I don’t think it’s fair to call Brain Wreck’s statement bigotry, but can we at least agree that it’s idiotic?
Let’s compare these two statements. Are they really any different in spirit and intensity? Generalization of entire group? Check. Ascribing massively negative characteristics to both groups? Check. Suggestion that we should round up all members of this group and put them in some sort of reeducation camp? Hmm, that’s only in Brain Wreck’s (although I’m sure Ann Coulter has said something analogous).
So no, it’s not bigotry. And yes, Ann Coulter has made a career out of such talk and this is just one little thing. But I really don’t see much difference between these statements. So it’s rhetoric? So it’s polemic? It’s still stupid.
I think the author’s point is, if global warming is caused by too much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, then being carbon neutral doesn’t really help the situation, because while you’re not increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere (and thereby making global warming worse), you’re also not doing anything to remove CO2 from the atmosphere and make the situation better. (And since most people won’t be carbon-neutral, the situation will continue to get worse)
However, being carbon-neutral makes you think that you’re making an effort to improve the situation (gives you a “false sense of superiority”), and stops you from actually doing anything useful about global warming, because you feel you’ve “already done your part”.
That’s a candidate for an explanation. Still, being carbon-neutral does not “add to the problem.” More accurately, it “stops adding to the problem without actually reducing it”, if you want to take that most pessimistic possible viewpoint. And the implied conclusion of the strip, then, is “if you can’t make it better then there’s no point in not making it worse. And Al Gore said he invented the internet.” Fucking moron.
Are you trying to prove my point, or your point? A conservative “favors traditional views and values.” Why? Because he thinks they’re better. Is that a fact? Is it provable in an absolute way? Is there a mathematical formula that shows that “conservative = better?” No. Because that’s an opinion. Conservatism is an opinion about the best way to run a society or system of government.
That said, I agree with nameless that it’s a stupid over-generalization. Calling it bigotry, however, is at least as dumb as calling all conservatives “stupid, greedy, and short-sighted.”
We’re arguing semantics at this point, but note the word I bolded, “conservatism”
is not the same as the one I defined, “conservative”. I still say it’s more of a philosophy, or belief system, which may include opinions on more than one topic.
Standing by the charge of bigotry. Politics is clearly included in the definition, and the kicker is the intolerance of those who differ.
So, if I consider people who follow the political philosophy of National Socialism to be half-witted racist screwheads, am I a bigot? Further, does that make me a hypocrite for being bigoted against bigots?
And hiding behind a dictionary. When you let Webster do your thinking for you, nothing impressive can ever be the result.
Thanks for illustrating the other brain damage that needs to be addressed. You people have absolutely no clue what tolerance or intolerance means. Tolerance means: if you want to be a moron, fine, as long as it doesn’t harm me, do what you will. Intolerance means: Even though what you’re doing doesn’t affect me, I’m going to keep you from doing it because I don’t like it. “Intolerance” does not mean disagreement, even vigorous disagreement. Please write that down, take it back to all your like-thinking buddies and talk it over until you understand it.
nameless, your mentioning of Ann Coulter was a good way to put this in perspective for me. I decided to do a quick pit search for threads with her name in the title, and searched those threads for the word “bigot” just to see if people here were using the word to describe her. I got bored after eight or so threads, but I saw enough.
I was actually surprised that the word wasn’t used to describe her much. I only found three. Unfortunately with Ann Coulter there are reasons for people to call her a bigot other than just what she says about liberals, so with two of them it doesn’t count for anything. The third is a post by Scylla that’s interesting. He uses the same argument that Oakminster is using now, and there wasn’t a huge objection to it then.
Oakminster, whether you’re right about it being bigotry or not, I suggest you drop the argument and focus on what is objectionable about the statement. I did the search hoping to see if the word bigotry was accepted in that way around here in the past, but no such luck. By maintaining that it’s bigotry you’re standing on shaky ground.
Is there a phrase for this logical fallacy? Argumentum ad lexicographia or something?
Thank you. I don’t have to agree with everyone’s beliefs. Tolerance means allowing the KKK to have a rally. It doesn’t mean not calling them brain-damaged slimeballs who, if they had a moment of self-reflection, would immediately kill themselves for the sake of society.
Why do conservatives get so whiny when people disagree with them?
Strange that you pick a strip to rant about that pokes fun at Algore, who most assuredly is a good target for derision. But why haven’t you been ranting about strips like these?
Oh, silly me. There, he’s poking fun at conservatives and that’s perfectly okay.
Stantis tends to piss on everyone’s shoes. He’s right in the middle as far as I can tell - neither conservative nor liberal.
Well, the third, about Chertoff, isn’t making fun of conservatives. In fact it’s making the conservative point that the Department of Homeland Security seems to be wasting money in direct contradiction of conservative principles.
The first is a populist sentiment and is isn’t denigrating conservatives at all; just that the current state of permenant war is give the Reserves and National Guard a royal screwing.
The second is just a stupid anti-lawyer joke; not a conservative skewering in any shape or form.
For someone who couldn’t spare the effort to actually discuss the cartoon and explain what it means, you certainly have a lot of time to discuss bigotry against conservatives. You even have gone to the trouble of digging up multiple dictionary definitions! Care to spend a few minutes now explaining the comic strip to us? Your other options are to b) continue to evade by following up tangential discussions or c) slink away. Please go with (a).
I do have to confess, however, that I appreciate your clearing up something I’ve suspected for a while: conservatives are in fact fixed and immutable in their thinking, rendering their opinions as distinguishing features akin to gender, skin color, race or ethnicity. It has always seemed that way to me, since they appear to be unable to change an opinion in the face of contradictory evidence or due to clear outcomes of failure.
I’m afraid I cannot stop engaging in this type of “bigotry,” unfortunately. See, unlike people distinguished by different races, genders, or skin colors, conservatives have proven to be exceedingly bad for America, and I love America.
Well, thinking that being carbon-neutral helps solve the problem can add to the problem, though, because there’s the danger that those people who are concerned about the issue of global warming will embrace “carbon-neutrality” and think they’ve “done their part”. There’s always the danger of placebo solutions that, while they work to relieve guilt, don’t actually help solve the problem.
And the “Al Gore claims to have invented X” joke is pretty much inevitable when his name is mentioned.
Fuck off. For once, Clothahump is absolutely right. Not that it lessens the ridiculousness of the strip linked in the OP, obviously, but it’s absolutely unfair to call Prickly City a conservative (or, if you must, a partisan) strip.
And as to another point made in this thread, “Prickly City” is pretty clearly a conservative strip…even putting aside strip content, Scott Stantis has made it clear in interviews that that’s the case. However, that doesn’t mean that he’s a blind supporter of the Bush administration. The National Guard strip, the Chertoff strip, and others, and others, like this one, which is against the wiretapping:
and the series of strips ending May 20, which, except for the last one, are no longer available online, which really criticize the Iraq War. He’s generally critical of the Bush administration for not being “real” conservatives…of betryaying conservative values.
I don’t think it’s unfair. If you click on the “about the author” link at the comic’s website, it includes the following quote from him:
I don’t think the fact that it’s conservative is neccesarily a bad thing. If you have a strip that deals with current events, it’s going to have a bias, and Prickly City is generally a funny strip with really endearing characters (I like Winslow especially). It’s not really like Mallard Filmore, which is just “look at how dumb liberals are” or B.C., which used to be funny and innovative, but lately, has turned into “Believe in Jesus or you’ll burn in hell! (oh, and here’s some fake dictionary definitions that are bad puns.)”