Wednesday, November 28, 2007
Political art
If you wonder about your emotional connection to your political beliefs, click on this and tell us whether your impulsive reaction was to be offended or amused.
19 Comments:
By 
antithaca, at
Wed Nov 28, 09:20:00 AM:
The link says: "This Account Has Exceeded Its CPU Quota"
I'd call my reaction...Indifferent
By 
, at
Wed Nov 28, 09:33:00 AM:
"tell us whether your impulsive reaction was to be offended or amused."
Pretty much something for everyone with this baby:
- The Pro-Lifers would be offended by the condom.
- The Luddites would be offended by the cellphone.
- The liberals would be offended by the gun.
- The conservatives would be offended that this rapist is back on the streets in the first place.
- The gays would be offended by the use of AIDS as a gun lobby persuasion device.
- The academics would be offended because the rapist was neglected as a child, grew up in a broken home and was only responding to the pressures of an unfeeling society.
- NAMBLA would be offended because the potential victim was female.
- Graphic artists would be offended by the crappy fonts across the bottom of the pic.
- Webmasters would be offended by his placement of ads in the main body of the page.
- Feminists would be offended because of the implication that females need protection whereas males don't.
- Law enforcement officers would be offended by the use of the lowly term "cop".
- Firearm buffs would be offended that he didn't use a Glock.
- REAL MEN would be offended that he used a condom in a prissy pink package.
Yep, Tige, there's something here for everybody!
Me, I saw it on Theo's this morning, yawned and moved on. Change the "cop" to "bobbie" and it would make a lot more sense.
By Yishai, at
Wed Nov 28, 09:38:00 AM:
It's just kinda stupid and alarmist. It's over-the-top and doesn't relate to the people that the ad is targeting (heh). If you are trying to convince people about the need for self-defense, there are better ways to do it.
By , at
Wed Nov 28, 09:52:00 AM:
-Firearm buffs would be offended that he didn't use a Glock.
From my limited knowledge I would say the picture gun is a Glock and a firearm buff would prefer a 1911 in the 'manly .45 caliber'.
By Rick Ballard, at
Wed Nov 28, 11:28:00 AM:
Well, for political art, I prefer heartwarming scenes such as this, which point to a brighter future for almost everyone.
By , at
Wed Nov 28, 12:04:00 PM:
Disappointed, mildly angered, with dark humour undertones.
This, "such as this", is cause for optimism. Although, one shouldn't find humour in others tribulations. Okay okay, but just this once.
By Fritz, at
Wed Nov 28, 12:13:00 PM:
Mildly amused. Doesn't make its case well, though.
By jj mollo, at
Wed Nov 28, 01:09:00 PM:
Since I have actual rather than hypothetical daughters, I find this very disturbing. This graphic polemic is not in good taste. Since I live in the city, it also makes me angry. The city is not that much more dangerous than other places. I also do not accept the premise. I have more faith in the police than that. I believe that there are monsters on the street, but they are deterred by unpredictable police presense.
I don't believe a gun will help my daughters unless they are prepared to use it, which they are not. My daughters have training in self-defense, which I believe they are prepared to use, and they know how to use a cell phone.
By , at
Wed Nov 28, 02:44:00 PM:
This is a modern day problem. Before the big highrise government apartments were built in Chicago, all the grandmas carried pocket pistols. Most of the women carried pistols. They were all prepared to use them. Surprisingly violent crime was minimal.
Young ladies should be trained in firearms use and self defense. The cops can't help you most of the time.
It is only since American men have become women that we are concerned about women shooting rapists, murders and the like.
By , at
Wed Nov 28, 02:45:00 PM:
Unprepared to use what is essentially a point and click weapon, but yet prepared to defeat a larger, stronger aggressor who has the element of surprise in hand to hand combat to the degree that they're then able to use a cell phone to call for help and then remain free and unconquered until said help arrives? And this is all assuming that the theoretical attacker is not using a weapon himself.
I know nothing about your daughters, but I'm not inclined to believe that you've raised a family of ninjas.
"I believe that there are monsters on the street, but they are deterred by unpredictable police presense."
Were this true, crime wouldn't be a problem, would it? But rapes, robberies, burglaries, carjackings, and murders happen all the time.
By Fritz, at
Wed Nov 28, 05:20:00 PM:
I agree that it's wise for someone living in a dangerous area to have the means to defend themselves, but why assume that lethal force is the only answer? Why was there no can of mace or taser in the graphic?
This isn't a good argument for gun ownership as there is no reason why guns are the only option.
By , at
Wed Nov 28, 07:49:00 PM:
Graphic artists would be offended by the crappy fonts across the bottom of the pic.
Ha ha!
This isn't a good argument for gun ownership as there is no reason why guns are the only option.
Maybe if the graphic said 'knife-wielding rapist with aids.'
By joated, at
Wed Nov 28, 07:56:00 PM:
I found the poster quite amusing and thought it made a strong point. Those who think it might be too alarmist need to read the Bady literature more often.
BTW I loved dr. mercury's comment above.
By , at
Wed Nov 28, 09:24:00 PM:
"but why assume that lethal force is the only answer?"
To ensure that they don't get back up and resume the struggle, for one thing.
And I find your concern for the health of violent offenders vis a vis their victims' acts of defense to be disturbing.
By GreenmanTim, at
Wed Nov 28, 09:52:00 PM:
While we are all examining our initial emotional responses, let's ratchet this up a notch. Did you visualize the rapist with AIDs when looking at the poster. Were you colorblind? Not me. Not proud of that, but there it is. Anyone else have that experience?
By Fritz, at
Wed Nov 28, 10:50:00 PM:
DF82: And I find your casual attitude toward the proliferation of deadly weapons disturbing. I realize it's an article of faith among conservatives that more guns makes us all safer, but once you get out of the echo chamber, some people actually believe that the opposite is true. Shocking, I know!
Besides, why is it better for society if an assailant is killed? I can think of two reasons that it isn't: first, I'd rather a misunderstanding results in a faceful of tear gas for someone rather than a bullet in the head. Second, as long as your less-lethal weapon succeeds in incapacitating your attacker so you can escape, why is this not a socially better outcome than killing them? Besides bloodthirst, I can only think that deterrence might be the answer - but I'm not sure I buy that, for the same reason why I doubt that more guns make us all safer - I don't think most attackers "do the math."
By jj mollo, at
Wed Nov 28, 11:38:00 PM:
The point and shoot weapon will kill or at least hurt the attacker. Many people are reluctant to actually take that step until it's too late. That is because they are civilized. Situations are often unclear, and non-experts don't respond well. Their own weapons will often be used against them by people who don't care a whole lot about civilization.
Self-defense techniques do not require conquest, simply escape.
Most crimes are done in dark places or out-of-sight. A lot of crimes occur in places where the rule-of-law is not enforced. If you can avoid these situations and places, your odds are pretty good. The reason crimes are done out-of-sight is because of the police, not because of citizens with guns. Citizens with cell phones are much more intimidating and certainly much more common. The people who carry the guns are not as likely to call the police since they are likely, at least in the cities, to be the bad guys themselves. Yes, crime occurs all the time and it has to be combatted constantly. The means of combatting crime are mostly related to group action and good sense rather than heroic action by straight-shooters.
A good book about sensible response to crime is The Gift of Fear, whose author I can't remember right now.
By , at
Thu Nov 29, 10:07:00 PM:
Unprepared to use what is essentially a point and click weapon, but yet prepared to defeat a larger, stronger aggressor who has the element of surprise
If an attacker has the element of surprise to the extent that you can't get ready to throw a punch, then why would you think you'll have time to draw, aim and fire a firearm?
Did you visualize the rapist with AIDs when looking at the poster. Were you colorblind?
I wasn't colourblind at all. The rapist was clearly a skinny white junkie, the way AIDS "victimns" are always portrayed in my country.
Despite my dislike for anti-gun nanny-states, I'll agree that a "non-lethal" approach like mace or tazers has a huge advantage, in that the carriers are far more likely to pull the trigger.
By Cassandra, at
Sun Dec 02, 11:01:00 PM:
Ditto.
FWIW, I saw a kind of seedy white guy with brown hair. Is that supposed to make me feel bad?
Because I don't, particularly.
