Skip navigation

About these ads

25 Comments

    • Jamie
    • Posted February 8, 2011 at 3:13 pm
    • Permalink

    This is a nice one – I really like the way you drew the word-cloud.

    Is the second-hand smoke allegory a reference to the New York law banning smoking on beaches and in parks?

  1. That, Jamie, and a lot of other second-hand smoke mania. While most agree that it’s unpleasant, the left in my view makes an unwholesome obsession of it while ignoring the more-damaging pollution of the soul that spreads like a rank cloud over our culture. Which would include PC, one of many examples of soul-pollution.

  2. Promethea’s cute.

    • 21stCentury
    • Posted February 8, 2011 at 3:36 pm
    • Permalink

    Wait, Zack, do you mean to say that the Left should not discuss whatever they feel like discussing?

    The word cloud seems to be mostly composed of words like “Racism”, “Victim”, “That’s not funny”. The setting is a living room. These are adults discussing what i can only surmise to be current events. Then, this little girl walks by and says “I can’t stand it when Leftists discuss things”, paraphrased.

    Your joke would be a lot more effective if they were forcing people to stop being racist or something.

    PS: Second-hand smoke causes lung cancer, just like first-hand smoke. Of course, people who don’t smoke can’t really choose to not be exposed to second hand smoke in some cases. That’s the source for smoking bans in certain establishments.

  3. “…Which would include PC, one of many examples of soul-pollution.”

    Sure, but define PC. Many people hide behind the skirts of the “everything’s too PC” cliche to justify saying any outrageous thing they want. It’s classic playground bullying.
    While some people indeed can’t tell the difference between being a PC zombie and being a decent human being, many others can’t tell the difference between politically incorrect humor and simply being a jerk.

    • Jamie
    • Posted February 8, 2011 at 6:41 pm
    • Permalink

    @ Marbles 1st Post: She is, isn’t she? I think Diversity herself looks like a little goblin half the time, but all the other children characters are really kind of adorable.

    …now I sort of want to see Zack do a cutesy slice-of-life comic. XD

    @21: The blabbing trio with the over-sized cloud of terms above their head is poking fun at the lefts tendency to label anything remotely RELATED to minority groups as “racist” (if race is involved and sometimes, bafflingly, when it isn’t) or “offensive” – two of it’s favorite buzzwords (the word “victim” popping up in there sharpens this criticism even farther by revealing the racialist PROBLEMS with this mind-set). To say they’re “discussing current events” and that’s that is to ignore the fact that this is a political comic where, if you’ll pardon my buffyspeak, things MEAN things. And as for the caption, Diversity is just engaging in the age-old comic strip tadition of being the character who points out the joke and adds a half-way decent punchline – she’s not even saying anything directly relating TO the left, she’s just attacking a method of discourse that they commonly employ.

    Your comment the smoking is true, but I still think you should only go far to regulate such behavior – and I think, with the recent New York law, we’ve crossed that line enough times to deserve a bit of roasting.

    @Marbles second post: When you get into, say, Laura Schlessingler territory, you’re no longer dealing with “that’s not PC” – you’re dealing with “that’s in bad taste”. There’s a difference betwen the two – the former is used virtually whenever someone says something funny (since every truly funny joke is at SOMEONE elses suspense) and the latter is only applied when someone is being an (censored).

    • Jamie
    • Posted February 8, 2011 at 6:49 pm
    • Permalink

    Heheh, “Suspense”. I meant “expense”, obviously. I’m gonna go read some petry until I feel better! :)

  4. @ Jamie:

    Schlessinger falls into a somewhat different category since she wasn’t trying to be funny. But it was very predictable that people leapt to her defense the way they did, because the pattern in these incidents is that the “anti-PC” types are always either unable or unwilling to understand how the situation looks from inside someone else’s skin.

    I believe you will actually find very, very few people on the left who think they way their caricatures do regarding race/religion/etc. being VERBOTEN, and any mention of them being “offensive.” (Family Guy alone should have proven once and for all that liberals can be some of the most obnoxiously un-PC people on the planet). Sometimes you do run into that. But far more often, you run into conservatives TALKING about people like that.

    At any rate, one thing that bugs me about this particular sticking point is that it’s almost always between straight white guys and straight white guys. Other groups are talked about, on behalf of, but rarely TO. It’s jarring.

    • Tetsuo
    • Posted February 8, 2011 at 8:27 pm
    • Permalink

    Don’t worry Zack, I know the past few days’ worth of comments pages may’ve felt a little harsh, but we still love you.

    • 21stCentury
    • Posted February 8, 2011 at 9:01 pm
    • Permalink

    Jamie, I’m sorry but laws that are put in place to prevent people who choose not to smoke from suffering from the effects of smoking (That is, laws that protect the choice of non-smokers to not smoke) are just.

    One’s freedom can only go so far as to not encroach on someone else’s freedom.

    Also, there is a practical solution to the second hand smoke. Electronic cigarettes. Look them up. They’re basically cigarettes without secondhand smoke. The result is a product that, while unhealthy, can be consumed by one without endangering anyone.

    As for what you said, I’m sorry but I don’t understand what things are supposed to mean here. The three characters who are talking about what they find offensive and who they find racist represent The Left, correct? On the other hand of the spectrum, Diversity represents The right, correct?

    So, then, the cartoon claims that The Left’s “Political Correctness” greatly irritates The Right, so much so that she says she’s “choking on it” like second hand smoke. Now, of course, that seems to me like The Right complaining about how The Left complains about things. But it’s not hypocritical because The Left only complains about things that you shouldn’t complain about.

    Is that the gist of it?

  5. Having things to say
    beware your offensive speech
    code for censorship?

    • Siegmund Wagneryann
    • Posted February 8, 2011 at 9:27 pm
    • Permalink

    The PC cloud in the comments dwarfs the cartoon’s puff,
    Like “classic playground bullying” which is just that sort of stuff.
    What’s funny like this cartoon is the “Is that the gist of it?”
    Disecting jokes or not getting them can sometimes smell like….

    • 21stCentury
    • Posted February 8, 2011 at 9:45 pm
    • Permalink

    Siegmund, are you calling me a bully here?
    Because I’m nothing if not civil.
    You can call me PC, assuming I can’t hear
    Because to you, liberals are so infantil…

    (Darn, if we were speaking French, the rhyme would work.)

    I’m really hurt by that comment, Siegmund. You wound me
    you have quite a lot of gall, calling me a bully

    • Steve
    • Posted February 8, 2011 at 10:18 pm
    • Permalink

    21st –
    “Second-hand smoke causes lung cancer, just like first-hand smoke.”

    Oh sure… and some other pillars of ‘progressive’ truisms;
    - John & Ethyl Rosenberg were not really guilty of atomic espionage…
    - Bill Clinton never had “…sex with that woman, Miss Lewinski”…
    - The ‘ozone hole’ is threatening our world…
    - And carbon dioxide from humans is causing glo-bull warming…

    Do not bother looking for any documented evidence that 2nd hand smoke causes cancer… because it does not exist ~
    Actually, it partly exists in the imaginations of those who promote the ‘Nanny State’ and in the minds of those who scare easily~

    In full disclosure, I am not a cigarette smoker however, I do enjoy a fine Dominican cigar from time-to-time. Oddly, cigarette smoke does not bother me, either.

    • Jamie
    • Posted February 8, 2011 at 10:21 pm
    • Permalink

    @21: So when does the freedom of one person not to smoke start infringing on the other persons right to smoke? The new law made it illegal on beaches and in parks – I find it difficult to believe that a lone smoker, or even a pair of them, in such an atmosphere constitute a real danger.

    As for the rest, I don’t see how you’re missing the very obvious point; that “political correctness”, as defined by some on the left, is wrong, and that they are wrong when they practice or extoll it. There’s nothing more or less up there – is it the opinion itself that you think needs elaboration?

    • 21stCentury
    • Posted February 8, 2011 at 10:28 pm
    • Permalink

    Steve, why is it you always need to put words in my mouth? I have no idea who John and Ethyl were, I don’t care who Bill Clinton had sex with, I’m not an expert on climatology (then again, you’re not one either, are you?)

    I could easily get research, but apparently linking things isn’t okay on this blog, so I’m not allowed to prove the point anyway.

    But let’s say second hand smoke doesn’t cause any ill effects on the health, isn’t it my right to not be bothered by it?

    • Tetsuo
    • Posted February 8, 2011 at 10:29 pm
    • Permalink

    @Steve: I would just like to address one of your points: The ozone hole one. I grew up under that hole, and it is (or at least was, I don’t live there now) a genuine threat that has actually materially affected life under it. I would provide hard data, but I know you don’t actually believe in science.

    • Siegmund Wagneryann
    • Posted February 8, 2011 at 10:52 pm
    • Permalink

    Marbles was first to cite and write
    What Twenty-First Century took personally as spite.
    Don’t be so quickly offended,
    You’re sure to be up ended.
    I really haven’t all the “Gaul”
    You think I show – no, not at all.

    Mais au francais, c’est difficile;
    Un mot pour vous, non infantile.

    Is this not the point of it?
    Being offended is faster than wit.
    I hadn’t called you much of anything,
    When you took it as a bitter sting.

    Being offended seems a permanent state,
    When it’s trotted first out of the gate.

    • Steve
    • Posted February 8, 2011 at 11:25 pm
    • Permalink

    @ 21st-
    ‘Progressive truisms’ are commonly referred to in many contexts… so, those are not there to put words in your mouth,… obviously you never said those other items, right?

    Please get this ‘research’… ya’ know, with a little imagination, you can give some specific name & location, and any of us with a search engine can go fetch it.
    Unlike some folks here, this limit to links does not bother me… there are other ways to convey the information.

    “…isn’t it my right to not be bothered by it?”
    That is genuinely ridiculous… consider the reasoning; if you, or anyone has some ‘civil right’ to not be offended (aka bothered) by [ fill in the blank ], do you have any idea what loony anarchy that would create ?
    For example-
    I’m offended by your speech, by your perfume, by your political button, by your… -whatever-

    Sadly, this mentality is being taught in many public schools… except one where, if you are Muslim, you can now bring and wear a dagger. Just charming~

    @ Tetsuo — the point of the ‘ozone hole’ is that it has been found that there are natural cycles to that atmospheric condition. There are natural chemical conditions throughout nature that affect it cyclically, that make any human factor a flea fart, by comparison.
    The enviro-leftists and their scare tactics caused a lot of laws to be passed that heavily impacted industries, adding huge costs to manufacturing. Now it is known that most of that was for no really good reasons.
    -Also, the ozone hole still cycles as before… when have you last seen it in the news?

    • cobainfan69
    • Posted February 8, 2011 at 11:26 pm
    • Permalink

    Yes, secondhand smoke can cause cancer. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. National Toxicology Program, the U.S. Surgeon General, and the International Agency for Research on Cancer have all classified secondhand smoke as a known human carcinogen (a cancer-causing agent).

    Inhaling secondhand smoke causes lung cancer in nonsmoking adults. Approximately 3,000 lung cancer deaths occur each year among adult nonsmokers in the United States as a result of exposure to secondhand smoke. The U.S. Surgeon General estimates that living with a smoker increases a nonsmoker’s chances of developing lung cancer by 20 to 30 percent.

    Some research also suggests that secondhand smoke may increase the risk of breast cancer, nasal sinus cavity cancer, and nasopharyngeal cancer in adults and the risk of leukemia, lymphoma, and brain tumors in children. Additional research is needed to learn whether a link exists between secondhand smoke exposure and these cancers.

    So, yeah.

    • Manny
    • Posted February 8, 2011 at 11:40 pm
    • Permalink

    “Sadly, this mentality is being taught in many public schools… except one where, if you are Muslim, you can now bring and wear a dagger. Just charming~” cite this please, I doubt it’s as you’re trying to paint it.

    You’re performing mental gymnastics again there by the way. There’s a big difference between, yknow, known and well-documented health issues related to secondhand smoke and “ooh I dislike your clothes therefore they are now illegal.”

    • Steve
    • Posted February 9, 2011 at 12:14 am
    • Permalink

    Cobainfan — Gee, real impressive. The reputation of the EPA is the joke of jokes, the Surgeon General post is often political agenda driven,… and those other two ‘fleas on a buffalos’ ass’, groups… please impress us with just what awesome reputation they have ??

    You’re striking out so far…

    The remainder of whatever you ‘copied & pasted’ is the usual boiler-plate bilge babbled before some committee hearing.
    ” Some research also suggests…” - this is classic BS tap-dancing language, for agenda driven “research”.

    If you are gullible enough to swallow this propaganda crap… enjoy ~
    The sad thing is you and others who dutifully believe ANYTHING coming out of those entities, seem to not be able critically think and see the difference between hard, credible data that objectively supports medical / scientific conclusions, and the clap-trap generated by agenda-driven organizations.
    Thousands of folks who never smoked, die annually from lung cancer, one example is the widow of Chris Reeves. The first thing the anti-smoking weenies did was assert it could have been ’2nd hand smoke’.
    Part of this sleazy agenda is to attribute all non-smokers cancer to 2nd hand smoke.

    You are being mislead by a bunch of 1st-hand BS…

    Here is a prediction; eventually, it will be “deemed” that 2nd-hand pot smoke is perfectly harmless.
    Give it time…
    ( as this is my 3rd comment here… adios-! )

    • cobainfan69
    • Posted February 9, 2011 at 12:28 am
    • Permalink

    Yes it must be propaganda those people obviously just don’t want to be inhaling smoke originating from a product that contains tons of carcinogens. :) How dare these people try to brainwash others into thinking that cigarettes are unhealthy!

    You can do a quick simple search in Google and turn up tons of pages on second-hand smoke and its links to cancer. It really isn’t that hard, Steve. Saying the connections don’t exist is just being ignorant.

    Of course lung cancer isn’t caused SOLELY by second-hand smoke, but saying it isn’t a factor is, once again, just being plain ignorant. Just saying that “Oh this person had lung cancer and never smoked so therefore second-hand smoke is harmless” is just an incredibly weak argument to put forth Steve, and I find it hilarious that in the same comment you belittle the organizations mentioned in my last comment — organizations that actually do their research, unlike you apparently.

    Of course, I’d love to just point you to info detailing a lot of my points, but well… ‘Big Brother’ is watching, you know! Oh, and Rafe, too. (‘Big Brother’ of course being Overlord Obama. He is a totalitarian ruler you see and thus wants to monitor all the goings on in our lives and have absolute control over them and blah de blah de blah).

    I can’t link to anything supporting my argument but it doesn’t matter anyway because any opposing argument is disregarded by you anyway. You’ll always find something to be offended by in some response, so therefore you classify the whole response as drivel. You’re honestly like a child, Steve…or a liberal.

    • Tetsuo
    • Posted February 9, 2011 at 1:40 am
    • Permalink

    @Steve: You can keep backflipping around all you want about the ozone hole. I’ll take first-hand experience and having my own nation, family, friends, and body affected by it over your hollow handwaving any day of the week. Unless, of course, you’ve got some hard data to back up your assumptions, in which case I’ll happily review it with an open mind.

  6. Marbles…

    Don’t tell anyone but I agree with you. Promethea is cute… Is it illegal for us to agree on anything?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 59 other followers

%d bloggers like this: