Project Wonderful Banner

Thursday, June 23, 2011

That damned Male

What's Mallard raving about today?

Anthony Weiner

Great example today of why, even when Mallard Fillmore is not being a lying propaganda tool, it's still such a pile of crap.

On the surface, it appears this woman is sending out the message in question, rather then receiving it. Of course, just the opposite is true.

It also appears Mallard doesn't actually understand Twitter and is confusing it with some sort of dating site.


rewinn said...

Why is a transgender/transvestite typing a misleading personals ad supposed to be funny?

Kaitlyn said...

So clunky - "not ever sending" what the hell is wrong with "never"?

This is hard to read.

Frank Stone said...

And the laziness continues (well, more obviously than usual). Not even the trademark blackened upper corners. And again, no color added to break up the visual and conceptual emptiness.

Oh, and "personal regions"? What the hell? The accepted terms are "private parts" and "nether regions". But I guess only dead fish go with the flow, right, Brucie?

And as usual, "Doonesbury" deals with the same subject matter far more intelligently and humorously, and is drawn in a way that leaves no question as to where it's taking place.

DiR said...

Essential MF tool #1:

sffan12 said...


Re: Current Doonesbury arc:

Humor: Questionable.
Intelligence: Negligible.

Tog said...

@sffan12: Even if yours were an accurate assessment, Frank Stone's statement would STILL stand.

sffan12 said...

@Tog: FYI: Even Truedau makes a few mistakes once in a while, and this is one of them.

My only comfort is that this arc should be done in a few days so we can move on to more interesting stories.

And do not use the "No True Scotsman" fallacy on me, because I won't tolerate it.

Tog said...

Tolerate it?

...Okay, now that I'm done feigning clutching my pearls (and laughing), help me out here. Do you perceive this as a "mistake" on Trudeau's part because Weiner was a darling of Progressives and therefore we're all supposed to look the other way this time in the name of the Greater Cause? IOKIYAP? (Because I know a few of Nader's Legion got stinging butthurt when Trudeau went off on Roman Polanski and the Whoopi Goldberg Seal of Approval for Statutory Rape.)

Personally I'm finding this tale of Roland's penis-based ego-blindspot hilarious, even if it IS based on the abject, whole-party-harming suicidal mind-blowing stupidity of a particular lefty. And if hammering the point home prevents YET ANOTHER instance from occurring, more power to it.

On the other hand, if you just don't think it's very funny, that's one person's opinion and you're welcome to it. It's not a "mistake," you just don't like it. There's a difference.

sffan12 said...

I'm saying it's a mistake because it's tasteless and unfunny...and I expected better of Trudeau than this.

And you've just proven my point about the fact that you (and others on here) that you do adhere to the 'no true Scotsman' fallacy. That is, anytime someone tries to voice a dissenting opinion you say "No, I RIGHT U WRONG!"" In which case, you're no better than the right=wingers you abhor..

CW in LA said...

The thing about the Polanski episode was that Whoopi "It wasn't rape rape" Goldberg was willfully ignoring some of the more sordid facts of the case, above all the victim's repeatedly saying 'no': It was statutory rape AND rape rape and butt rape rape on top of that.

As for Weiner, I'm not saying IOKIYAP, but running him out of congress was wildly excessive give the Democrats' usual feeble acquiescence to much worse conduct on the part of their ostensible opponents.

As for Doonesbury, I've been too busy to follow the funnies closely lately, although I caught today's strip. The lamest Doonesbury ever (which this wasn't) is still better than anything the Tinsh ever crapped out. But the fact that we're debating Trudeau's efforts is a testament to how extra non-descript the current Mallard is.

Tog said...

Sffan12, you're the one who got his hackles all the way up because someone disagreed--mildly--with your opinion of a comic strip and couldn't stand for it.

You're also the one who brought up the "No True Scotsman Fallacy" in an attempt to preemptively shut down further discussion. (...How'd that work out for you, BTW? Tip: If you don't want anyone to think you're doing 'x,' don't shriek "I'M NOT DOING 'x' AND ANYONE WHO EVEN THINKS I'M DOING 'x' WILL NOT BE TOLERAAAAAAAATED!!")

And yeah, I'm better than the wrong-wingers I abhor, because I can back my arguments up. The best you seem to be able to do is scream foul if you don't immediately get your way (engaging in exactly the sort of ad hoc attack you claim to find so offensive) and play Concern Troll ("I'm just worried about the quality of Doonesbury! That's all! I won't tolerate it sucking like this!!").

Still, thanks for inadvertently letting us know you're one of the fool anons who's been stinking the place up lately with those "you guys are no better" posts. It makes your increasingly hysterical tantrum that much more amusing.

I'll tolerate you, even if you won't tolerate me. Clown.

sffan12 said...

@Tog. contrary to your beliefs, I an not one of the anonymous posters that infrequently pop up here.

All I was trying to do is make you realize that not everyone is in lockstep Left or Right.

And you're the one who can't 'back-up' your statements by trying to make baseless accusations. You don't even know what my beliefs are ,yet you automatically lump me in with the 'anonymous' crowd. Have you even considered the reason why they wished to remain anonymous is the fact that they're more afraid of you than than you are of them?

And, BTW, I know you are, but what am I?

Kip W said...

sffan, I thought "no true Scotsman" was the one where you swear allegiance to X, and when an example of X not living up to that allegiance is pointed out, you proceed to say that it's not really X. I think you're redefining the fallacy.

On your statement that people who disagree with something you say will say so, I guess you're right, but I don't see how that's a blazing indictment of anybody.

Tog said...

Shorter ssfan12:
NO U!!!

sffan12 said...

@Tog: Once again, you misunderstand me (or, more likely,deliberately trying to twist my words to your worldview like the tea-partiers), I never said Doonesbury wasn't good, I said the current Roland Hedley/Twitter thing wasn't good.

And if you continue this childish behavior, I shall have you reported.

Tog said...


You do that, pissy.

I knew I remembered your clown act from somewhere:

From D&C, 9-11-2009:

sffan12: I'd much rather 9/11 be forgotten..on the left as well as the right. And if anyone says otherwise, I'll give you a flame war that will make it look like kindling..

Not THAT Anonymous: You're a real classy guy, too, ssfan12, coming here and threatening...what? A tantrum? If you don't get your way? Here's a little perspective, squirt: you will be forgotten long before 9-11.

sffan12: No, it's that I'm sick & tired of people telling me what I can or can't say..especially concerning 9/11.. It should not only be forgotten, it should be buried into the ground of the collective conscious along with the Witch Trials of Salem & the Red Scare of the other words, a tool of reactionaries that should not be remembered at all.

And if anyone says otherwise, I'll give you a flame war

I'm sick & tired of people telling me what I can or can't say

These two statements do not play well together in a rational world. Are you Ted Rall?

(end quotes)

You haven't grown up at all in the interim, have you?

sffan12 said...

@Tog: You just worked my last good nerve...and you're the one who needs to grow-up, if the best you can do is hurl insults.

All I tried to do is voice my opinion & you respond with puerile insults & childish comments.

And if you think for one sec. that behavior will win you friends here, you are sorely mistaken..

Tog said...

"All I tried to do is voice my opinion"

AND try to stifle dissent and dominate the conversation through threats and ad hoc attacks. Which seems to be a long-standing habit of yours. Which suggests you're a control freak with a weak bladder compensating for a variety of real-life inadequacies.

"You just worked my last good nerve"

Then go ahead and "report" me, Internet Tough Guy. Ooooooo.

"And if you think for one sec. that behavior will win you friends here, you are sorely mistaken"

This ain't no social network, Sobby McWhinesalot. (Oh, I totally cop to the "childish comment" accusation. That IS generally how I respond to wacko knotheads. I mean, even now I'm feeding the troll and I know I really shouldn't.) I have to wonder how many friends you have--anywhere--if you act this way in real life. Do you threaten to call the FBI if nobody else wants to go see such-and-such movie?

...Okay, all done. Get your last word in and do your victory dance (I know that sort of thing is vitally important to an attention whore). I've got other stuff to do.

sffan12 said...

Tog: YOU are the troll; YOU are the attention whore, YOU are the one trying to compensate for your own inadequacies by making obsecne remarks in the hope than someone else will find amusing.

YOU...just...messed...with the wrong person.

And you're also wrong on this not being a 'social network'. By it's very nature, the internet is one vast 'social network'. Remember that when you find yourself banned from here or anywhere else on the 'net.

And if you feel the need to fire one final insult, go ahead; that's just more evidence needed to nail your big-mouth to the wall.

rewinn said...

No True Scotsman ever appeals to the "No True Scotsman" fallacy.

@sffan - chillax dude. Whatever valid point you may have been trying to make is completely lost by your threats to somehow punish someone ... with what? being banned from the internets? for the crime of disagreeing with you?

For the record: Wiener is an great example of three things:
1. Alpha males not realizing that technology changes the rules because your every behavior can be reported. Get used to it.
2. Democrats are held to a different standard; Republicans can commit statutory rape (yes, the purchase of the services of an underage prostitute, while in some sense consensual, is still rape under most statutes) and the corporate media doesn't care. Get used to it.
3. Wiener was an outspoken champion of the majority of Americans, and therefore a prime target. All such tribunes are in the crosshairs. Get used to it.