Hilariously brutal snark on McCain, Palin, McCain+Palin, and the Republican National Convention.
And not one word about a 17-year-old girl's uterus or sedated special needs babies! How refreshing.
NOTE This fan's favorite. Yeah, there's a huge clutch of 17-year-old and baby snark below, but it's all in the form of over-the-top headline plus image, which is a long blogospheric tradition -- especially when the teebee images move the snark firmly into the "fair game" tradition. It's the prose that gets to me; and the "sedated" part that moved matters out of the "fair game" category for me. Not sure why, but others felt the same. I also note that the "out of bounds" snark is down on the page, and the other snark higher up. Maybe it takes Biden, not an Obama reproof. Who knows?
- lambert's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Front page
Comments
I like watertiger too
and for this one, more than ever.
very good!
"Who's Mommy's favorite little human shield?"
lol!
No thank you.
*
Haw x 2
Really, some of those are brilliant, and many others I feel guilty laughing at. I'm glad I'm not the only one that has noticed Palin's waving that gets way too close to a Hitler salute. I thought maybe I was seeing things. Probably something she needs to work on avoiding, superficially.
yup--i saw the hand thing as a church thing,
actually--like when they shout against holding back demons or evil or something like that (but i'm not Christian and only know from snippets on tv)
someone explain the rules
For the love of all things holy, maybe I need CD or someone reasonable to explain things to me.
is going on around here? Someone explain to me the rules.
WTF
"And not one word about a 17-year-old girl’s uterus or sedated special needs babies! How refreshing."
How refreshing, indeed.
calvinball
the rules
i'm with damon, some of those are brilliant and some i feel guilty laughing at. for me, the hilariously brutal, sarcastic, satirical, and snarky can dare to go where simple and earnest discussion or declaration cannot, particularly if you've established a long history of treating all your targets in the same manner.
It tones done at the top of the page, post-Biden
And it gets worse toward the bottom, given Obama's usual ineffective reproof.
The whole site just struck me as so much less icky than the over the top stuff at TL. Maybe it was prose vs. pictures.
Am I wrong?
[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
Wouldn't say "wrong", Lambert
but there is an intellectual dichotomy I’ve never quite entirely understood.
Humor, and what is or is not allowable as a target and the manner in which the target can be addressed, is so subjective that IMHO it is a mistake to use constructs like "right" and "wrong" across a very broad range. Subjects dealt with humorously can broach issues that sober discussion would never allow; Chris Rock's bit on Bill, Hillary and Monica comes foremost to mind.
What is striking to me here is that you - and we're talking about you because you stuck your neck out, not because you are unique - see several subjects dealt with pretty harshly by watertiger as acceptable yet you were offended by the same subjects here at Corrente. The difference I see is not the photographs, although I could be wrong, but rather that the watertiger observations were done with humor and mine were done in earnest.
This isn't something new. We use humor to discuss many subjects that are distasteful or emotionally difficult to manage with didactics, something to do with the release of hormones in the brain that reduce shame and offer a pleasure reward concurrent with the joke that damps or overwhelms our normal inhibitions. It is not a secret that women are attracted to a man with a good sense of humor, to one with wittiness and the ability to laugh freely - many other average attributes can be overcome in that way, if you know what I mean.
As an exercise, if you like, go back to the watertiger photos and just write down the subject of each jibe. Then, with the photos and jokes moved out of mind, ask yourself if the subjects are appropriate when discussed from an analytical or political strategic standpoint.
I'd be shocked if you didn't see them differently; most people would. The question then, of course, is should those differences in what is or is not appropriate apply to open discussion among intelligent mature sophisticated people like, say, those present here at Corrente? Should they be employed as limiters to sober and serious and linear discussion, but not applied as restraints to non-linear humor? If so, why?
Intranets isn't the only one confused about the rules. Ever the sweetie, he asks earnestly for guidance. Myself, I'm just gonna complain and then fucking ignore them.
Maybe the presence of humor is enough
As opposed to the entirely humorless venom on TL, say, where it's as if a switch was flipped when she became a partisan. Also, pictures tend not to be searchable, and don't seem to generate the endless circlejerks that the prose versions do. Not sure why.
The stuff I liked was at the top of the page, post-Biden. To me, there's a noticeable change. "Baby as human shield" is pretty funny; I don't think I'd think the same way about the baby drugged.
[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
Ok, this is my current fav
This is my current fav considering Rudi's comment about Wasilla not being cosmopolitan enough for Obama. I know I should follow the links all the way to the original doc but I don't really mind bashing her on this one.
I'm sure you have also seen the LA Progressive story about her trashing Hillary and Obama when he came out on top of the primaries. I didn't include a link because it is so viral already and seems something one ought to be surer about before using against her. I got to it via Mudflats, who was talking about her holing up in Alaska for a few days, who linked to another Alaska blog, The Immoral Minority.
I thought the sourcing from LA Progressive...
... was awful (an overheard waitress? Well maybe -- especially since "progressives" online have so much credibility right now) so I didn't use it.
And I don't think there's anything in this story at all from a bashing Palin standpoint. I remember when I was living in a godforsaken high desert town when they put in a department store with an escalator and people drove for miles to ride the escalator. Of course, for urban sophisticates, that's hilarious, but not for them. Same deal here. "Ivana at J.C. Penney's?! I'm going!" Same deal. If you've lived in a place like that, this endearing, not bash-worthy.
The Dominionist stuff could be lethal, but this city/country and implicitly class-based stuff sure isn't.
[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
plus
who cares what Palin said when she was not in politics and just an Alaskan fisherman. Seriously.
I was horrified by the LA Progressive. It has less journalism then the Enquirer stories.
It's mocking, satire and sarcasm
which are perfectly acceptable and have a long tradition of exaggeration and hyperbole to make a point. We're all cool with that, because we get it.
(or we should, if anyone thinks Palin was literally doing a coded shout-out to Hitler with that wave, you need to lighten up).
TL was supposed to be a place for political discussion (well, really, discussion of criminal legal issues but whatever), where truthiness and trafficking in trashy sources (btw, 'trashy' meaning comments allegedly overheard in a diner, not that waitresses are trashy) should be out of bounds. 'Cuz then you're just inviting snark at you, not snark with you.
and on the other hand-- Attack Kitten/Digby-- on Biden
Attack Kitten -- http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2008/09/a...
You prefer your venom with a touch of sugar?
'Cause watertiger's pretty damn venomous.
Dunno, Lambert; a little more chewing on the Rs and a little less chewing on each other would be better, that's all. I remain a hopeless romantic.
Stop trying to undermine Obama's leadership!
As we all know, "A great nation now demands that its leaders abandon the politics of partisan division..." so, clearly, an R vote is just as legitimate as a D vote. Obama doesn't want you to chew on the Rs as Rs, and can't, because with the post-partisan schtick, that's not possible.
Cute headline, but non-responsive. If you can't see any difference between the kind of crap Jeralyn was posting, and what watertiger did, if you thing the genres both are using are the same, and if you can't see any difference between what watertiger did before Biden finally got through to them to lay off, and after, then I'm not sure there's much to discuss. Tone is difficult, I agree. But this case is pretty clear. I have a fine palate for textured bullshit from my extensive experience with the Obama campaign during the primary. You disagree. Readers may form their own views.
Anyhow, on the weekend that Freddie Mae and Fannie Mac went tits up, the OFB
-- and even you yourself -- would rather talk about Sarah Palin. Beyond stupid. Of course, we have 60 days to go, so I'm sure it will only get worse. After which, no doubt, it will get worse.
[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
Beyond stupid, but at least I'm cute
Sorry to have taken up time and space on what I was sure had been a discussion of debate tactics and rhetorical appropriateness and the politics of politics on a political blog.
Especially inappropriate in a comment thread following a front-page post by a Senior Fellow called "How It's Done" regarding political critique of Sarah Palin. Don't know how I could have gone so wrong, should have jacked it to Freddie and Fannie first thing.
I'll just take out the garbage now, shall I?
huh?
I give up. It feels like bizarro world where the exact same statements are either lauded or lampooned based on some random number generator of who posts what.
Did I miss the front page post about Freddie and Fannie (aside from when it first happened). ALso, who hasn't known about this and gov't bail out for months? I even knew when the public announcement was coming. My friends talked about it over Labor Day cook out.
No, you don't have to
I already took that garbage out. Still, we're not hearing claims about being silenced, now. Quelle extase.
NOTE It's the haka that's beyond stupid; I was unclear. Of course, smart people may participate in stupid hakas, even repeatedly, for whatever purposes they have have.
[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi