The Political Satire/Meme Thread

[eran0004]

...and now you're just flat-out ignoring what i wrote. There is nothing wrong with the article you posted, there is something wrong with you applying that term to a circumstance which is much narrower than what that article describes. Such an application (your particular interpretation) would result in everyone on Earth falling under the description of "social oppression". This is not a complicated set of reasoning, which leads me to believe that you may be intentionally misinterpreting it.

You clearly still didn't read it all. You also didn't explain how islamophobic attacks in the US (or in the western world for that matter) counting as oppression means that everyone on Earth is being oppressed? I can just take me for example to prove you wrong. I'm not part of a subordinated group, in Sweden I am one of the privileged. Already at that point I fall outside the scope of social oppression. People may still say mean things or do bad things to me because of the social group that I belong to, but because I am privileged (and as such I have a much greater influence in society) it's not oppression.

"Social oppression permeates much deeper than an imbalance in power. It is attributed to the “injustice that occurs when one social group is subordinated while another is privileged, and oppression is maintained by a variety of different mechanisms including social norms, stereotypes, and institutional rules.”[12] As an outcome of these societal views, social oppression exists and thrives through social groups. These ideologies surrounding the dominant group have a direct negative effect on oppressed races, classes, genders, and sexualities that don’t identify with the dominate group.​

Many political theorists, including Weber, argue that oppression persists because most individuals fail to recognize it; that is, discrimination is often not visible to those who are not in the midst of it."
​

But if you don't like the word oppression we can leave it behind and just say that wearing hijab in an American context can be a symbol of solidarity with Muslim women, who often have to endure discrimination and attacks (verbal or physical) because of their religion. That is what makes the hijab in America different from the hijab in Iran, where it's something mandatory.

 

[Com Fox]

I don't think anyone has a greater influence on society just because of what they are. If this was the case than more Women should be homeless than Men but this isn't the case and it effects all races in that aspect. Who you are and why such occasions occur is way more important than what you are or what occurred.

I tend to not agree with definitions anymore as they can be vastly different depending on the source and just come to the terms with we all have our own intereptations on words and we choose what's best for us. I might think racism is the dictionary term of thinking or actions that make one race surperior to the other, while others will think racism is any action against a culture like what most legal definitions say.

 

[Outspacer]

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

While that was funny, those who may see this and say "exactly, Comey is like that". No...

That's hyperbole if you think this is a justifiable comedic leap in the events currently going on.

 

[Danoff]

You clearly still didn't read it all.

For the third time... nothing is wrong with the article. What is wrong is your interpretation of it.

You also didn't explain how islamophobic attacks in the US (or in the western world for that matter) counting as oppression means that everyone on Earth is being oppressed?

Counting an attack or an act, or even a handful of acts or attacks as oppression ignores the pervasiveness required. If all that is required to be oppressed is to have someone perform a hateful act or attack against you, we're all oppressed. Every one of us. The mere existence of islamophobic attacks does not constitute oppression. They'd need to be pervasive throughout society to even fall into the semi-nebulous term of "social oppression" as defined in your article. You're misusing your term.

I can just take me for example to prove you wrong. I'm not part of a subordinated group, in Sweden I am one of the privileged. Already at that point I fall outside the scope of social oppression. People may still say mean things or do bad things to me because of the social group that I belong to, but because I am privileged (and as such I have a much greater influence in society) it's not oppression.

This rabbit hole just keeps getting weirder. Now you're saying that you can't be "socially oppressed" because you belong to a "privileged" group (whatever that means). I can almost guarantee that you belong to a "subordinated group" as well, whatever that means. I even belong to both at the same time. For example, I'm rich, at least according to the US government which bases such determinations on income rather than wealth. I am in the top 5% of household incomes in the US. Privileged right? Also subordinated, because I'm not extended the same tax benefits as the rest of the 95%. The 95% have voted, and continue to vote away my (household) income. We pay higher marginal tax rates, higher effective tax rates, and do not qualify for almost any of the tax benefits or reductions as the remainder of the country. For example, I intend to adopt a special needs child from china later this year, and am not allowed to take the special needs adoption tax credit because I (my household) apparently make too much money. That is actual, legislated, oppression in violation of the equal protection clause in the constitution. Simultaneously "privileged" and "subordinated"? We can play the opposite game on the income scale and say that the bottom end is privileged because they receive all of the tax benefits in existence, and not privileged because they have no money.

I'm a white male, which you'd probably assume means "privileged". However, I'm a minority (women are a majority in the US), subordinated in terms of potential democratic representation. I'm getting old (age discrimination), I'm atheist (religious discrimination), and I'm libertarian (super marginalized).

So am I "privileged" just because I belong to a "privileged" group and therefore impervious to oppression? Or, since i have been the victim of discriminatory acts (if not attacks), am I subject to social oppression because of my lack of religion? I haven't mentioned sexual affiliation. Could that throw a monkey wrench into the whole privileged/subordinated discussion all of the sudden, somehow trumping the other things I've said?

But if you don't like the word oppression we can leave it behind

If only we'd started this conversation that way. No, I don't like the word "oppression" in this case.

and just say that wearing hijab in an American context can be a symbol of solidarity with Muslim women, who often have to endure discrimination and attacks (verbal or physical) because of their religion. That is what makes the hijab in America different from the hijab in Iran, where it's something mandatory.

This is the "it's different when black people say it" defense. Except that the act of wearing the hijab in America in solidarity with Muslim women over perceived "oppression" is completely indistinguishable from the act of wearing the hijab in America in solidarity with those Muslims who would "socially oppress" Muslim women into covering their femininity out of sexism. Ironic. That makes the photo funny.

 

[Outspacer]

While that was funny, those who may see this and say "exactly, Comey is like that". No...

That's hyperbole if you think this is a justifiable comedic leap in the events currently going on.

I posted it because it's funny. And, as a comment on how polarised and blinkered viewpoints and interpretations are currently, on both sides, certainly justifiable. I get that it was written pro-Trump, but I also see it as an unintended joke against that camp.

Is anything in US politics these days not hyperbole?! There's a covfefe act, for crying out loud. Who judges the justifiability of comedic leaps anyway?!

Far too few cartoons and far too much arguing in this thread recently!

 

[Danoff]

Far too few cartoons and far too much arguing in this thread recently!

It's why I created this thread. Arguing was frowned upon in the funny pic thread, so I created a political cartoon thread where we could post cartoons and argue about them... because it's impossible to post a good political cartoon without ticking someone off.

 

[Outspacer]

It's why I created this thread. Arguing was frowned upon in the funny pic thread, so I created a political cartoon thread where we could post cartoons and argue about them... because it's impossible to post a good political cartoon without ticking someone off.

Yeah, I know, sorry. Just getting bored of the recent argument

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

I posted it because it's funny. And, as a comment on how polarised and blinkered viewpoints and interpretations are currently, on both sides, certainly justifiable. I get that it was written pro-Trump, but I also see it as an unintended joke against that camp.

The unintended joke was why I laughed myself. And somewhat because it made fun of Comey too

Is anything in US politics these days not hyperbole?! There's a covfefe act, for crying out loud. Who judges the justifiability of comedic leaps anyway?!

The people reading them and knowing as I said that some moron, will take it the wrong way or literally and use it to justify a belief. In no way is this to deter you or anyone else from posting funny images. As I said this was hilarious to me, but still gave me the stigma of "someone will own it as if real"

Far too few cartoons and far too much arguing in this thread recently!

That's what the thread is for, funny pictures and discussion about them as @Danoff notes

 

[eran0004]

For the third time... nothing is wrong with the article. What is wrong is your interpretation of it.

Interesting that you say that nothing is wrong with it, because...

Counting an attack or an act, or even a handful of acts or attacks as oppression ignores the pervasiveness required. If all that is required to be oppressed is to have someone perform a hateful act or attack against you, we're all oppressed. The mere existence of islamophobic attacks does not constitute oppression. They'd need to be pervasive throughout society to even fall into the semi-nebulous term of "social oppression" as defined in your article. You're misusing your term.

What makes you think that is all that is required? The second sentence of the article reads: "Social oppression is based on power dynamics and an individual's social location in society."
Because muslims in America is a subordinate group and because they are subject to discrimination and attacks from groups that are above them in the social hierarchy, it is social oppression.

This rabbit hole just keeps getting weirder. Now you're saying that you can't be "socially oppressed" because you belong to a "privileged" group (whatever that means).

That's what it says in the article that you saw nothing wrong with.

I can almost guarantee that you belong to a "subordinated group" as well, whatever that means. I even belong to both at the same time. For example, I'm rich, at least according to the US government which bases such determinations on income rather than wealth. I am in the top 5% of household incomes in the US. Privileged right?

Yes, wealth might make you privileged, so far as it may give you access to people that have a great influence on society. The money itself doesn't give you that much privilege, unless you live in a society where bribery is a viable tool to get what you want.

Also subordinated, because I'm not extended the same tax benefits as the rest of the 95%.

Nope, that doesn't make you subordinated. The tax benefits of the rest of the 95% might be perceived as unjust, but it doesn't place them higher than you in the social hierarchy.

The 95% have voted, and continue to vote away my (household) income. We pay higher marginal tax rates, higher effective tax rates, and do not qualify for almost any of the tax benefits or reductions as the remainder of the country. For example, I intend to adopt a special needs child from china later this year, and are not allowed to take the special needs adoption tax credit because I (my household) apparently make too much money. That is actual, legislated, oppression in violation of the equal protection clause in the constitution.

I can understand how that may feel unjust to you, but it doesn't make you subordinate and apparently it doesn't violate the constitution either. The important aspect is that it doesn't place any other social group above yours in the hierarchy. At most, it might reduce the gap between different income groups.

This is the "it's different when black people say it" defense.

Good, because it is different. That doesn't mean that it's nice or even tolerable though.

Except that the act of wearing the hijab in America in solidarity with Muslim women over perceived "oppression" is completely indistinguishable from the act of wearing the hijab in America in solidarity with those Muslims who would "socially oppress" Muslim women into covering their femininity out of sexism. Ironic.

(There were a lot of "would would would" in the above quote originally, and I tried to fix it to what I think you meant. Let me know if I got it wrong.)

Not really. If you listen to what these groups say it's very clear what the purpose is.

 

[Outspacer]

The people reading them and knowing as I said that some moron, will take it the wrong way or literally and use it to justify a belief. In no way is this to deter you or anyone else from posting funny images. As I said this was hilarious to me, but still gave me the stigma of "someone will own it as if real"

I don't think it will change anyone's beliefs. It's more that it's a reflection of beliefs that quite a few already hold. In general, what may change is how open people are about their beliefs, by making them seem more acceptable/mainstream. In this case it probably won't make much difference what views the various factions of the public hold.

 

[Danoff]

What makes you think that is all that is required?

Again (4th time)... you... counting acts or attacks as constituting social oppression. What happened to the part where you agreed to drop the word "oppression" so we could move on?

The second sentence of the article reads: "Social oppression is based on power dynamics and an individual's social location in society."
Because muslims in America is a subordinate group and because they are subject to discrimination and attacks from groups that are above them in the social hierarchy, it is social oppression.

Explain to me exactly which groups are above Muslims in social hierarchy. For starters, make a list of groups, then give me the social hierarchy position of each of those groups. Also, give me the equation for calculating my personal social hierarchy based on which groups others would classify me as being in.

I need this so that I can figure out whether it's social oppression if a black person attacks a Muslim in America.

Yes, wealth might make you privileged, so far as it may give you access to people that have a great influence on society.

Do you even know what you mean?

Nope, that doesn't make you subordinated. The tax benefits of the rest of the 95% might be perceived as unjust, but it doesn't place them higher than you in the social hierarchy.

Maybe not as obviously "socially oppressed", or subordinated in some sort of social stance. It's actually quite literally legal and institutional subordination.

I can understand how that may feel unjust to you, but it doesn't make you subordinate and apparently it doesn't violate the constitution either. The important aspect is that it doesn't place any other social group above yours in the hierarchy. At most, it might reduce the gap between different income groups.

It's not necessarily social preference for a group (though it is because democracy), it's legal preference for a group. In this case, based on arbitrary reasoning, which absolutely violates the equal protection clause. Did you actually read through the mess in the link you posted above? It's nonsensical.

(There were a lot of "would would would" in the above quote originally, and I tried to fix it to what I think you meant. Let me know if I got it wrong.)

I noticed and fixed it.

Not really. If you listen to what these groups say it's very clear what the purpose is.

You're making assumptions about what a person is reasoning based on what they're wearing. You're lumping those women into a group that they don't necessarily belong to and attributing the organized statements of that group as representing the reason the person chose their clothing. And, quite ironically, you're doing it out of a sense of liberation from generalization.

If anything, this conversation makes the photo even funnier to me.

 

[UKMikey]

 

[eran0004]

Again (4th time)... you... counting acts or attacks as constituting social oppression.

Again, (nth time), you're omitting the required component of position in society. Only if that component is there, it would be social oppression.

What happened to the part where you agreed to drop the word "oppression" so we could move on?

You keep bringing it up. If you don't want me to answer your questions, the best strategy would be to stop asking them.

Explain to me exactly which groups are above Muslims in social hierarchy. For starters, make a list of groups, then give me the social hierarchy position of each of those groups. Also, give me the equation for calculating my personal social hierarchy based on which groups others would classify me as being in. I need this so that I can figure out whether it's social oppression if a black person attacks a Muslim in America.

You can plot the chart yourself if you're interested in working that out, be my guest: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_stratification

Maybe not as obviously "socially oppressed", or subordinated in some sort of social stance. It's actually quite literally legal and institutional subordination.

I'm not convinced by that, but I'm not going to stop you if you want to start fighting for your rights.

It's not necessarily social preference for a group (though it is because democracy), it's legal preference for a group. In this case, based on arbitrary reasoning, which absolutely violates the equal protection clause. Did you actually read through the mess in the link you posted above? It's nonsensical.

It may or may not be nonsensical, but the court is much better at interpreting the constitution that what I am, so I'm not going to argue with them.

You're making assumptions about what a person is reasoning based on what they're wearing.

No, based on what they are saying.

 

[Danoff]

Again, (nth time), you're omitting the required component of position in society. Only if that component is there, it would be social oppression.

I addressed this above. I don't see any point in repeating myself or going back around this circle.

No, based on what they are saying.

Apparently you cannot even understand the notion that you're not listening to each of them. You're so caught up in your classification and grouping of human beings and their relative social ranking and influence that you can't understand the notion that attributing "what they are saying" to anyone wearing certain clothing is generalization and stereotyping. Amazing.

 

[eran0004]

Apparently you cannot even understand the notion that you're not listening to each of them. You're so caught up in your classification and grouping of human beings and their relative social ranking and influence that you can't understand the notion that attributing "what they are saying" to anyone wearing certain clothing is generalization and stereotyping. Amazing.

So when you see a demonstration on the street, you typically have no idea what it's about until you have read every single sign and asked every single participant what it is that they want? That's an interesting approach, I'll try that next time.

 

[Danoff]

So when you see a demonstration on the street, you typically have no idea what it's about until you have read every single sign and asked every single participant what it is that they want? That's an interesting approach, I'll try that next time.

Not quite. When I see a Muslim woman wearing a hijab, which one of my co-workers does, I try not to assume what her reasons for doing so are based on what someone else claims their reason for doing so is.

 

[eran0004]

Not quite. When I see a Muslim woman wearing a hijab, which one of my co-workers does, I try not to assume what her reasons for doing so are based on what someone else claims their reason for doing so is.

Of course you shouldn't. I'm talking about a specific group of people who explicitly say that they wear the hijab in support of muslim women in the US.

 

[Danoff]

Of course you shouldn't. I'm talking about a specific group of people who explicitly say that they wear the hijab in support of muslim women in the US.

Then you've departed from our conversation.

But if you don't like the word oppression we can leave it behind and just say that wearing hijab in an American context can be a symbol of solidarity with Muslim women, who often have to endure discrimination and attacks (verbal or physical) because of their religion. That is what makes the hijab in America different from the hijab in Iran, where it's something mandatory.

This is the "it's different when black people say it" defense. Except that the act of wearing the hijab in America in solidarity with Muslim women over perceived "oppression" is completely indistinguishable from the act of wearing the hijab in America in solidarity with those Muslims who would "socially oppress" Muslim women into covering their femininity out of sexism. Ironic. That makes the photo funny.

Not really. If you listen to what these groups say it's very clear what the purpose is.

You are very clearly attributing the purpose of what some groups say to American women wearing hijabs in America. The term you used was "American context". You claim that this makes "the hijab in America different from the hijab in Iran", and your defense of this position is that it is what certain groups have claimed - which is exactly as I described, generalization and stereotyping. It is entirely possible, and a more direct message, for American women to wear a hijab in support of Sharia Law and in support of worldwide oppression of women. If you don't think women are capable of that sentiment, I have some to introduce you to.

 

[eran0004]

Then you've departed from our conversation.

You can think of it as a departure if you like, but that is what I've meant all along.

 

[Danoff]

You can think of it as a departure if you like, but that is what I've meant all along.

Ok, have another go at responding to this then:

This is the "it's different when black people say it" defense. Except that the act of wearing the hijab in America in solidarity with Muslim women over perceived "oppression" is completely indistinguishable from the act of wearing the hijab in America in solidarity with those Muslims who would "socially oppress" Muslim women into covering their femininity out of sexism. Ironic. That makes the photo funny.

 

[eran0004]

Ok, have another go at responding to this then:

I'm perfectly happy with my first response, but thanks for asking.

 

[Vegard]

US McCartyism 2.0



The rest of the world watches on in laughter.

 

[JKgo]

US McCartyism 2.0



The rest of the world watches on in laughter.

....?? And this is a political cartoon how?? Your implied symbolism is lost on me for the moment. What gives?

 

[Dennisch]

 

[Grayfox]

This video is more political than a dog with food aggression

This is a working machine of a countries government

 

[Johnnypenso]

This video is more political than a dog with food aggression

This is a working machine of a countries government

Looks massively overbuilt, eats up a lot of energy, produces nothing but looks kind of interesting while doing so. Easily fools those not mechanically minded. Sounds about right

 

[Danoff]

You know...I could see the US being convinced to pay for such a thing.

 

[Dennisch]

You know...I could see the US being convinced to pay for such a thing.

The Cofveve agreement.

 

[UKMikey]

You know...I could see the US being convinced to pay for such a thing.

I guess the difference between this and the wall is that at least some people in America are convinced signing up to the Paris climate agreement is a good thing but I'd be surprised if anyone in Mexico thought that their paying for the wall is a good thing.