Political Argument Arena!!!

[ToonUSA]

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/04/28/austria.cellar/index.html

Nevermind.

That's ********ing outrageous.

[mplsTOON]

Why do you see it as a black man and a white woman, not just two Democrats?

um because IT IS an image of a black man and white woman and not of two graphic represenations of the democratic party.

The Democratic Party symbology is not apparent and unless context is provided for it it doesn't exist in that image.

Are you saying that no matter which one makes it to the general, I cannot attack them because they are not white males?

No you are saying that. You may attack anyone you like but please don't be shocked if you get a negative reaction to your attacks.

Don't confuse opinions with attacks. its something easily done BTW...

Please don't put words in my mouth and don't scold me for something I did not say. Its an opinion and not an attack.

[mplsTOON]

Funny, I saw them as the 2 morons the Democratic party has to choose from. If it were Edwards and Al Gore I still would have posted it.

You consider them morons? Why? You must base that judgement on something. Is it your perception of their intellect? Is it their behavior? Provide a context for your opinion....


Ah I see, only when they fit your agenda they aren't offensive. You'll show outrage at what you perceive wrongly as racism/sexism but you'll giggle along with the rest of the funny little girls when they just make fun of a WASP male. Quality. Do you work for CNN during the day?

A WASP male who does not think before he speaks, who regales in his own self expressed lack of intellectual capabilities, who refuses to try and improve upon them (and makes fun of those who do) while relying on that same diminished intellectual capacity to make decisions that affect (note the "A" not "E" ) billions of people NEEDS to be outed.

Again its not the physically inbred-er I mean-naturally occuring characteristics that he has no control over I am making fun/taking issue with; its those characteristics that he has nurtured and cultivated by his own behavior and atittude, the things he does have control over, that I am "making fun" of or taking issue with.

Big difference.

[tigerdave]

um because IT IS an image of a black man and white woman and not of two graphic represenations of the democratic party.

The Democratic Party symbology is not apparent and unless context is provided for it it doesn't exist in that image.

Vote Republican isn't enough context for you? It's not like it said Vote White Male.

[ToonUSA]

You consider them morons? Why? You must base that judgement on something. Is it your perception of their intellect? Is it their behavior? Provide a context for your opinion....
Have you watched them play the "gotcha" game with each other? Their repeated attacks on each other do nothing to further the cause of their party and it in fact gives fuel to their opposition. That's moronic.

A WASP male who does not think before he speaks, who regales in his own self expressed lack of intellectual capabilities, who refuses to try and improve upon them (and makes fun of those who do) while relying on that same diminished intellectual capacity to make decisions that affect (note the "A" not "E" ) billions of people NEEDS to be outed.

Again its not the physically inbred-er I mean-naturally occuring characteristics that he has no control over I am making fun/taking issue with; its those characteristics that he has nurtured and cultivated by his own behavior and atittude, the things he does have control over, that I am "making fun" of or taking issue with.
Lack of intellectual capabilities? Are you referring to his general decision making or his linguistic errors? Linguistic errors are not exactly that big of a deal to me, especially when you take into account what part of the country he has spent most of his life in. I fail to see the correlation between simple speaking errors and his lack of intellectual capacity. Unless Harvard is just handing out MBAs.

[mplsTOON]

Vote Republican isn't enough context for you?

Look the point is that images and text without context that describes their meaning are open to interpretation of their meanings. The lack of a context assures that viewer of the image will make their own judgement on the first read in regards to its meaning; they will connect the dots to apply their own context to that meaning.

[Academic description]

All "images" contain signs and signifiers which help define the image's meaning, purpose and use. An image can contain as little as one sign/signifier or contain multiple sign/signifiers. These sign/signifiers when coupled together and "viewed" correctly are intended convey the intended purpose of the image to focus interpretation to drive intent or content. Problem is most images when (poorly)coupled with text, defeat the purpose of the image's meaning, intent or content; either on purpose making it "ironic" or by accident obfuscating the true purpose (or intent or content) of the meaning, making it "derived" or open to interpetation.

When an image is viewed the viewer always attempts to makes sense of the image by way of sign/signifier identification to derive meaning from the image. This interpretation is driven by the human tendency and training to view it through the prism of bias. (It bias good or evil? Neither. Bias is bias, everybody has it and has at least one about everything; its what we use to make decisions on a daily basis--bias is free will.) Via Bias, one image can have multiple meanings to multiple people at the same time and these interpretations can be in complete harmony and yet completely contradictory at the same time.

[/academic description]

Based on the above description of signs/signifiers the "Vote Republican" should either make the image ironic or obfuscate the intent. But the intent is not obfuscated because its purpose was to reinforce the idea that either the black man (who happens to be a Democrat) and the white woman (who happens to be a Democrat) would not make a good president.

replace the candidates with a donkey (or an ironic image of an Emo kid from Williamsburg BKLYN...) a you would have much clearer read that was less open to interpretation and opinion.

I'm sorry if I sound like an elitist, but I'm kind done with my defense of my opinion on this. If you are doing this to understand me better and/or elevate the discussion we can continue,...:eek:

[mplsTOON]

Have you watched them play the "gotcha" game with each other? Their repeated attacks on each other do nothing to further the cause of their party and it in fact gives fuel to their opposition. That's moronic.

Thats politics. And if you do not believe that McCain or a GOP leaning 527 will not play Gotcha with the Dem nominee come the fall, I have bridge over the Tyne to sell you.


Lack of intellectual capabilities? Are you referring to his general decision making or his linguistic errors?

General decision making, spur of the moment decision making, being the "decider" who is unwilling to negiotiate or change even when he sees its wrong/a failure, inability to hold himself accountable and those around him accountable and is generally self centered and lacking ethics...

Linguistic errors are not exactly that big of a deal to me, especially when you take into account what part of the country he has spent most of his life in.

Um actually linguistic use is a pretty good measure of intellectual capacity when it comes to communication and expression of complex thoughts and ideas. it reflects on the brains abilities to adapt to complex and complicated situations and to act oon them accordingly.

What part of the country has he spent most of his life in: The North East. Born a Mainer and lived in Massachusettes. He lived in the "Smart" part of Texas for a bit and only moved to West Texas in the mid 70's (after he got his legacy MBA with a low C grade point average ;)), permanently when he was running for Senate the first time.

I fail to see the correlation between simple speaking errors and his lack of intellectual capacity. Unless Harvard is just handing out MBAs.

An MBA is a degree, a measure of observation, acceptance and execution of processes rather than a measure of thinking or intellect.

You measure an MBA by what rigors you have done to earn it. W "Earned" it by ending up with a "C" GPA.

Now if you think earning a "C" GPA is extraordinary and the product of hard work and high intellect then I can't argue with you.

[tigerdave]

Look the point is that images and text without context that describes their meaning are open to interpretation of their meanings. The lack of a context assures that viewer of the image will make their own judgement on the first read in regards to its meaning; they will connect the dots to apply their own context to that meaning.

[Academic description]

All "images" contain signs and signifiers which help define the image's meaning, purpose and use. An image can contain as little as one sign/signifier or contain multiple sign/signifiers. These sign/signifiers when coupled together and "viewed" correctly are intended convey the intended purpose of the image to focus interpretation to drive intent or content. Problem is most images when (poorly)coupled with text, defeat the purpose of the image's meaning, intent or content; either on purpose making it "ironic" or by accident obfuscating the true purpose (or intent or content) of the meaning, making it "derived" or open to interpetation.

When an image is viewed the viewer always attempts to makes sense of the image by way of sign/signifier identification to derive meaning from the image. This interpretation is driven by the human tendency and training to view it through the prism of bias. (It bias good or evil? Neither. Bias is bias, everybody has it and has at least one about everything; its what we use to make decisions on a daily basis--bias is free will.) Via Bias, one image can have multiple meanings to multiple people at the same time and these interpretations can be in complete harmony and yet completely contradictory at the same time.

[/academic description]

Based on the above description of signs/signifiers the "Vote Republican" should either make the image ironic or obfuscate the intent. But the intent is not obfuscated because its purpose was to reinforce the idea that either the black man (who happens to be a Democrat) and the white woman (who happens to be a Democrat) would not make a good president.

replace the candidates with a donkey (or an ironic image of an Emo kid from Williamsburg BKLYN...) a you would have much clearer read that was less open to interpretation and opinion.

I'm sorry if I sound like an elitist, but I'm kind done with my defense of my opinion on this. If you are doing this to understand me better and/or elevate the discussion we can continue,...:eek:

That's utterly ridiculous.

The fact that it is two public figures whom everyone knows as the two Democratic presidential candidates kind of negates any overtones or implications with the context provided. If it had some random black guy and a random white woman then maybe the image argument would hold some water. The image in question is strictly a political, not a racial or sexist statement. To suggest otherwise would take someone going completely out of his or her way to find some level of offense to be taken, i.e. hypersensitive libs who want to label everything that puts someone down as prejudicial.

[BayernWake]

That's utterly ridiculous.

The fact that it is two public figures whom everyone knows as the two Democratic presidential candidates kind of negates any overtones or implications with the context provided. If it had some random black guy and a random white woman then maybe the image argument would hold some water. The image in question is strictly a political, not a racial or sexist statement. To suggest otherwise would take someone going completely out of his or her way to find some level of offense to be taken, i.e. hypersensitive libs who want to label everything that puts someone down as prejudicial.

If I may stick my pretty little nose in here...

I think mplsTOON is on to something. Academically speaking, the "signs" of the shirt say:

Here is a Democratic candidate. Here is a picture. He is black.
Here is a Democratic candidate. Here is a picture. She is a woman.
Vote Republican.

I can see both sides of the argument. But you can't deny that the images of Obama as a black man and Clinton as a woman play some role in the shirt's message. Unless you've never taken a communication class. Otherwise the shirt would just say "Obama. Clinton. Vote Republican." With no pictures whatsoever, just their names.

The shirt is not purely "political." To ignore the signs of the shirt is, frankly, ignorant.

[tigerdave]

If I may stick my pretty little nose in here...

I think mplsTOON is on to something. Academically speaking, the "signs" of the shirt say:

Here is a Democratic candidate. Here is a picture. He is black.
Here is a Democratic candidate. Here is a picture. She is a woman.
Vote Republican.

I can see both sides of the argument. But you can't deny that the images of Obama as a black man and Clinton as a woman play some role in the shirt's message. Unless you've never taken a communication class. Otherwise the shirt would just say "Obama. Clinton. Vote Republican." With no pictures whatsoever, just their names.

The shirt is not purely "political." To ignore the signs of the shirt is, frankly, ignorant.

Editor's note: The author of this post is a journalist and knows a thing or two about communications.

Spoken like an elitist liberal academic. :)

Why omit McCain's picture then, if they want to reinforce that a white man can do a better job at president than a black man or a white woman? The debate here over this shirt decal is no different from the woman who told the two kids to stop swinging around in the tree like monkeys and subsequently got railroaded because said kids were black. There's absolutely nothing in this that isn't being generated by the PC police - who, ironically, are primarily the ones that draw said conclusion because they go out of their way to find offense wherever it can be found. I think if you took a straw poll, most rational objectives would find it an anti-Democrat shirt above all else. Of course, the problem is there are so few rational people out there that aren't in the fight somewhere.

[JaredSS07]

If I may stick my pretty little nose in here...

I think mplsTOON is on to something. Academically speaking, the "signs" of the shirt say:

Here is a Democratic candidate. Here is a picture. He is black.
Here is a Democratic candidate. Here is a picture. She is a woman.
Vote Republican.

I can see both sides of the argument. But you can't deny that the images of Obama as a black man and Clinton as a woman play some role in the shirt's message. Unless you've never taken a communication class. Otherwise the shirt would just say "Obama. Clinton. Vote Republican." With no pictures whatsoever, just their names.

The shirt is not purely "political." To ignore the signs of the shirt is, frankly, ignorant.

I think any communication class would teach you that pure text is boring and pictures liven things up. I put candidate's pictures on mail pieces, not because I care that people know if they are white or black, but because it would be boring and useless without pictures.

Switching the discussion a bit... I was doing mail in a congressional race recently. The guy I was working against happened to be black and had a few quotes from his previous elected office that were horribly soft on crime. Our client was very specific that he wanted a person holding a gun on the piece, but that the person had to be white so that he wouldn’t be called a racist. To me, that seems ridiculous that he had to specify the race of the person in a stock photo. We even had to swap out a photo because the white hand holding the gun was too tan.
My question is… Had we used a black guy holding a gun, would any of you cry racism?

[tigerdave]

My question is… Had we used a black guy holding a gun, would any of you cry racism?

I probably wouldn't think much of it, tbh. I'd think the gun would be the most attention-grabbing bit of the piece anyway.

[ToonUSA]

Thats politics. And if you do not believe that McCain or a GOP leaning 527 will not play Gotcha with the Dem nominee come the fall, I have bridge over the Tyne to sell you.
Of course they will. That doesn't make the back pedaling and outright lies from the 2 Dems any less moronic.

General decision making, spur of the moment decision making, being the "decider" who is unwilling to negiotiate or change even when he sees its wrong/a failure, inability to hold himself accountable and those around him accountable and is generally self centered and lacking ethics...
So you disagree with his policy. You're not the first. I fail to see your criticism of his political decisions as showing any sign of a lack of intellect. Care to cite examples of situations that you feel a a much more "intellectual" President would have made a better decision.


Um actually linguistic use is a pretty good measure of intellectual capacity when it comes to communication and expression of complex thoughts and ideas. it reflects on the brains abilities to adapt to complex and complicated situations and to act oon them accordingly.

What part of the country has he spent most of his life in: The North East. Born a Mainer and lived in Massachusettes. He lived in the "Smart" part of Texas for a bit and only moved to West Texas in the mid 70's (after he got his legacy MBA with a low C grade point average ;)), permanently when he was running for Senate the first time.
1968-2000, seems possible to me that he might have picked up some of the local lingo.


An MBA is a degree, a measure of observation, acceptance and execution of processes rather than a measure of thinking or intellect.

You measure an MBA by what rigors you have done to earn it. W "Earned" it by ending up with a "C" GPA.
So you don't count his MBA? Is C not a passing grade? Of course it's not exemplary work but it's still getting an MBA from Harvard.

[ToonUSA]

If I may stick my pretty little nose in here...

I think mplsTOON is on to something. Academically speaking, the "signs" of the shirt say:

Here is a Democratic candidate. Here is a picture. He is black.
Here is a Democratic candidate. Here is a picture. She is a woman.
Vote Republican.

I can see both sides of the argument. But you can't deny that the images of Obama as a black man and Clinton as a woman play some role in the shirt's message. Unless you've never taken a communication class. Otherwise the shirt would just say "Obama. Clinton. Vote Republican." With no pictures whatsoever, just their names.

The shirt is not purely "political." To ignore the signs of the shirt is, frankly, ignorant.

With all of these discussions of communications classes and such people are forgetting a very key element to this discussion, the source. Take a stroll over to www.tshirthell.com and let me know how many PC shirts you find. They are witty, one-liner shirts. Nothing more.

Exhibit A:
http://www.tshirthell.com/shirts/products/a902/a902_bm.gif

Exhibit B:
http://www.tshirthell.com/shirts/products/a423/a423_bm.gif

Exhibit C:
http://www.tshirthell.com/shirts/products/a291/a291_bm.gif

[BayernWake]

Editor's note: The author of this post is a journalist and knows a thing or two about communications.

Do you know the difference between communications and communication (theory)? I didn't study communications, I studied communication. Journalism and communication are not the same.

Spoken like an elitist liberal academic. :)

:rolleyes: Whatever. Put all the smilies you want, I f#cking hate that term.

Why omit McCain's picture then, if they want to reinforce that a white man can do a better job at president than a black man or a white woman?

1) T-shirt space?
2) When did I (or mpls) ever say what the makers on the t-shirt WANTED to do? The intentions of the t-shirt maker are irrelevant. We are simply talking about the SIGNS of the t-shirt.

The debate here over this shirt decal is no different from the woman who told the two kids to stop swinging around in the tree like monkeys and subsequently got railroaded because said kids were black.

Correct. If I were swinging on a tree and someone called me a monkey, I could (and probably would) take offense. You HAVE to allow that possibility and try to understand it, instead of completely ignoring the possible validity of the other side of the argument and dismissing it as elitist liberal b*tching.

There's absolutely nothing in this that isn't being generated by the PC police - who, ironically, are primarily the ones that draw said conclusion because they go out of their way to find offense wherever it can be found.

1) First of all, WRONG, there IS something in the t-shirt, something objective (signs), that can be interpreted as racist. I'm NOT saying it's racist (for the record may I just state that I do not think it's a racist t-shirt). I'm saying that it has the POTENTIAL to be interpreted that way.
2) Holy sh*t, now I'm a elitist liberal member of the PC police looking to start fights and find offense. Get it through your head that some people out there have no "agenda" and merely analyze potential communicative functions of signs.

I think if you took a straw poll, most rational objectives would find it an anti-Democrat shirt above all else. Of course, the problem is there are so few rational people out there that aren't in the fight somewhere.

Holy sh*t, now I'm an irrational elitist liberal academic member of the PC police looking to start fights and take offense.

We live in sad times if we can't even discuss the POTENTIAL (NOTE: NOT OBJECTIVE OR DEFINITE) communicative capabilities of a t-shirt without being labeled liberal elitists and controversy-mongerers.

[mplsTOON]

That's utterly ridiculous.


I think you have lost all credibility with that comment. What is ridiculous about the expression of my opinion of it?

What is ridiculous is that thru you statement you insinuate that no other opinions about it aside of your own is legitimate.

In a public forum not only am I entitled to have an opinion on the matter I am entitled to express my reasons for my opinion on the matter. You may disagree but decrying it as "ridiculous" because it does not fit your bias or perception, is well, ridiculous and hypocritical on its face.

[mplsTOON]

Editor's note: The author of this post is a journalist and knows a thing or two about communications.

Spoken like an elitist liberal academic. :)

funny enough you may be a journo who knows a few things about communication, but I drop my hand here: I have spent the greater part of the past decade selling product via "Visual communication thru expression of image, object and text" to mass audiences globally for a ridiculously large global sports brand whose main idea of "visual marketing" was to create controversy and operate on many different levels simulatneously. (you can fill in teh blank who you think that company is here_____) In addition I included the "academic description" to reinforce the idea that I don't just make this shit up.

For greater understanding of mass communication and its implicit visual meaning I would suggest starting with Marshall McLuhan. Don't even Google him, use your journalistic techniques and do research on him and his thoughts (with out bias if you can...:rolleyes:) on communication and mass image delivery. He was a linear modernist whne it came to teh delivery of the meanings, but his thoughts on the matter of visual communication laid the ground work for where we are at today. NOw if you wish to go deeper to really see the impact of message communicating on different meanings simultaneously I suggest looking up Derrida. But I have feeling he will make your head will explode considering you think that my thinking is ridiculous....

Now if challenging oneself to constantly discover and question current emerging thought process and patterns and earning success and happiness thru the process of doing so makes me a "elitist liberal academic" then so be it.

But if you enjoy to frame my opinions soley thru that prism of bias then we have nothing else to discuss.

There's absolutely nothing in this that isn't being generated by the PC police - who, ironically, are primarily the ones that draw said conclusion because they go out of their way to find offense wherever it can be found. I think if you took a straw poll, most rational objectives would find it an anti-Democrat shirt above all else. Of course, the problem is there are so few rational people out there that aren't in the fight somewhere.

There aren't any "rational" people out there. Rationality is relative, everyone has bias, objectivity doe not exist, period (read McLuhan and Derrida....) The conclusion you draw is due to your bias. My bias leads me to disagree.

BTW you do use a biased frame (and grammatically incorrect BTW) when you say "anti Democrat" you forgot the "-ic" at the end. Its the Democratic Party of which members are "Democrats" and a singular member is "a Democrat". The Democrat Party would only bea party of one, and therefore no ta "party" and only exists in fevered brains of a few who like to warp reality to fit their imaginations of life outside their own bubbles...

[mplsTOON]

With all of these discussions of communications classes and such people are forgetting a very key element to this discussion, the source. Take a stroll over to www.tshirthell.com and let me know how many PC shirts you find. They are witty, one-liner shirts. Nothing more.

Exhibit A:
http://www.tshirthell.com/shirts/products/a902/a902_bm.gif

not particularly funny because its a lame cliche...not even lowbrow funny. Offensive? Well, yes; DO you call yer GF/Wife a HO? How about yer Mama?

BTW I called my wife "Ma Ho' " once...Once. Slapped me in public and the dog got to sleep in my spot in the bed.


Exhibit B:
http://www.tshirthell.com/shirts/products/a423/a423_bm.gif

not funny, ironic? maybe. Not offensive in the slightest, more of reflection on the mental atitude of the person who would wear it if that person were a female.

If the wearer were male, Then see my earlier post/comment on irony.


Exhibit C:
http://www.tshirthell.com/shirts/products/a291/a291_bm.gif

funny and fully representative of W's atitude toward others: most notably that he does have "issues" with hippies and that it is reflective of the vindictive streak he (Rove, Cheney, Addington, Wofowitz, Rumsfeld, Yoo, Gonzalez, and teh GOP) has.

[Russell1892]

My rational objective view is... sorry I can't see why anyone would wear a T-shirt displaying their political views in the first place.

I can see why it would be considered racist/sexist, I can also see why it wouldn't. There is no definitive answer so its pointless claiming that those with a different viewpoint are wrong.

I would say referring to the two Democratic candidates as morons is fairly moronic itself and symptomatic of a political system that plays like a team sport. Granted thats how it runs here in Britain too, and its wrong.

I'll just be glad to see the back of Bush.

And I bet mplsTOON works for Nike. What do I win? :D

[tigerdave]

Um. Yeah, I think I'll keep from the increasingly personal nature of this argument and simply agree to disagree. Nothin' like going off the deep end. :)