What is Digg?383 Comments
- siobhankeogh, on 07/13/2008, -25/+162While this is satire, it's not really doing anything to debunk the image, is it? The fact is that a lot of stupid people don't "get" satire, at least not easily, and they're just going to look at this and add it to their mental collection of things that makes them associate Obama with Islam.
- Wubbawucky, on 07/13/2008, -66/+172I think it's well done satire. For those that find it offensive, get the stick out your ass b/c the whole premise of this satire is to play off the racial stereotypes thrown around in the mainstream media.
- inactive, on 07/14/2008, -4/+80The fist bump makes it... comedy gold.
Welcome to the First Amendment. - inactive, on 07/14/2008, -5/+78Yay I mean remember when the New Yorker reffered to how Bush and Cheney were gay lovers?
http://www.thenewyorkerstore.com/product_details.a ...
OMFG, I can not believe they did that...
/S - jellydoughnut21, on 07/13/2008, -103/+175Saying something is satire is no excuse for using racial stereotypes, I think it's pathetic that something so tasteless is acceptable.
- chronobyte, on 07/13/2008, -15/+80Well a massive outrage it wants, a massive outrage it will probably get.
Though they made it clear it is a satire piece there are people out there dumb enough to think otherwise, and you can bet Bill O and the likes will take full advantage of the fact. - phillykid162, on 07/14/2008, -8/+63HOLY *****, did you guys know Obama is muslim? I just saw it on a the cover of a newspaper!
- vault, on 07/14/2008, -12/+65I think it's pathetic a guy named "jelly doughnut" is pretending to be offended by it.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=jel ... - StrawberryMacaw, on 07/13/2008, -26/+76If the intent is to damage Barack Obama, It's bound to be a huge success. If not, the New Yorker forgot to take into account the intelligence of the general public instead of just considering its own readers.
- rgodfrey, on 07/14/2008, -13/+51Context is pretty important here. This is a lot funnier on the cover of The New Yorker than it would be on the cover of National Review.
- anselm83, on 07/14/2008, -5/+43As a New Yorker-reading, Obama-supporting, latte-drinking, Mazda-driving member of the liberal left... holy ***** people, get a sense of a humor. The mag is making fun of Fox News *****, not the Obamas. The joke's on the right wingers... and if you're not laughing, you're probably a closet Republican.
- Flashman, on 07/14/2008, -9/+46You know, liberal responses to things like this are the reason conservatives accuse us of having no sense of humour.
- ohplease, on 07/14/2008, -5/+36
I think The New Yorker parodying the insane depictions of the Obamas that Fox News tries to peddle is an effective method of marginalizing the ridiculous right. - spookyttws, on 07/14/2008, -6/+37Look, uninformed people who still think Obama is Muslim aren't going to vote for him, this cover will have no effect on that. As for the Digg community, I find it strange that this is anything but a reinforcement of what the community believes, that the GOP/Fox news will say anything to stop this guy because they know how powerful his message of HOPE is. It's sad really, and isn't that' what makes the picture amusing? Are we that afraid to laugh at how ***** ridiculous all that Muslim/fist bump/terrorist ***** is because someone might see it and believe it? Like I said, if someone is that STUPID and out of touch this isn't whats going to make them think that way.
- inactive, on 07/14/2008, -3/+32LEAVE JELLYDOUGHNUT ALONE!!!!
- zephyear, on 07/14/2008, -6/+34jesus christ, have these people never seen satire before
the new yorker is pretty much the definition of obnoxious liberal elitism (they write great stuff), how can anyone think they're serious about this - inactive, on 07/14/2008, -0/+28I see no problem with this. It is obvious the people at the New Yorker do not think Obama is a Muslim or that his fist jab was a sign of a terrorist. They are mocking how blown out of proportion these little insignificant things get during our elections. Seriously, Barack and his wife pounded each others fists and it becomes a sign of terrorism?
- anselm83, on 07/14/2008, -2/+30Apparently the New Yorker is a bastion of conservative ideology to most Diggers in this thread.
- AxmxZ, on 07/13/2008, -12/+40I'm honestly torn. On one hand, the "black militant" thing will probably offend a lot of people. On the other hand - the American flag burning in the fireplace? The portrait of Bin Laden on the wall of the Oval Office? Call me an elitist, but as a lampoon of Obama-damaging rumors, it's not exactly subtle.
- inactive, on 07/14/2008, -10/+35Stupid people who would do that do not read the New Yorker. That's why generally, they are stupid.
- VFoxfoot, on 07/14/2008, -9/+27Perhaps I'm just innocent, but I've never heard any of those slang terms. They're not that "well-known"
- rgodfrey, on 07/14/2008, -2/+19It is satire, actually. The New Yorker is using pretty effing trenchant wit, irony and sarcasm to expose and discredit the vice and folly of the ridiculous smears that have circulated about the Obamas. It's a shame that in a lot of cases the smears are so close to this scene that it reads like it fits right in, rather than being absurdly over the top. Who would have thought that an image of a mainstream presidential candidate burning a U.S. flag could be taken seriously by anyone?
What else is necessary, maybe Obama taking a dump on an apple pie? - ferrell, on 07/14/2008, -6/+23No, but they do watch Fox News, which is going to be plastering this image on their station 24 hours a day for the next solid week.
- IbbyIbby, on 07/14/2008, -1/+17kind of like the people digging me down lol
- apophenic, on 07/14/2008, -0/+16Yeah, but the fact that it's on the cover of the New Yorker is an essential part of the context of the image. The logo is there and is huge. You can't separate the two in your mind.
- inactive, on 07/14/2008, -7/+23You're obviously not from new york, where we are made of much thicker stuff.
Now settle down, knucklehead. - TheInformer, on 07/14/2008, -1/+17It's ok to portray Bush and Cheney as gay lovers though, right?
http://www.thenewyorkerstore.com/product_details.a ... - mcfarnsberry, on 07/14/2008, -1/+17Soooooo...I assume you hate Blazing Saddles then...
- inactive, on 07/14/2008, -9/+24Why is it the New Yorker's job to debunk the image?
- ramiro, on 07/14/2008, -2/+17*** FIRST AMENDMENT FOR THE WIN! ***
*** FIRST AMENDMENT FOR THE WIN! ***
*** FIRST AMENDMENT FOR THE WIN! *** - scaaven2, on 07/13/2008, -37/+52That's despicable, I don't care what the actual magazine article says. Most people will just walk past it on the magazine rack and see these images we've been programmed to fear. This is one instance where you can judge a book (magazine in this case) by its cover. They should be ashamed of themselves.
- WoollyMittens, on 07/14/2008, -0/+13Not only that. He was the 21st person to do so.
- praisethelard, on 07/14/2008, -2/+14Yeah, they were clearly making fun of that one Fox News reporter's "terrorist fist jab" comment.
- pocketveto, on 07/14/2008, -2/+14People got pissed off when A Modest Proposal was published because they thought that Jonathan Swift actually condoned eating children. Sometimes being offensive is the only way to point out how ridiculous something (i.e. stereotyping and attacking the Obamas) is.
- SpectreFire, on 07/14/2008, -3/+15So it's ok to do political satire on McCain, but not ok to do it on Obama?
Get your heads out of your asses Digg. You can't complain one moment that SNL's satire isn't smart enough, and then complain The New Yorker's satire is too smart that idiots might confuse it with the real deal. - Superthug, on 07/14/2008, -3/+15The New Yorker seems to have a satirical image on its cover every other week. Why are people so outraged by this one?
- vault, on 07/14/2008, -1/+12"Readership sophisticated enough to get it my ass!"
"If you have a subscription with them, cancel...I'm emailing them to cancel mine right now."
thank you for the comic gold. - Justice101, on 07/14/2008, -2/+13I don't see a problem with it. We call Bush Jr. a monkey or the many other political cartoons in years past that have compared figures with stereotypes and other figures for the point of humor. Just because you don't find something funny doesn't mean it should be banned. Freedom of speech and freedom of expression, we can't just limit it to stuff we approve of, than whats the point of having it in the first place.
p.s. Just about all political cartoons suck though. I'm not sure who finds them funny. George Carlin FTW - TheSenator624, on 07/14/2008, -4/+15Indeed. It appears that liberals can dish it out but can't take it.
- hivoltage815, on 07/14/2008, -1/+12Or Comedy Central can make a show called Lil'Bush that makes claims like Donald Rumsfield's father beat him as a child (which is a rather personal attack might I add) or shows Dick Cheney crawling into Barbara Bush's uterus.
Why does free speech only apply when it is convenient? - inactive, on 07/14/2008, -5/+15@ baldr - you know, the conspiracy that even now is still going around that Obama is a muslim? I called it a fiasco, you can call it whatever you want. I don't believe he's a muslim but apparently many people do. That's what I was referring to - the comic is playing him off as a muslim.
- MasterGrief, on 07/14/2008, -6/+16There are not enough comments on the fact that this is yet another submission with an article in the Huffington Post. If you hate Fox for having an agenda, you should hate Huffington too.
- siobhankeogh, on 07/14/2008, -15/+25That just proves my point - they might not read the New Yorker, but they might walk past a newsstand or see a copy in a bathroom or whatever, take in the cover and think, "This is why I'm voting McCain!"
- starforth, on 07/14/2008, -0/+10The New Yorker is not using racial stereo types, it is mocking the ridiculous accusations and insinuations of certain segments of the right wing media by vividly portraying them in an over-the-top manner.
This helps show how outrageous these accusations really are, and takes some of the air out these arguments.
The fact that you had to have someone explain that to you so you won't be offended is just sad though. - LittleDas, on 07/14/2008, -1/+11Well quite frankly, The New Yorker doesn't give a damn what you think if you're not one of its readers.
- inactive, on 07/14/2008, -21/+29The New Yorker subscriber base are smart, well informed, generally successful people.
This is known as satire. The New Yorker is making fun of Fox News and the trash who watch it.
Remember, the trash of our society do not read the New Yorker, or other intellectual magazines. - inactive, on 07/14/2008, -1/+10YEAH! And I don't care what point Jonathan Swift tried to make! It is morally outrageous he would ever suggest eating babies.
I'm going to go ahead and assume that went over your head since your comment is stupid, and furthermore I'm ashamed in all the people who have dugg you. - Aethirig, on 07/14/2008, -1/+10attention: you have been trolled.
- xenuxenuts, on 07/14/2008, -7/+15I have to say, there's a huge difference between jelly donut and dirty sanchez. I'm pretty sure if I order a jelly donut, no one will look at me funny.
- Darmichar, on 07/14/2008, -2/+10You do not speak for me.
Don't ever assume you do. -
Show 51 - 100 of 385 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is