Too Far? [Politics/Religion]

[stroh]

The 'Bama campaign ain't too happy wid it.

[stroh]

Not sure yet where I stand on this.

[hobbit]

I voted 'no' because they are free to speak as they wish.

However, I'm quite surprised that the New Yorker would sink to such levels.  They bucking for tabloid status or something?

[Aske]

ditto hobbit.
it's their right, but I lost a lot of respect for them.

[1puttpar]

 

[spacey]

I guess I see it differently. I think it's them saying "in an effort to demonstrate its silliness, we're carrying the rhetoric to its ultimate conclusion" and giving their readership credit for understanding that it's a parody and not to be taken seriously. I think an image like this on the cover of The New Yorker is different than the same image on the cover of, say, The New York Post. I think The New Yorker's readership is probably savvy enough to know the difference. Though the average dittohead looking at the cover The New Yorker on the shelf at Barnes and Noble isn't likely to, nor is he likely to read the accompanying article (it's probably really long, after all), which likely illustrates the point.

[stroh]

 

[Clive]

blah blah blah

Ditto.

[JDerion]

I guess I see it differently. I think it's them saying "in an effort to demonstrate its silliness, we're carrying the rhetoric to its ultimate conclusion" and giving their readership credit for understanding that it's a parody and not to be taken seriously. I think an image like this on the cover of The New Yorker is different than the same image on the cover of, say, The New York Post. I think The New Yorker's readership is probably savvy enough to know the difference. Though the average dittohead looking at the cover The New Yorker on the shelf at Barnes and Noble isn't likely to, nor is he likely to read the accompanying article (it's probably really long, after all), which likely illustrates the point.

I agree, and I think it can have a positive result. It's getting the message to people who would never read the New Yorker because it's creating a controversy. The portrait of Obama as Muslim is false and absurd, but it's believed by a remarkably large % of the American public. Framing Obama is a Muslim started during the primaries, so we can't even blame the vast right wing conspiracy, but you can bet that the right wing conspirators will look to advance this as much as they can between now and November. Maybe this satire will get people talking, or hearing, about what is being satirized, and they'll start to understand the facts.

[Aske]

I guess I see it differently. I think it's them saying "in an effort to demonstrate its silliness, we're carrying the rhetoric to its ultimate conclusion" and giving their readership credit for understanding that it's a parody and not to be taken seriously. I think an image like this on the cover of The New Yorker is different than the same image on the cover of, say, The New York Post. I think The New Yorker's readership is probably savvy enough to know the difference. Though the average dittohead looking at the cover The New Yorker on the shelf at Barnes and Noble isn't likely to, nor is he likely to read the accompanying article (it's probably really long, after all), which likely illustrates the point.

I agree, and I think it can have a positive result. It's getting the message to people who would never read the New Yorker because it's creating a controversy. The portrait of Obama as Muslim is false and absurd, but it's believed by a remarkably large % of the American public. Framing Obama is a Muslim started during the primaries, so we can't even blame the vast right wing conspiracy, but you can bet that the right wing conspirators will look to advance this as much as they can between now and November. Maybe this satire will get people talking, or hearing, about what is being satirized, and they'll start to understand the facts.

those 25% have had 7.5 years to understand facts.

[stroh]

^LOL

[Walfredo]

In theory I agree with spacey and jderion, but I'm afraid the number of people that believe Obama is a muslim and merika hatin terrorist is much larger than 25%.  And those people have already proven to not let facts get in the way of their beliefs for quite some time.  This isn't going to do anything positive to change that IMO.  

[Blader]

I guess I see it differently. I think it's them saying "in an effort to demonstrate its silliness, we're carrying the rhetoric to its ultimate conclusion" and giving their readership credit for understanding that it's a parody and not to be taken seriously. I think an image like this on the cover of The New Yorker is different than the same image on the cover of, say, The New York Post. I think The New Yorker's readership is probably savvy enough to know the difference. Though the average dittohead looking at the cover The New Yorker on the shelf at Barnes and Noble isn't likely to, nor is he likely to read the accompanying article (it's probably really long, after all), which likely illustrates the point.

yes, of course

irony just flows right over the dittoheads, undetected

[MFAWG]

2 needs to read:

Dude, what don't get you get about dead on target sly political satire?

Aske has it right: The Deadenders have had 7.5 years for reality to burst their bubble, and it hasn't seemed to disturb them in the least.

[tdcoly]

I guess I see it differently. I think it's them saying "in an effort to demonstrate its silliness, we're carrying the rhetoric to its ultimate conclusion" and giving their readership credit for understanding that it's a parody and not to be taken seriously.

Up to the moment that the cover was plastered all over the news channels.  Most of the Fox News, CNN and MSNBC devotees don't even understand the concept of "parody."