Political Cartoons 2018: A Penny For Your Blots

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Political Cartoons 2018: A Penny For Your Blots

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

tyblazitar posted:

You seem compulsed to mention this in every single post with Rall toons when it's already printed right there in the comic itself. You're starting to sound like one of those Eric Garland/Louise Mench types.

It�s only printed on the ones that appear on the Sputnik news sites, not his other syndicated work.

Flugennock also works for RT, but it�s not publicly listed in any of his comics.

At this point, the reminder is both a civic service and a thread joke, like �mike Lester beats his wife�.

# ¿ Jan 4, 2018 12:53

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 25, 2024 05:06

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

What you can also do is join me in reporting their tweets.

# ¿ Jan 4, 2018 15:44

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Apple Pie Hubbub posted:

1

Tinsley unintentionally made a pretty badass looking Schumer here. Good avatar material.

# ¿ Jan 5, 2018 13:31

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Alhazred posted:

Hell, same, that sounds delicious.

King Possum III posted:

1

King Possum III posted:

4

I'm digging Fitzsimmons' work lately, especially his GOP elephants. I think it's something about the eyes and mouth.

# ¿ Jan 18, 2018 16:02

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

VideoGameVet posted:

Statistically? Yes.

http://time.com/3746047/diet-soda-weight-gain/

Another 2015 study published in the Journal of the American Geriatrics Society found that people who drank diet soda gained almost triple the abdominal fat over nine years as those who didn�t drink diet soda. The study analyzed data from 749 people ages 65 and older who were asked, every couple of years, how many cans of soda they drank a day, and how many of those sodas were diet or regular.

Those answers ended up being extremely predictive of abdominal-fat gain, even after the researchers adjusted for factors like diabetes, smoking and levels of physical activity. People who didn�t drink diet soda gained about 0.8 in. around their waists over the study period, but people who drank diet soda daily gained 3.2 in. Those who fell in the middle � occasional drinkers of diet soda � gained about 1.8 in.

I can't access the latter study atm, but if it's the study I'm thinking of, it didn't control for really basic factors. The former is similarly flawed (they used self-report maternal BMI for more than half the sample, and they didn't do any covariates on any other part of dietary intake, for example). Nutrition science is generally a mess, and there's a big filedrawer and CoI problem when it comes to sweetener research (caloric or not). There's good money and publications to be had in running inadequate studies showing a particular sweetener is unhealthy, so some alternative (which coincidentally has a large lobby and funds other research you do) is better. There's also a big ideological commitment to the believe that "artificial" sweeteners have to have a catch of some kind.

At a minimum, an adequate artificial sweetener weight gain study would need to propose and directly test a specific mechanism of action- that sweeteners change appetite, for example, or metabolism, and then actually, directly test this with really strict elements, such as diet controls and observations with double blind testing. This isn't often done because it's extremely expensive, but, well, it turns out that a bunch of other things that can lead to overweight or weight gain are also correlated with, or indirectly caused by, diet soda consumption.

Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 21:25 on Jan 20, 2018

# ¿ Jan 20, 2018 21:21

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Jackard posted:

https://mobile.twitter.com/it_currents/status/939923519462285312

Ironically, I just finished going through that one- it basically can't claim anything on its own because it, too, lacks sufficient controls. It's also likely an example of a filedrawer issue with research on non-caloric sweeteners. An editorial released at the same ti-

Aw.

In more entertaining news, the Washington Post published two competing views of Trump's first year, from a thread "favorite" and someone who gets less coverage here:

From the right

From the left

Sorry for any link cruft, I can't figure out how to get clean links to wapo.

# ¿ Jan 21, 2018 05:08

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

AVeryLargeRadish posted:

Careful there, that study may not mean what you think it does.

That's actually really good coverage from the Guardian. They're really on both extremes of science coverage quality.

Internet Kraken posted:

The amount of studies that keep claiming diet soda/artificial sweeteners are bad for you are finally getting to me. I don't think they give you cancer or literally rot your brain but at this point I can't drink them anymore without feeling guilty. They probably aren't any better for your body than regular soda which is the whole reason I originally switched to them, though now I just prefer the taste.

I just don't know what the gently caress to drink instead of them though (don't say water).

# ¿ Jan 21, 2018 05:20

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Ziv Zulander posted:

Since we're all fear mongering about scary zero calorie drinks

http://www.grubstreet.com/2017/09/nobody-knows-what-natural-flavors-go-into-lacroix-sparkling-water.html

lol, nice

# ¿ Jan 21, 2018 07:09

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Sandpuppy posted:

3
Uh oh.

# ¿ Jan 22, 2018 19:29

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Ague Proof posted:

Really excellent work. early gaybie contender.

Jedit posted:

Presumably that's chancellor Philip Hammond, who is also there.

King Possum III posted:

5

enh, I don't see it.

# ¿ Jan 26, 2018 15:15

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

What about crunk driving?

# ¿ Jan 27, 2018 15:57

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Wait, is that a current Garrison, published recently?

...Why???

# ¿ Jan 29, 2018 17:15

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Sandpuppy posted:

15

Oh, oh dear.

# ¿ Jan 31, 2018 18:38

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Pander posted:

I'm getting whiplash. Does he do one for each side then market them separately or something?

Yes. It's a pretty common practice, Cagle tries to just do neutral ones that are political "a thing happened" toons.

Alhazred posted:

Where is this from?

Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 19:13 on Feb 1, 2018

# ¿ Feb 1, 2018 19:11

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Pander posted:

Really? Those two are overtly partisan. I can believe that some will do a partisan one that matches their own ideology plus a nonpartisan one for "news happens", but I can't imagine a Branco or Lester not being a complete loving shitbag with every loving ugly line they draw.

Can you point out any examples of dudes that do that? I'm not saying you're wrong, I just haven't put together who does this til I saw that Marcotte nonsense.

Marlette, he's Doug Marlette's, uh, nephew I think. Cagle's the other big name that does it, though he tries to keep his political message ambiguous.

In trying to search I saw Cagle's site is now begging visitors to pay a recurring subscription to support them. That's not a good sign. :smith:

# ¿ Feb 1, 2018 20:46

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Sandpuppy posted:

13

In all seriousness, I'm decently literate in horrible alt-right memetic garbage (though admittedly not as much as some folks here), and I can't tell what xhe's trying to say.

# ¿ Feb 2, 2018 21:22

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Space Cadet Omoly posted:

That being trans is something people do exclusively to bully and shame people who mocked them in high school for reasons unrelated to their gender identity. Which doesn't really make sense, but, well, nothing this guy posts makes sense.

I see, thanks, that connects the dots for me. I couldn't work out why the weightlifter in the fourth panel was crying, but I get that it's ancillary now. This one's just generally weird, there's a style change with variable line weight. Well, at least now I get what it's going for.

HootTheOwl posted:

thx, glad that one's landing.

# ¿ Feb 2, 2018 22:44

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

King Possum III posted:

3

Urrgh, the horrible part is I read the first balloon and didn't see the joke coming, because my mind went "yes, that's how the Trump military parade would work".

# ¿ Feb 11, 2018 17:52

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Angular Cyrus posted:

Nothing New Under the Sun Dept.

This ran in The Montana Standard on December 24th, 1905. I'll understand if you don't want to strain your eyes, but this bit near the end felt like it needed to be pointed out:

This guy's kicking rad. Hell yeah decapitate me bro.

CampingCarl posted:

Question from the bitcoin thread in YOSPOS: is that a coca leaf on the right? And..a unicorn? Is Dees actually trying to be critical here? What's going on?!?

edit: wait is that a panther

edit: who is that with the creepy eyes and shiny face

edit: why are my walls meltinggg

Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 07:30 on Feb 13, 2018

# ¿ Feb 13, 2018 07:25

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

I'm beginning to think Racist Red Panels Loser is intentionally making strips that are AGC.

Wistful of Dollars posted:

I like this one.

Me too, I thought it was a Bennett at first.

# ¿ Feb 13, 2018 21:47

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

guys,

https://twitter.com/ButtCoin/status/964668314847993857

# ¿ Feb 17, 2018 02:56

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Please, y'all, go to the Anarchapulco website. There are a bunch of cartoons in the design, but, just, generally, it needs to be experienced. It's a thing of purestrain gold.

# ¿ Feb 17, 2018 03:42

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

https://twitter.com/NewYorker/status/964563562248228866

Paging, um, I forget which goon is actually Dave Weigel in disguise.

# ¿ Feb 17, 2018 06:39

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

My understanding is the failure to investigate literally occurred at the call center that first took the warning.

# ¿ Feb 17, 2018 16:10

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Sandpuppy posted:

12

I...what?

# ¿ Feb 21, 2018 00:53

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Pants Donkey posted:

People complain about Allie phoning it in for Prickly City, but look what he has to work with. Why waste the time when he's got another gig that lets him draw whatever he wants like...

Unions exercising their right to organize and demonstrate...actually...being a...violation of freedom of speech?

Not exactly subtle with the racial coding either.

King Possum III posted:

5

Surely some punishments are too cruel.

# ¿ Mar 1, 2018 06:14

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Dr. VooDoo posted:

I wanna meet these professors making six figures. I�m sure they must hang out with the welfare queens driving Cadillacs too right?

Old, but there are definitely profs that make six figures- I'd guess from the stats I was able to find that maybe a third of profs do. But they're not the adjunct teaching Poli Sci 101, they're named profs in science, medicine or business with separate research endowments, self-contained labs or patents.

VideoGameVet posted:

I dropped close to 150lbs in 1996 (cycling and diet, no surgery) and have kept over 100 of that off since then.

The odds of maintaining a large loss like that are lower than surviving pancreatic cancer.

Here's why: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/02/health/biggest-loser-weight-loss.html

Your metabolism never really comes back. Figure on eating 500+ less calories a day than what the charts/exercise tells you to do.

The diet industry is a multi-billion-$$$ business with a failure rate of 98% or so. Most of the advice published is bunk.

Get used to being hungry and never stop exercising.

edit: It's been years since I've read that particular article, and I agree with your post, in general, but I have an addendum: It's a generally good rule to never cite the NYT on anything involving nutrition research. They've got big crossover funding and capture problems with the diet industry.

edit 2: having reread the article, the researchers cited aren't the NYT's usual suspects of crappy nutrition pseudoscience, but it does still set up a false mind/body dichotomy that overemphasizes medical intervention models in weight loss.

Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 23:47 on Mar 10, 2018

# ¿ Mar 10, 2018 23:26

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

VideoGameVet posted:

Personally, I am not in favor of the surgeries. The risks are quite high and the effectiveness is overrated.

That's my impression as well, broadly speaking, and I agree with the material of your subsequent points. I've not personally done the same level of research on the surgical interventions, so I don't want to express too much certainty.

# ¿ Mar 11, 2018 03:11

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

It's a thing in Chinese folklore too.

# ¿ Mar 13, 2018 08:25

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Hanging myself to own the libs.

# ¿ Mar 13, 2018 19:45

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

World Famous W posted:

Most the ones I edit do this. I mentally picture you all as your avatars talking. It makes things... interesting.

If picturing my avatar as me talking makes my posts interesting, I've done something wrong. Maybe it's time to bust out that Ben Stein av.

# ¿ Mar 17, 2018 01:02

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

D.N. Nation posted:

Sammy Sosa would celebrate ending racism by gradually becoming a white dude.

What the heck is that, that can't be real.

edit: god it is, why, how, what would the mechanism of action even be, that's horrifying

# ¿ Mar 17, 2018 15:56

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Katt posted:

I don't even know what this is about.

I think this is an old one, but Fluggenock (or however it's spelled) is one of the other people taking money from RT.

# ¿ Mar 20, 2018 18:52

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Jurgan posted:

So he�s basically Rall 2.0

Yes, exactly, he's also got ties to Russian propaganda organs.

# ¿ Mar 20, 2018 20:02

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Sandpuppy posted:

15

Using the speechballoon to obscure the sign is annoyingly a nice composition move.

Given everything else by this person, it must be stolen from somewhere.

# ¿ Mar 22, 2018 19:06

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

My understanding is the breastfeeding vs formula debate is similarly socially loaded and screwed up.

# ¿ Mar 24, 2018 14:24

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Filthy Haiku posted:

Do ya'll think I could ask Delonas if I could have a higher rez version so I can get that donkey as an avatar? Might be a little tough not to call him a vaporbrained piss drinker but I reallllllly want it.

Pissdrinker may be a good trump supporter nickname.

# ¿ Mar 24, 2018 23:56

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Technowolf posted:

1

Someone do the needful and erase Putin.

Someone do the other needful and erase Putin and add "vice"

# ¿ Mar 26, 2018 02:08

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

Pants Donkey posted:

Isn't Republic just a form of democracy? In school I think the US was called a democratic republic.

It's complicated. Democracy is, in its earliest and clearest conceptual meaning, government by the total of the public, usually through will of the majority. A "pure" democracy would in principle have a complete majoritarian election on everything. For all sorts of reasons, that's impossible and self-destructive. The US has democratic elections and is a "representative democracy"- we have elections where a majority of some kind votes for people to represent specific publics in some parts of government. What "representation" means in this context is actually horribly important and complicated, with major differences depending on what intuitive idea of "representation" you have in mind. You could write a few books on that word in that context.

Over time, and used as a point of contrast to different undemocratic regimes, "democracy" and "democratic" have become ways of saying "good thing I agree with," especially in the US. This is really unfortunate because pure, unfettered majoritarian rule has, throughout history, been the most immediately self-defeating political approach ever.

Republicanism is much more complicated than Democracy, because there's not a single uniformly accepted underlying definition or theory. Broadly, the "res publica" means that the public have direct sovereignty of some kind, but the details vary a lot. In many contexts, this simply means that the public hold sovereign power, in contrast to systems where the sovereign is a king or ruler. In a republic, government authority is nominally, textually, or theoretically devolved to the broader public, who, in classical times, were synonymous with the citadini, who in turn represent some dominant set of national beliefs, identities and practices that self-perpetuate. The citizens, through some government system, assert and self-govern through any variety of practices. There are really no limits here; Republics give citizens rights under the government system, but it can also bind them to societal and legal obligations, and depending on the form of government, those obligations can be a much bigger deal (though that's not the case in a country with a major liberal tradition like the US). Rights in classical republican systems come from the collective of the republic, they're not natural or self-evident. You get them by being a citizen and following your civic duties, whatever those might be. Civcs - being a good citizen, and possessing civic qualities, meaning whatever the republic wants it to mean- is absolutely everything.

I've avoided saying who this "public/citizen" thing consists of, because it's one of the big gaping holes in republican theory. In classic times, who was or wasn't a citizen and therefore had rights or, essentially, humanity under the republican system was a huge deal. In some ways it was practically a racial group identity thing. That hasn't really changed today. Liberal theories expand rights to noncitizens because they're "human," or whatever. These concepts are young, weird and difficult to fully reconcile with classical conceptions of Republicanism.

Republics do not have to be democratic, but they often contain democratic elements because, well, they last longer that way. Modern "civic republican" theory emphasizes two arrays of features:
1. The balance of social/legal obligations and rights and freedoms that are core to the experience and service of the republican citizen, and
2. Effective elements of government design that are core to the preservation and functioning of a government that doesn't claim to get power from God, skin color, etc. These features are generally enshrined in modern government design, because they're good ideas overall: checks and balances, mixed designs that are resistant to sudden change, public education to indoctrinate citizens into service, etc. An important element of most civic republics, including the US, is that they're not direct democratic. Direct democracy has always been basically government by suicide.

Because its historic origins were mostly positioned in opposition to kings and tyrants, in day to day use the term "Republican" generally represents that position outside the US. "Republicans" in Great Britain identify that way due to their opposition to the role of the royal family, not because they have read Philip Petit or because they think Machiavelli (who was probably one of the OGs of modern Republicanism) was groovy.

Whether Republics or Democracies, it's important to note that both terms are commonly used as generic positive descriptors to paper over horrible abuse, and it's possible to have systems that are legally democratic republics that are nothing of the sort in function. North Korea is officially the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, and Russia's a Federation consisting of a republican multi-party state with democratic elections, and the People's Republic of China is officially a "socialist state under the people's democratic dictatorship led by the working class and based on the alliance of workers and peasants", despite being the strongest, purest form of fascism that has ever existed.

Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 03:54 on Mar 26, 2018

# ¿ Mar 26, 2018 03:50

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 25, 2024 05:06

Discendo Vox: Mar 21, 2013; We don't need to have that dialogue because it's obvious, trivial, and has already been had a thousand times.

The Bloop posted:

Thank you. I've taken the liberty of tweeting this at andy marlette.

# ¿ Mar 26, 2018 03:57

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Political Cartoons 2018: A Penny For Your Blots

«‹›7 »