(12-23-2020 01:52 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-23-2020 12:30 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-23-2020 11:39 AM)MerseyOwl Wrote:  

(12-23-2020 09:47 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-23-2020 09:39 AM)MerseyOwl Wrote:  To paraphrase Lieutenant Dan, "OO, the day they respond to your questions is the day I'm an astronaut."

(Maybe they responded to your questions, but their answers were too nuanced for our thick conservative brains to comprehend?)

The victimhood mentality is strong.

A bit ironic to post this right after another poster basically called any Democrat posting on this board a Nazi.

I didn't realize the suggestion the probability that our left-leaning peers will actually respond to a question approaches the probability of me becoming an astronaut was actually me playing the victim card.

Are you maybe still bu##hurt that I characterized your calling Robert E Lee a traitor as "simplistic, convenient, or just plain lazy"?

When one uses the argument that their position is nuanced (as is often indicated in this forum), but doesn't offer any detail to explain that strikes me a "simplistic, convenient, or just plain lazy."

I didn't hear anyone specifically call the Democrats posting on this board Nazis. It was, how you say, more nuanced than that. If someone finds the use of Nazi imagery to dehumanize their opponents acceptable then what else do you find acceptable? And specifically what other Nazi propaganda imagery, tools, and techniques do you find acceptable?

See bolded. I wasn't talking about the astronaut comment.

Not butthurt at all - I didn't remember someone saying that, to be honest. But the rest of the comment is exactly the tactic Tanq uses - painting someone's response with the assumption that there is not more to it. Further detail on the thought wasn't provided because I didn't happen to include it, but not because more thought didn't exist.

And are you, at the end, saying that rats are always Nazi imagery? Because that's what it seems like, and I want to be on the same page before I respond.

Not at all. I cannot see why you would have any confusion, but IAC I will repeat for you.

Rats are almost always negative imagery (Ratatouille being an exception, a few others), and the Nazis as well as many other people including that cartoonist used that negative imagery to their own ends. Might as well say it is sailor imagery (rats leaving a sinking ship) or gangster imagery (You dirty rat) or Internal Affairs Cop imagery (Rat Squad) or medieval castle imagery. The imagery is as old as cities, maybe older. The Nazis neither invented or owned it. The cartoonist neither invented or owned it. Both used it to denigrate peoples they didn't like and had an agenda against.

Obviously the cartoonist meant to imply something by using rats - it's whether or not there is reason to believe that use reasonably implied anti-semitism is the question.

But the simple act of denigrating people that political cartoonist don't like or have an agenda against isn't really an act worth discussing. Cartoonist have been doing that for decades, if not centuries.

It's when the cartoonists cross the line into racist tropes that there is a problem. The link you provided sent me to a video, and I haven't watched it. I've seen the cartoon though, and it doesn't seem to be racist off the cuff. Were some of the people presented as rats Jewish? Were they depicted differently than the other rat images?