Random News Stories

[Cain]

This is almost as bad as the time the New Yorker accurately portrayed Barack and Michelle Obama engaging in terrorist fist pumps.

[Pergamos]

It seems to be aimed at simpletons who need cartoon characters to do their thinking for them. 


Way to go New Yorker!

puppets aren't cartoon characters.

It was obvious to me as a child that Bert and Ernie were gay, they're iconic characters and seeing them happy with the decision was touching to me.

[AFK]

But, they aren't gay.

[LMNO]

While we're being pedantic, there's nothing in the New Yorker cartoon that says they ARE gay. They're just two puppets, still living together after 40 years, watching the DOMA ruling on TV.

[Pergamos]

While we're being pedantic, there's nothing in the New Yorker cartoon that says they ARE gay. They're just two puppets, still living together after 40 years, watching the DOMA ruling on TV.

And being happy (a synonym for gay) because justice has finally been done.  Even if Bert and Ernie aren't gay they are definitely supporters of gay rights.  Because they are from Sesame street, and everyone on Sesame street is basically decent.  Even Oscar.

[AFK]

Meh, I think the intent is pretty clear.  Just seems unnecessary to give asexual kids characters sexuality for political commentary.  It was stupid when Jerry Farwell did it, it's stupid when the New Yorker does it.

[Left]

Meh, I think the intent is pretty clear.  Just seems unnecessary to give asexual kids characters sexuality for political commentary.  It was stupid when Jerry Farwell did it, it's stupid when the New Yorker does it.

...Maybe Bert and Ernie are asexuals?

[AFK]

Well if you read the statement from Sesame Street, they have asserted that Bert and Ernie do not have sexuality, implied or otherwise.  Others, such as the New Yorker, have decided to sexualize them for political purposes.  It's stupid whether it is a liberal or a conservative that does it. 

[tyrannosaurus vex]

I would agree with you, RWHN, if this image was intended for the same audience as Sesame Street has. But presumably, the New Yorker is not a magazine for preschoolers, and their audience is sophisticated to understand the political statement without going all haywire about Bert and Ernie being made out to be gay.

I am assuming you do not subscribe to the New Yorker.

[Pergamos]

You don't have to have sexuality to get married.

[LMNO]

RWHN, your argument seems to be based in the belief that homosexual love is somehow a negative, and that children should be sheltered from it. Because I doubt you'd be so concerned if it was Kermit and Ma Piggy on the cover.

[AFK]

No, that is absolutely not the issue, I will reference again this article below which resonates with my issues with this.

This article which was linked in the previous article nails it:  http://flavorwire.com/401071/the-new-yorkers-bert-and-ernie-doma-cover-is-infantilizing-and-offensive

[The Johnny]

I don't think its "offensive" nor "detrimental" for the cause that they chose Bert and Ernie to put on the cover, but I also think that they could had used much better suiting images, i ALSO think that it was purposefully engineered to cause controversy, and thus sell more copies; just look at how there's flame wars raging all over the place regarding the image used.

[LMNO]

No, that is absolutely not the issue, I will reference again this article below which resonates with my issues with this.

This article which was linked in the previous article nails it:  http://flavorwire.com/401071/the-new-yorkers-bert-and-ernie-doma-cover-is-infantilizing-and-offensive

Yeah, read it. There was no real argument other than "you didn't use real people." In fact, the points YOU were raising weren't the points in the article, which are more pedantic than anything resembling a persuasive argument.

[AFK]

Perhaps, but while I think it was a stupid cover, I'm not really going to lose any sleep over it or anything, so I'm not too invested in persuading anyone.