaining loudly in a public forum that people don't hit their children enough any more. Can you swing by with some social workers and a taser and check it out?"
I object to the baseless claim that progressive spank their children on the stairs.
Everyone knows that we do it in satanist pentagrams!
The wife's evil scowl gave me a belly laugh. She reminds me of the ridiculous caricatures of non-Christians in Chick tracts.
@Toots: Oh, come on, now. If you could go back in time, wouldn't you be better off stopping Tinsley or the syndicate?
So he's saying that liberals secretly don't believe any of their espoused values or are willing to forgo them in moments of anger? The concept could be good, could be funny. The thing is that something like that would usually need more panels or a better buildup. As it is it seems sort of odd.
What is that monstrosity holding its hideously malformed butt!?
Is that supposed to be some sort of child?
This would probably be Nickyrast's favorite Mallard ever, given the content, but it seems like he's not around these days. Must have violated the terms of his parole or something.
Toots McGee, I found another thing that pisses off conservatives: pointing out that they're fretting over a fake. I've been posting some Snopes URLs in response to various rumors at Facebook, and the liberals I know tend to say, "Oh, good. I was worried over nothing." The conservatives attack Snopes instead.
For eight years and longer, Snopes defended GW Bush (and before that, Dan Quayle) from internet exaggerations, but as soon as they debunked a lie about Obama, they were Marxists. An elephant never forgets a slight, or remembers the truth.
Post a Comment