Get Your Damn Paws Off Me, You Stinkin’ Liberal!

Cidu Bill on Apr 22nd 2008

stinkinliberal.jpg

Filed in Bill Bickel, CIDU, Non Sequitur, Wiley Miller, comic strips, comics, humor | 24 responses so far

24 Responses to “Get Your Damn Paws Off Me, You Stinkin’ Liberal!”

  1. Ray Brady Apr 22nd 2008 at 12:14 pm 1

    Sorry, is this meant to be a CIDU? It seems rather straightforward to me. The little girl has bet that the little boy’s father is a reasonable man. The little boy’s “stinking liberal” comment has made her reconsider this.

  2. Its Justme Apr 22nd 2008 at 12:30 pm 2

    But isn’t the boy conceding that Danae would win that bet? So why’s she saying she lost? The only thing that would make sense to me is if there were a precursor bet along the lines of “I bet I can guess your father’s political alignment” by the boy and Danae says “I bet you can’t.” More likely it’s just a lapse in logic by the author when he constructed the scenario.

  3. heather Apr 22nd 2008 at 01:01 pm 3

    I don’t think the boy is conceding anything. Just the fact that her father would WANT to engage in civil discourse is enough to lead him to say he’s a “stinking liberal”. I think Ray has it, that was my take on it too.

  4. DPWally Apr 22nd 2008 at 01:22 pm 4

    Must not be as straightforward as I thought it was (especially since Ray Brady also said “straightforward” and I think he missed it).

    Two things are happening
    1. Jeffrey considers reasonable, civil discourse to be evidence of liberalism rather than something to which all sides should aspire.
    2. Danae acknowledges that she’s lost her bet; you can’t find reasonable common ground and peaceful resolution with someone of Jeffrey’s mentality. When the other side seeks those things, he declares victory and swings from a tree.

  5. Derek Apr 22nd 2008 at 01:27 pm 5

    Danae’s bet is that her father could reason with Jeffrey’s father. His response of calling her a “stinkin’ liberal” suggests that his father would give a similar response, and thus could not be reasoned with.

  6. S.P. Charles Apr 22nd 2008 at 01:33 pm 6

    And Danae’s father would never think to call Jeffrey’s father an ignorant reactionary? Or is left-wing self-righteousness honorable whereas right-wing self-righteousness is not?

  7. Patrick Apr 22nd 2008 at 01:44 pm 7

    Well asked, S.P. Charles.

  8. Dave Van Domelen Apr 22nd 2008 at 02:23 pm 8

    Given how often he tries, in the face of utter futility, to treat Danae in a reasonable manner, I expect he wouldn’t be too quick to splutter something about reactionary neanderthals, no. And Danae knows it.

  9. Jeff Lichtman Apr 22nd 2008 at 02:29 pm 9

    S.P. Charles uses the classic straw man argument. He argues against what he claims Danae’s father would do, not against anything he (or anyone else in this strip) actually did, then uses this non-event as an example of “left-wing self-righteousness.”

  10. Scott Apr 22nd 2008 at 03:45 pm 10

    I understand the gist of the strip pretty well. What I don’t understand is how the boy is holding on to the frame of the picture after the second frame.

  11. Lord-z Apr 22nd 2008 at 04:36 pm 11

    Pretty straight forward, this strip. The boys father is presented as a right-wing violence freak, while the girls father is presented as being peacefull. That is not the joke, though. The joke is that the boy tries to use her fathers peacefullness against her, by calling him a liberal, a perfectly good political affiliation which republicans has somehow made into a slur. I never understood why that was. Anyway, the point is, the boy is just saying anything to prove that his father is better, as children do, even if he is stumped by actual reasoning and a suggestion that he refuses to admit is better than his idea for fisticuffs. The girl, meanwhile, is being sarcastic. She knows that her father is a liberal, and she knows that it is not insulting to be called so.

  12. Mark in Boston Apr 22nd 2008 at 05:54 pm 12

    I’ll never understand today’s “Conservatives” and “Liberals”. Traditionally, liberals believe that all people are equal; conservatives believe that kings, dukes and earls are morally superior to commoners. Liberals believe that businesses should be freely owned by private indivuals and corporations; conservatives believe that businesses should be heavily controlled by the King. Liberals believe that each person should decide what is best for himself or herself; conservatives believe that someone who knows better must tell all the people what is good for them and force them to follow it.
    Has the world turned upside down since the time of King George III and Thomas Jefferson?

  13. Lola Apr 22nd 2008 at 06:09 pm 13

    Scott - he’s “framing” his witty comeback. yuk,yuk,yuk.

  14. David Apr 22nd 2008 at 09:25 pm 14

    I disagree with the label “liberal” on someone capable of rational discourse and finding common ground. I find that most people capable of that sort of behavior avoid sticking political labels on themselves, as wedding yourself to a label seems to immediately reduce one’s ability to recognize common ground. Despite what “liberal” actually means (wiley did this in an Obviousman strip), it has become a dirty word for some and a label of obnoxious pride for others. We need new words without any existing baggage, that we can use for 20-30 years until they get worn out too.

  15. Seth Finkelstein Apr 22nd 2008 at 10:10 pm 15

    “Mark in Boston” - Projecting today’s political labels onto the politics of around two centuries ago is often not productive. After all, one of the conservative objections to ending slavery at the time was that it would be depriving slave-owners of their property.
    The right to own property has some different implications for example when people can be property.

  16. Frank Apr 22nd 2008 at 11:59 pm 16

    He is a stinking liberal but it still is an amusing strip.

  17. Jeremy Ross Apr 23rd 2008 at 12:16 am 17

    Looks to me like Wiley is insinuating that Liberals have all the intelligence and Conservatives have all the strength. Danae explains that her dad has intelligence, to which Jeffrey replies that he must be a Liberal. Danae then acknowledges that whe has lost the “bet” in the first panel: that Jeffrey’s dad (probably a Conservative) could beat up Danae’s dad (the Liberal).

  18. Jeremy Ross Apr 23rd 2008 at 12:20 am 18

    On second thought, the “bet” that Danae lost is that her dad would win in intelligent discourse. Which is, of course, sarcasm. Because Jeffrey’s reparte is not particularly intelligent.

    Isn’t this the boy that invents time machines? What’s the deal?

    Incidentally, Wiley’s approach to “proving” the superiority of Liberals isn’t a whole lot better than Jeffrey’s biting reparte.

  19. arik1969 Apr 23rd 2008 at 01:43 am 19

    In my mind, there’s a difference between “liberal” and “Liberal.” In my experience, the “Capital ‘L’ Liberal” idea of “Civil discourse, finding common ground, and reaching a peaceful resolution” generally involves them telling you you’re wrong, telling you why you’re wrong, telling you why you’re ignorant for not agreeing with them, then assuming you agree about their intellectual superiority.

    “Capital ‘C’ Conservatives” are MUCH different. Their idea of “Civil discourse, finding common ground, and reaching a peaceful resolution” generally involves them telling you you’re wrong, telling you why you’re wrong, telling you why you’re evil for not agreeing with them, then assuming you agree about their moral superiority.

  20. Molly Apr 23rd 2008 at 08:59 am 20

    I think, judging by the inset frame, that Jeffrey knows Danae is right (note the “Now what do I say?” confusion bubbles and thoughtful pose.) What he ends up saying is what has been said all along to those who protest inane violence — “then you must be a dirty stinkin’ LIBERAL!” That’s all he’s got.

    And yup, Danae’s reply is definitely sarcastic.

  21. Powers Apr 23rd 2008 at 09:15 am 21

    Jeremy — close, but not quite. The second bet, Danae’s, was not that Danae’s dad would *win*, but rather that her dad could *reason with* her interlocutor’s father. That’s the bet she admits to losing.

  22. Jeff S. Apr 23rd 2008 at 09:51 am 22

    IMO, Lord-Z has this one right. She was being sarcastic.

  23. DPWally Apr 23rd 2008 at 05:23 pm 23

    Jeremy Ross - I don’t think Wiley is saying that liberals are intelligent and conservatives are not. (A couple of comments said that, but Wiley didn’t.)

    Jeffrey’s father, as represented by Jeffrey, is a member of a small wing of the Republican party that despises all of the following: liberals, intelligence, reason, peace, tolerance, civil rights, disloyalty, taxes, government regulation, government. Because they despise those all things without applying their brains to any of them, they can use them interchangeably. You favor civil rights? You must be a traitorous tax-and-spend liberal!

    I think that group is a small part of the Republican party. Unfortunately, it has been in charge of that party for the last 15 years.

  24. Powers Apr 24th 2008 at 07:21 am 24

    She’s not being sarcastic. She lost the bet that the other kid’s father could be reasoned with.

Trackback URI | Comments RSS

Leave a Reply