(no subject)

[andrewducker]

Comments

[ex-jetgrrrl855.livejournal.com]

rotfl

[centralasian.livejournal.com]

super!

heh

[josephgrossberg.livejournal.com]

It's also smart enough not to support monarchy in the freaking 21st century.

[ekatarina.livejournal.com]

Sigh.

And I want to be a teacher why? Right. So I can have a permanent flat spot on my forehead from thumping it against the wall, again, and again, and again, and again,...

Katja

[derumi.livejournal.com]

No, no! So you can impress your own views of politics on your children instead of letting them think and choose their views on their own. ^_^

[thepaintedone.livejournal.com]

Err, Iraq did use WMD, against the Kurds.

Admitedly we did sweet FA about it at the time, but it did happen.

Before the war, nobody on either side of the argument disputed that Iraq had had WMD, including the weapons inspectors, the row was about what to do about it. The weapons have gone missing, they did once exist.

Which only leaves the 9/11 point, americans aren't stupid to think that, they are simply not well informed. The US government went to some lengths to plant this idea in the population, and it sems to have worked.

I'd love to see the reaction to a similar cartoon based on what polls say the average middle eastern Muslim thinks, and equating his intelligence to a rock.

[cangetmad.livejournal.com]

Actually, David Kelly said that there was about a 30% chance that Iraq actually had WMDs. What was more likely was that they had a WMD programme. He was a weapons inspector. So, a few people in the know do have their doubts.

[thepaintedone.livejournal.com]

Seeing as how its a documented fact that Iraq used WMD against the Kurds, I fail to see how anyone can claim they never had any.

[andrewducker]

The question being : at the start of the war, when we were told that they had them and were prepared to use them.

[thepaintedone.livejournal.com]

I don't recall that nuance coming out in the joke. I see you're still studiously avoiding the main thrust of my point that you're being offensive and racist.

Disappointing.

[cangetmad.livejournal.com]

Who's claiming that they never had them? The 30% comment referred to the start of the latest war.

[andrewducker]

It's not against americans. It's against americans who believe the various propaganda that are floating about.

[andrewducker]

According to polls _most_ Americans do believe those things.

I will agree that it's not terribly subtly, but subtly doesn't seem to be getting through to the vast numbers of people who do believe those things.

[wordofblake.livejournal.com]

Didn't it clearly say most americans? not all? I mean I rarely drink but I dont get offended if people refer to the Irish as a race of violent drunkards. Some people are maybe a little too touchy

[derumi.livejournal.com]

See, I was comforted by the "most Americans" part, because clearly, I wasn't being mentioned by the cartoon.

Rock joke

[garthmyl.livejournal.com]

I have been reading the discussion aboutAndrew's Rock joke. My first impression was 'how brilliant that so many people are so politically aware'. Then it degenerated. I don't want to discuss the rights and wrongs of posting a potentially offensive joke. However, I do want to suggest that it was posted in good faith. I have a belief that there is a positive intention in all behaviour - for that person. So, Andy wanted to amuse - or, because he enjoys discussion, he may have wanted to be contentious. We do not know.

However, what was the positive intent of people who, say, were offended? To be seen to be 'right on'? - that is a rather unkind interpretation. Because they were (rightly) chauvanistic about their country? May be? Because they couldn't handle Andy's confident responses? Maybe.

What ever reason is irrelevant - what is important is to look beyond the discussion and work out how and why it went the way it did. Surely the reason that we have so much dissent and anger and hatred in this world is as a result of such events - that is what creates wars like the Iraq war we are all discussing - people disagreeing so strongly that they begin to take negative action.

What is wrong with recognising that we all have different beliefs and opinions on most things, accepting that, and living in harmony?

[wolflady26.livejournal.com]

Kind of as a sideline to all the furor posting the comic caused....

I think that it would be more accurate, and less judgemental, if the last panel read "Which, according to polls, makes it better informed than most Americans."

Because to be honest, intelligence is not really measured only by awareness of world events.

I spent 26 years in America, and three in Europe. I don't believe that Europeans are smarter than Americans. I do believe that they tend to be more aware, more interested, and better informed, when it comes to world events.

This is logical, because Europeans have a higher chance of their lives being directly affected by what happens in another country, because other countries tend to be a whole lot closer. By directly affected, I mean things like: doing business with, knowing and interacting with people who come from, needing or wanting to spend time in, other countries than your own.

The average American doesn't do these things, and therefore, doesn't think that much about them.

Now notice, I'm saying this is logical, not right or good. The world would be a better place if everyone in America had a deep care for and understanding of world politics. But sadly, most people are motivated first and foremost by what effects their day-to-day life, and not the larger issues of peace on earth and good will to man.

The average American has a failing when it comes to world politics. This doesn't, however, equate to a lack of intelligence - otherwise, IQ tests would be nothing but geography quizzes and questions about current heads of state.

So, you know, call the average American uninformed, but please don't call him stupid.

[andrewducker]

Madam is of course correct.

There is the small side-note that the information is readily available in the US and that anyone who insists on believing what the FOX news network tells them possibly has a certain level of gullibility and lack of smarts.

But I expect that it's no higher than the sun-reading French-haters over here.

[derumi.livejournal.com]

Eh, I wouldn't list Fox as the only news here you should take with a grain of salt. The only news here that I trust implicitly is ESPN. Everything else, I try to score multiple sources on.

[allorin.livejournal.com]

I don't know. I hate to argue, but if my government chooses to send my fathers, husbands and sons to war, I'm damn sure I'd want to be informed of the reasons behind that decision, as opposed to blindly following it. That willing ignorance of something that directly impacts my life, in itself, is a form of stupidity - IMHO.

Again, that's not directed at everyone - only those who care not enough about something so monumental as to seek out information on it, other than that fed to them as propaganda.

Yeah, I disagree with wholesale stereotyping of a group of people. Its a little harsh. However, to state that those people who choose to remain blissfully ignorant are a little less bright, seems fair.

Its like, "Hey, the tobacco companies tell us smoking doesn't harm us! Well, that's grand. We'll stay ignorant of any evidence out there, and not look any further than what they tell us. Their word is good enough for us."Bear in mind, that happened for a couple of decades. Despite continuing mounting evidence, people refused to believe smoking was bad for you for years. If that's not stupid, what is?

Sorry - this is far more opinionated than I like to be. I just don't agree with the defense of the willfully ignorant. In fact, I think it's quite harmful. These people vote. They elect who is next to run the country. They support policy that they believe in. If they believe whatever the government tells them, then who will hold the people in power accountable?

[wolflady26.livejournal.com]

Sorry - this is far more opinionated than I like to be. I just don't agree with the defense of the willfully ignorant. In fact, I think it's quite harmful. These people vote. They elect who is next to run the country. They support policy that they believe in. If they believe whatever the government tells them, then who will hold the people in power accountable?

I don't think it was a defense, as much as a demand for accuracy. Because I know these people, and they are not stupid.

There are a ton of negative adjectives that could apply. Lazy. Gullible. Overtrusting. Overconfident. But stupid? No, sorry, that's the wrong term.

And your analogy to cigarette smoking isn't really apt, because I firmly believe that no one who has ever puffed a cigarette could really think it's not harmful to them. I also experienced the lack of ability to breathe when exerting myself, the black phlegm coughed up every morning, etc., before I quit. But once the addiction sets in, it's very easy to justify anything. I think the inclusion of addictive substances makes that a different conversation.

[allorin.livejournal.com]

I'm not going to argue with you! ;+)