And you know this how? Been chatting up Jay lately, have you?
stoid
december: *When Jay Leno makes moron jokes about W, he’s just kidding. But, GT seems to seriously think that W is dumb. No doubt, many of his fans agree with him. He let those people down by falling for this UL. *
Look, in the first place you don’t know whether Trudeau actually believed the UL. Many of us here think he probably didn’t, because it seems to us like an obvious hoax, and because his comment in the FAQ seems to indicate that he knew it was fictional. You think he probably did, because you know other people who have, and because you think it likely that he would have been taken in by something that meshed with his own biases. None of this counts as proof. Nor does it imply that even if Trudeau had originally believed the hoax, he would somehow have been “letting down” those of us who don’t believe that Bush is a dummy.
(You know, in a way it seems kind of touching, this conservative insistence that a liberal comic strip ought to be factually accurate, or that the cartoonist is “letting down” his liberal fans by not being factually accurate, or something. I don’t really understand it. Hell, there are some serious-pundit-type conservative editorial writers whom I don’t bother holding to the standards of factual accuracy that some of you folks are saying Trudeau should observe in writing a mere comic strip! My guess is that this indignation is indicative of two things:
-
The plausibility of the hip “pseudo-realist” style that Trudeau uses in his strip. The cerebral dialogue, the “dull” stage sets like Congressional hearings, the low-key passing allusions to current events: all of this combines to give the impression that somehow or other it must be real. So somehow—drug hallucinations, punch lines, bizarre plot twists, kooky images, and all—people begin to take it seriously as reportage, and get upset when it turns out to be factually untrustworthy.
-
The widespread suspicion of mainstream media. Surely people would have to be pretty hard up for facts to imagine that anything they read in a comic strip is a reliable representation of the political situation! But some people—on both sides of the ideological spectrum, as december points out—do imagine it, and I don’t think they would if they had more faith in other sources of information.)
GT must have been pretty embarassed that in this case he was the dummy, the one who was taken in by a crude hoax.
If that’s how you like to view it, go ahead, but it’s all speculation. I should also point out that Trudeau has put some distinctly slanted versions of political events, and poorly-substantiated allegations about them, into his strip situations in the past, so I doubt that he is particularly prone to embarrassment about that kind of inaccuracy.
Tretiak: *If he knows it is false then clearly it should make no dfference if he just made something up. So why didn’t he, why did he appeal to some false internet report if he knew it to be false? He either used it because he thought it was true or because it was funnier than making something up. Well it doesn’t make it any funnier so it seems to me he thought it was true. *
Isn’t that kind of overanalyzing what you somehow figure Trudeau’s thought processes must have been? Why couldn’t he have just heard about the UL, thought “Ha! That’s a riot, I could do a strip on that” and done so? From what I understand about cartoonists, they’re all perennially hard up for funny ideas for strips anyway, 
so it wouldn’t surprise me.
DPWhite: *W is no smarter or dumber than any of his fellow conservatives, isn’t that right conservatives? *
Joke, yes? Conservatives, like everybody else, cover the spectrum from smart to dumb, so regardless of what his IQ actually is, W has to be dumber than some of them and smarter than some of them, right?
We’ve already had our great debate over who is smarter, cons or libs.
Cecil said that Bush’s SAT scores were, “88th percentile on the verbal and 86th in math were he entering college now.”
I’m sorry, but I’ve rather lost interest in this discussion. I’ll watch from the sidelines, but I’ve already said everything I have to say (at least a few times), and the issue itself is concluded by Trudeau as well.
If you have to ask…
No, it isn’t a joke. I’ve never met a conservative who appears to be smarter than W appears to be. But I have met conservatives who aren’t dyslexic and can read, but that isn’t a measure of dyslexia. Conservatives sincerely put their best forward with W, and he is probably a good deal smarter than most conservatives, more compassionate and more understanding. W is a compassionate conservative, meaning that he is more compassionate than all other conservatives who are not as or more compassionate than W. He is a uniter, not a divider. That means that he is more bipartisan and willing to “reach across the aisle” than conservatives who do not proclaim their status as “uniters, not dividers”. Why not take W at his word? He is the cream of honor and integrity in the conservative movement, and there are no conservatives with more honor and integrity than W.
The joke is on us.
Yer on yer own with that one, DPW. Enjoy.
My impression is that Condolezza Rice is smarter than W. But, he was smart enough to hire her.
Let me see if I can explain this to you so you can grasp it clearly:
No.
Oh wait, I’m a fascist, so I guess it should be “nessun”, or possibly “keine”.
Or should it be “nyet”?
Guess I’m just a dumb old conservative, then.
This quote will come in handy for the next debate on left-wing media bias. Thanks!
It’s illuminating to see who Trudeau’s apologists are reduced to comparing him to now - Limbaugh, Drudge, Mallard Fillmore…is this how highly you rate him these days? Time was when he could be ranked with Herblock and Jules Feiffer, whose effectiveness was based on both partisan outrage and a respect for facts.
For those interested in Mallard Fillmore v. Doonesbury, here’s an interesting link. Check out the Doonesbury strip at the end, if you’re a connoisseur of irony.
OK, another new debating tactic by that pioneering original, xenophon. Say that Fox “treated it the way you would expect Fox to treat it” - surely a vague and ambiguous remark by any standard, and refuse to clarify it, noting that you don’t explain this type of remark. No doubt this is also why you neglected to answer my question about your “editorializing” remark - its also not sarcastic humor. (BTW, you might wish to familiarize yourself with the the term “maybe”. Also check the earlier post by Equality).
So to refresh Xeno’s Rules:
- That doesn’t contradict me - it was sarcastic humor.
- I can’t explain what I might have meant - I don’t do that type of job.
Interested observers might wonder at this point if this is the same xenophon who insists on such high standards in GD. But of course those may have merely been sarcastic humor. Or they may not have been, in which case we shouldn’t wait for an explanation.
Wow, a Lesson Learned at the Feet of the Disciple! Though I do observe that this line sounds remarkably similar to your earlier line. You need some fresh material, or you’ll come off as a johnny-one-note. But maybe you are advocating the Rodney Dangerfield approach. I’ll give it a shot:
I’m still giggling over that. You’re a friggin comic genius!
I’m still giggling over that. You’re a friggin comic genius!
Hmm…I’m not so sure…
I can assure you that I heartily appreciate your making the effort to introduce me to this strange concept of “humor” (I always heard there was such a thing, but I could never quite figure out what it is). In gratitude, I will give you a lesson in return.
In order to be funny, humor must be recognized as such by it’s intended audience. Remarks that the overwhelming majority of the audience will take at face value cannot be explained away as humor.
Although you could always say that the intended audience in this case is those few people who have already convinced themselves that Trudeau knew it was a UL all along, and will believe anything rather than back down in this. Personally, I wouldn’t bother addressing myself to this audience. But Trudeau is rather strange.
Fox…
We report, YOU decide.
You know, I’m starting to think Bill H does have a sense of humor…
Hey, I just don’t explain it to you, Izzy, in this thread, because you seem willing and able to construe anything you wish. But it’s not your conservative paranoia that I’m addressing right now; it’s your puzzling confusion regarding the differences between news reportage and political satire, and your equally puzzling humorlessness.
-But I’m glad to see you’ve tried to take my advice on technique. Don’t worry; you’ll improve with practice.
Oh, and:
It was, and we got it. You think Trudeau’s remarks were provided for the amusement of the people bitching about his strip? Do comics play to the hecklers, Izzy; or to the ones who are laughing?
Ah, crap. That was probably a little too snide. It’s just that having to explain a joke over and over kinda sucks all the joy right out of it.
By the way, Izzy, my comment about Fox meant that they slanted the story in a fashion consistent with their editorial policy.
As for the AP, I hadn’t read their report directly when I characterized it as “without editorializing”. They did, in fact, make an editorial remark, when they said that Trudeau had “apologized; sort of.” Mea culpa.