July 21st cover of the new yorker

[BigV]

I think that term "smarter" is a loaded term.

There are areas where I know more than other people, and vice versa. That's not hubris. That's reality. Where is the "overweening pride"?

How do you parse xoB's statement? That is isn't satire, because some people will believe the untruths illustrated? In that case it would seem that you include yourself in the smarter group, no? Is your hubris showing here?

Or, maybe I have it wrong. Maybe you believe it is satire because everyone is as smart as you and will disbelieve it. If that's the case, what's the point of the cover at all? Why choose those elements, if they're all universally understood to be false? Why not choose other aspect equally universally absurd--that he has two heads, or that McCain will be his VP?

Look at your sig:

Originally Posted by jinx's sig

"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.
H. L. Mencken

This cover is an example of Mencken's point: a series of menacing, imaginary hobgoblins.

xoB's statement is something of a trap.

[jinx]

Everyone who reads the New Yorker is at least as smart as I am and will likely understand the cartoon.
Others will hear about it thru various sources and will use the information, biased one way or another, to further support the opinions they already hold.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by jinx

Everyone who reads the New Yorker is at least as smart as I am and will likely understand the cartoon.
Others will hear about it thru various sources and will use the information, biased one way or another, to further support the opinions they already hold.

I believe there is truth in that. But you don't have to be "smart" to read the New Yorker, only have the ability to read at a highschool level, unlike most of our newspapers which are amied at a 5th grade level of reading. The New Yorker is just another rag that some people enjoy. My rags are The Atlantic and The Economist.

[Griff]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

... The Economist.

I knew you were tw's sock puppet!

[jinx]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

I believe there is truth in that. But you don't have to be "smart" to read the New Yorker,

I agree, but I also have no reason to assume they are dumber than me as a group.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by jinx

I agree, but I also have no reason to assume they are dumber than me as a group.

I would submit that anyone who thinks they are de facto smarter than someone else based on what they read on a purely web based interaction is pretty foolish. We really know very little about each other here.

[xoxoxoBruce]

But aren't we speculating on the reaction of the great unwashed masses, to this cover?

I suspect that peoples reaction to it, has more to do with their opinion of the collective smarts of the masses, than their own IQ.

[Lena]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

But aren't we speculating on the reaction of the great unwashed masses, to this cover?

Maybe i can help here. I'm fairly sure that I fall under the catagory of "unwashed mass". I mean, i didn't even understand the cartoon when i first saw it. I figured it was some political slander meant to paint Obama as being pro the Iraq war or something similar. I don't watch (or read) news very often and have been obtaining practically all of my political information from the Cellar (on the rare occasion that i feel up to trying to glean some info from the mess that most of the political threads become after about a page or two).

Alot of people are similar to me in that they don't follow the news on a regular basis. I feel that these people would see this cartoon just so long as they have access to the internet. I don't read The New Yorker, and yet i've seen this cartoon in several places on the net. If i've seen it that often then many others have too.

The way i see it most people would come to one of three conclusions after seeing this political cartoon. The first would be to understand it to be satire (whether they approve or not doesn't matter). The scond would be like me and understand the message, who would then look for more info on it. It would be a gamble for them as to whether the source they find calls Obama a muslim or explains that it is satire. The last group are those who have already heard the rumor (and possibly believe it) and use this cartoon as proof/evidence that he is muslim.

This cartoon could be potentially damaging to Obama in that people who don't know much about the campaign could be led to believethat he is muslim. It doesn't matter whether or not they find out later that he's not because during the time they believe that, they'll be spreading the rumor even further.

Also, on that whole thing about whether the people who understand the cartoon are smarter or not, i think a better word to use is informed. those who understand this cartoon for what it is tend to be more informed on politics in general. That says nothing about someone's IQ, just about what they tend to read.

Sorry about the long post,
-Lena

[dar512]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

But aren't we speculating on the reaction of the great unwashed masses, to this cover?

I suspect that peoples reaction to it, has more to do with their opinion of the collective smarts of the masses, than their own IQ.

Of course.

Half of all people are below average - and that's a fact.

Kay: A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by BigV

I think that term "smarter" is a loaded term.

And I think you over analyzing.

There are areas where I know more than other people, and vice versa. That's not hubris. That's reality. Where is the "overweening pride"?

But we weren't discussing "other areas", were we.

How do you parse xoB's statement? That is isn't satire, because some people will believe the untruths illustrated? In that case it would seem that you include yourself in the smarter group, no? Is your hubris showing here?

No parsing is necessary for me, or deadbeater, or Jinx.

Or, maybe I have it wrong. Maybe you believe it is satire because everyone is as smart as you and will disbelieve it. If that's the case, what's the point of the cover at all? Why choose those elements, if they're all universally understood to be false? Why not choose other aspect equally universally absurd--that he has two heads, or that McCain will be his VP?

It's easily recognizable satire, because anyone with an IQ higher than a glass of water can see they are depicting the bullshit the anti-Obama troops are trying to scare people with.

Look at your sig:
This cover is an example of Mencken's point: a series of menacing, imaginary hobgoblins.

xoB's statement is something of a trap.

Yes, it's a trap for anyone trying find a hidden agenda in a straight forward question.
Take some aspirin, have a couple drinks, watch the Olympics and relax.
I asked deadbeater a question. He understood and answered it. That's all folks.