Gallery of anti-war propaganda posters remixed from old wartime posters.

August 14, 2002 6:24 AM

Gallery of anti-war propaganda posters remixed from old wartime posters. Some are perhaps over the top, but its very thought provoking work. Some of these posters really drive the point home that we are not that far removed from from the grisly battles of that past regardless of the government spin and all the high-tech military toys. This one is especially moving.
posted by skallas (104 comments total)

Thanks skallas, but these posters are just leftist bullshit.

Nicely photoshopped, leftist, bullshit.
posted by hama7 at 6:40 AM on August 14, 2002

Thanks hama7, but that comment was just rightist bullshit.

Nicely phrased, rightist, bullshit.
posted by adampsyche at 6:41 AM on August 14, 2002

I still like these better.
posted by yerfatma at 6:43 AM on August 14, 2002

What part is bullshit? The fact that taxdollars of hard working Americans are being used to fight a war against....ummm....terrorism? Isn't that like declaring war on rebellion?

My forefathers died so I could ask these very questions, and so we could have this discussion, you want to take those away? Move to China.
posted by CrazyJub at 6:44 AM on August 14, 2002

I know it's been posted before.

Get your propeganda on.
posted by CrazyJub at 6:46 AM on August 14, 2002

Thanks adampsyche, but are we playing a game here? Parody of military posters is fine by me, but making an extremely serious and horribly catastrophic world war which wrought hundreds of thousands of casualties, including my, and quite possibly your family members, ought not be trivialized by ridiculous, infantile, "Bush-is-a-chimp" style leftist rhetoric.

There is a time to fight for what you believe and protect, and this parody-poster nonsense struck a nerve. Especially given what we're up against these days.
posted by hama7 at 6:55 AM on August 14, 2002

trivialized by ridiculous, infantile, "Bush-is-a-chimp" style leftist rhetoric.

Your opinion. Others may see it differently. Whatever the case may be, he's sending a message, and he's entitled to his views, his message, and his medium.

Especially given what we're up against these days.

Damn straight. The War Machine in Washington is a formidable foe for people everywhere.
posted by adampsyche at 7:00 AM on August 14, 2002

And what is it that we are up against these days that we need to stand up and fight for?
posted by Fabulon7 at 7:01 AM on August 14, 2002

Isn't that like declaring war on rebellion?

Yes rebellion is exactly the same as terrorism.

I rebel against marshmallows, so I will expose each and every impaled specimen to the flame torture treatment.
posted by hama7 at 7:01 AM on August 14, 2002

Damn, adampsyche, you beat me to it.
posted by Fabulon7 at 7:01 AM on August 14, 2002

People really need to spend some time reading the translated Arabic media, or talking with people who do.

The Nazis and the Imperial Japanese (the enemies who inspired the original posters) were never half so poisonously committed to the destruction of America and the West generally as is a significant and influential fraction of the Arab world today. They are the enemy of civilization, plain and simple, and if leftists think that their simple-minded sympathy for all things anti-American will protect them, they're wrong.

Europe may be ahead on this point, for there, the fastest growing salient for reconsideration of sympathy for Arab extremism is on the cultural left, not right, as the left has realized that they are far more opposed to the freedoms leftists value (gender and sex liberation, secularized education) than those conservatives value (family self-determination, lower taxes, property integrity).
posted by MattD at 7:03 AM on August 14, 2002

And what is it that we are up against these days that we need to stand up and fight for?


Your country? Your family? You choose.
posted by hama7 at 7:04 AM on August 14, 2002

hama7: Respectfully, that doesn't make any sense. He was not saying rebellion and terrorism are equivalent morally, he was saying that they are both types of ideologized action with no concrete physical manifestation that can be defeated.

Your country? Your family? You choose.
I do not feel that my country or family are in any danger. Maybe when all those people that hate the USA start buying aircraft carriers and ICBMs, I will begin to worry. As it is now, that is just fear-mongering rhetoric that has no basis in fact. The United States is not in any grave danger from the Axis of Evil.
posted by Fabulon7 at 7:08 AM on August 14, 2002

if leftists think that their simple-minded sympathy for all things anti-American will protect them, they're wrong.

So we Americans are supposed to blindly follow our government down whatever dangerous path it leads us without raising the slightest inquiry or dissent? What could be more simple-minded (or un-American) than that?
posted by TBoneMcCool at 7:09 AM on August 14, 2002

The "Ashcroft: You're Next" is priceless. "Fuck with freedom and I'll fuck with you," indeed. And the smiling lady saying, "I'm making bombs to wipe out Zog!" is *perfect*.

Thanks for these, and the other link, yerfatma. Humor is such a great weapon.

Oh, and anyone who's not concerned about the executive branch power grabs currently underway in the name of the War on Some Terror doesn't understand history very well.
posted by mediareport at 7:17 AM on August 14, 2002

wow, I'm back in high school.
posted by mcsweetie at 7:20 AM on August 14, 2002

I jus want the lefties to be honest and say whether or not they will hold Hillary to the same high standard when she takes office?

I really like this poster, also.
posted by insomnyuk at 7:21 AM on August 14, 2002

hama7: Parody of military posters is fine by me, but making an extremely serious and horribly catastrophic world war

Oh don't play the idealized past card here. If you dont believe there weren't war profiteers and politicians on the make back then I really don't know what to tell you. Perhaps a war against ambigious peoples who get redefined as the political wind changes in Washington does not have that much in common with past wars. The ambigious enemy does make for a much more dangerous situation here and abroad and there's nothing wrong in voicing dissent.

You're quick to use the phrase 'leftist bullshit.' Harsh words. To me 'leftish bullshit' is truly bullshit like the ecowarriors who want to force us back into the wild naked with the animals or those who believe without a doubt that communism can scale past a couple million people. Dissent is hardly bullshit, many of the points made here are fairly common concerns here in the states.
posted by skallas at 7:22 AM on August 14, 2002

I jus want the lefties to be honest and say whether or not they will hold Hillary to the same high standard when she takes office?

Disagreement with the War Machine != support for Hillary as president, and hardly makes one a lefty, either.

Or, do all righties support The War?
posted by adampsyche at 7:25 AM on August 14, 2002

I jus want the lefties to be honest and say whether or not they will hold Hillary to the same high standard when she takes office?

I'm a "lefty", and even I don't see this happening. However I hold any public official under the same light, no one is immune. But there are degrees of incompetence.

Getting your dick sucked by an intern and then lying about it is NOT the same as selling out the pensions of hard working Americans and at the same time feeding into a global conflict against the wishes of most of the worlds population.
posted by CrazyJub at 7:29 AM on August 14, 2002

fab7: Whether or not you "feel" that you are in danger, there are countless, untold (Islamist terrorists and other) masses who would like nothing better than to kill you where you stand. Perhaps "feeling" like you are in very grave, dire danger would be closer to reality. Get them before they get us now!
posted by hama7 at 7:32 AM on August 14, 2002

I hope to all that's holy you are being facetious, or playing the devil's advocate, or any other stock phrase that means I don't have to take you seriously.
posted by Fabulon7 at 7:35 AM on August 14, 2002

Trite trite trite. I'm sorry, but are these posters what passes for scintillating political commentary these days? Bush resembles a chimp, SUVs suck up resources? It's like some college kids read their Cliff's Notes on activism, scanned a few indie news sources and fired up Photoshop. I just see nothing clever, new or especially insightful there to make me want to hang any of those posters. Mostly it just gives me the willies to think I probably share a demographic and political party with these hacks.
posted by dhoyt at 7:38 AM on August 14, 2002

Everyone should welcome one of Metafilter's newest trolls.
posted by crunchland at 7:39 AM on August 14, 2002

Get them before they get us now!

Are you serious? For the love of all that is sacred and pure...how about not pissing everyone off so much so that they don't have a reason to want to kill Americans?
posted by adampsyche at 7:40 AM on August 14, 2002

Why do I get the feeling that this conversation is going to land the bulk of us in orange jumpsuits in Guantanamo Bay?

I suspect Hama7 has already reported us to the Proper Authorities.
posted by TBoneMcCool at 7:42 AM on August 14, 2002

Or, do all righties support The War?

No. Pat Buchanan doesn't, for example. I don't know if being an anarchist leaning libertarian is "righty", but I don't support the war either.

The reason I brought up Hillary as an example is because many on the left or the right abandon their principles when they think someone who is 'on their side' is in office. It has happened to right wingers who were distrustful of the govt when Clinton was president and are now all hoo-rah for Bush. Also, I didn't see very much left wing excoriation of Clinton (except from Hitchens and some on the far left) when he was in office. Both sides play the same game, thats what I'm referring to.

Getting your dick sucked by an intern and then lying about it is NOT the same

I agree, but my problem with Clinton was on his public policy and misuse of the military, especially when he flung all of those cruise missiles at Afghanistan and the Sudan, and righteously upheld the brutal sanctions on Iraq, to name a few.
posted by insomnyuk at 7:42 AM on August 14, 2002

there are countless, untold (Islamist terrorists and other) masses who would like nothing better than to kill you where you stand.

No doubt because they've been warned about the countless, untold Americans who would like nothing better than to kill them where they stand.

Seriously. How simplistic can you get? "The bad guys are bad because, um, they hate us! So we gotta go kill them!"
posted by ook at 7:52 AM on August 14, 2002

It's a rule: when the word "bullshit" has appeared in a thread 10 times, it's time to move on.
posted by swift at 7:57 AM on August 14, 2002

I jus want the lefties to be honest and say whether or not they will hold Hillary to the same high standard when she takes office?

and

I agree, but my problem with Clinton was on his public policy and misuse of the military, especially when he flung all of those cruise missiles at Afghanistan and the Sudan, and righteously upheld the brutal sanctions on Iraq, to name a few.

If I told you that I and my lefty friends feel that the second statement is true, would that answer your first question? Many people gave Clinton a lot of crap for his policies, it just wasn't covered, and didn't draw enough attention to do anything for some reason. The WTO protests took place under Clinton's term (99). There was obviously still much discontent when a Dem was in office, and there will be again when a new Dem is in office, whenever that should be.
posted by Ufez Jones at 8:05 AM on August 14, 2002

Thanks skallas: "Dissent is hardly bullshit, many of the points made here are fairly common concerns here in the states."

Concerns and dissent are constitutionally protected, as are leftist parodies of war posters. Please do not misunderstand my criticism.

The "idealized" past is not only the past, but the actual situation that we face now. There is a war and not a "war against ambigious peoples" but (not war yet) against a very specific, terroristic, islamist people, who ..

*sorry I had to go outside to stop a man from beating his wife unconscious*

want nothing more than death to the west. This means you.
posted by hama7 at 8:05 AM on August 14, 2002

Whether or not you "feel" that you are in danger, there are countless, untold (Islamist terrorists and other) masses who would like nothing better than to kill you where you stand.

Ah, yes, time to abandon reason and cower in fear. The sky is falling!
posted by rushmc at 8:12 AM on August 14, 2002

hama7: as a libertarian, I resent your characterization of the rhetoric as "leftist."

Those are some nice posters.
posted by sonofsamiam at 8:16 AM on August 14, 2002

Oh, a National Review link. My entire philosophy and system of beliefs up until this point has been mercilessly shattered by your even-handedness and well-thought out presentation of hard, solid, and irrefutable facts.
posted by adampsyche at 8:19 AM on August 14, 2002

sonofsamiam: I meant no offense. I love libertarians. Did you mean "leftarians" by chance?
posted by hama7 at 8:21 AM on August 14, 2002

are these posters what passes for scintillating political commentary these days?

Yeah, I look to posters for "scintillating political commentary."

"Good sharp jabs" is probably a better description.
posted by mediareport at 8:29 AM on August 14, 2002

and crunchland, "Everyone should welcome one of Metafilter's newest trolls"

Do you really think so?
posted by hama7 at 8:31 AM on August 14, 2002

"propagenda" - the fusing of propaganda with a administrative political agenda. Has nothing to do with a physical threat to the country, instead is primarily used to promote and support a non-existent threat.
posted by jkaczor at 8:34 AM on August 14, 2002

Hama7's zealotry makes me laugh. Why point your finger only at Muslims, wasn't Timothy McVeigh a terrorist?
posted by disgruntled at 8:39 AM on August 14, 2002

Crunchland, on what basis do you label "hama7" a troll? He didn't start this thread, and based on my review has simply expressed his opinion, albeit strongly (as has everyone else). I suspect your definition of "troll" is "someone who insists on taking a position contrary to my own."
posted by pardonyou? at 8:43 AM on August 14, 2002

Sorry, the MP3 pirates are first priority. But when the War on Free Music is over and it is illegal for you to listen to a CD in more than one stereo without purchasing multiple licenses, the country will be in a better position to invade Iraq. Right now there are far too many IMPs (Internet Music Pirates) funding Saddam for us to possibly defeat him.

Oh, give me a home....
where the furry trolls roam...
and snicker from under the bridge!

Nice link Skallas, thanks.
posted by bargle at 8:43 AM on August 14, 2002

Also, thanks skallas.
posted by bargle at 8:49 AM on August 14, 2002

wasn't Timothy McVeigh a terrorist?

Well, that depends on who you ask.

Hama7's zealotry makes me laugh.

Laugh on then. It's no secret that the West currently faces a threat unknown until now.

Sorry that skillful leftist contemporary appropriations of war posters don't amuse me today.

Thanks skallas.
posted by hama7 at 8:58 AM on August 14, 2002

There is a war and not a "war against ambigious peoples" but (not war yet) against a very specific, terroristic, islamist people, who ..

Hang on, now I'm confused - is Saddam in Al Quaeda? Or is this a different war, or does it sort of overlap, and where does Bin Laden come into this?, or is it all Arabs, oops sorry I meant Islamists, or those with oil (surely not), or those who are undemocratic (that can't be right) or maybe this is the most incoherent, ill thought out 'war' that I've ever heard of - and there have been a few in the last few years.

It's no secret that the West currently faces a threat unknown until now.

Unknown? We made them.
posted by niceness at 8:59 AM on August 14, 2002

I love libertarians.

And they love you back. All of them.
posted by brittney at 9:03 AM on August 14, 2002

Unknown? We made them

niceness, don't insult yourself.
posted by hama7 at 9:25 AM on August 14, 2002

I'm sorry Hama7 that's way too deep for me - could you explain please?
posted by niceness at 9:28 AM on August 14, 2002

This thread has devolved into snitty one liners. Nothing to see here folks, move along...
posted by insomnyuk at 9:30 AM on August 14, 2002

Since lame, hyperventilating photoshops of war posters are now counting as insightful political commentary, I hereby post my response to this thread. There, now I feel better.
posted by jammer at 9:41 AM on August 14, 2002

personally, my favorite was this one.
posted by quonsar at 9:46 AM on August 14, 2002

Nicely photoshopped, rightist, bullshit.
posted by disgruntled at 9:49 AM on August 14, 2002

The typography was extremely poor. Surely 'Chicago' wasn't around for the first print runs?
posted by niceness at 9:50 AM on August 14, 2002

jammer: your response to this thread was something awful......ly funny.
posted by hama7 at 10:03 AM on August 14, 2002

I thought the posters were funny for awhile. Like 30 or so posters. funny in a snotty mnfsiu sort of way. But then right around the one about "america used to fight against tyranny" they started getting real depressing. So I stopped reading them... eh.

Leftist bullshit or not, our government is scaring the shit out of me..
posted by vomitous at 10:11 AM on August 14, 2002

*waits in giddy anticipation to see what hama7 links next*
posted by adampsyche at 10:19 AM on August 14, 2002

I printed out several of these and hung 3 on my cube. The Ascroft one would prob get me in trouble. I already have the printout from the citizencorp site about Operation TIPs and a salon cartoon about "Are you a real American"

Anyone know of any other propeganda poster sites? These are great
posted by Zebulun at 10:23 AM on August 14, 2002

troll, as in someone who expresses an opinion more likely to incite a riot rather than posting a serious, well-thought-out response. Note the abundant use of derogative labels and name calling, as well as the propensity to reply to every message. This indicates a desire for attention more than the desire to change minds.
posted by crunchland at 10:27 AM on August 14, 2002

This indicates a desire for attention more than the desire to change minds.

I believe that 95% of MeFi populace, according to your definition, is now considered a troll.

hama7 appears to have an incredibly unpopular opinion here. The fact that the words "lefty" and "righty" are being thrown around have everything to do with the thread's tone. The original link was to attention-getting slander, described as "thought provoking work". If anything, this thread was a troll; the contributors simply obliged with the original mudslinging.
posted by SeizeTheDay at 10:35 AM on August 14, 2002

troll, as in someone who expresses an opinion more likely to incite a riot rather than posting a serious, well-thought-out response

That is crap and you know it, crunch. You came in and called hama7 a troll just because you don't agree with his viewpoint. In effect you're saying "Don't disagree or it'll cause problems". Isn't that the opposite of the vaunted 'dissent' that you and your pals in this thread hold so dear? Or is dissent only good when it's your kind of dissent?

As for these "posters" (i.e. badly compressed Photoshop exercises), they reinforce my conviction that what passes for 'dissent' these days is all too often sophmoric, cartoonish hyperbole, with little talent in either its rhetoric or execution. I wish someone invested some real skill and devotion into today's propaganda, but, alas, cheap hackery and lightweight thinking seem to be the order of the day.
posted by evanizer at 10:46 AM on August 14, 2002

Oh look, we've turned into either DemocraticUnderground or FreeRepublic. Christ. I'm a center-leftist that thinks that 90% of these posters are off target but that doesn't mean I don't find it entertaining. You can all stop whipping 'em out now.

Even people like myself who support the War can see the truth in this.
posted by owillis at 10:51 AM on August 14, 2002

what evanizer said.
posted by sgt.serenity at 10:55 AM on August 14, 2002

troll, as in someone who expresses an opinion more likely to incite a riot rather than posting a serious, well-thought-out response. Note the abundant use of derogative labels and name calling, as well as the propensity to reply to every message.

At the time you called him a troll (7:39 a.m. MetaFilter Standard Time), hama7 had made the following 5 comments:

1. "Thanks skallas, but these posters are just leftist bullshit. Nicely photoshopped, leftist, bullshit."

2. "Thanks adampsyche, but are we playing a game here? Parody of military posters is fine by me, but making an extremely serious and horribly catastrophic world war which wrought hundreds of thousands of casualties, including my, and quite possibly your family members, ought not be trivialized by ridiculous, infantile, "Bush-is-a-chimp" style leftist rhetoric. There is a time to fight for what you believe and protect, and this parody-poster nonsense struck a nerve. Especially given what we're up against these days."

3. "Yes rebellion is exactly the same as terrorism. I rebel against marshmallows, so I will expose each and every impaled specimen to the flame torture treatment."

4. "Your country? Your family? You choose."

5. "fab7: Whether or not you "feel" that you are in danger, there are countless, untold (Islamist terrorists and other) masses who would like nothing better than to kill you where you stand. Perhaps "feeling" like you are in very grave, dire danger would be closer to reality. Get them before they get us now!"

I don't see one instance in which the post was "more likely to incite a riot rather than ... a serious, well-thought-out response" Nor do I see any examples of "derogative labels and name calling," let alone "abundant use" of same. Nice try, though.
posted by pardonyou? at 11:01 AM on August 14, 2002

I wish someone invested some real skill and devotion into today's propaganda, but, alas, cheap hackery and lightweight thinking seem to be the order of the day.

Well according to this article, evanizer, it would seem that the President and his boys are giving all you wish ... skillful and devoted propaganda, as well as cheap hackery and lightweight thinking. I think the point of the posters is, if you ain't scared yet, maybe you ought to take another look at the propoganda from those in power.
posted by Wulfgar! at 11:14 AM on August 14, 2002

People really need to spend some time reading the translated Arabic media, or talking with people who do.

Reading selective translations from MEMRI? No thanks. Talking to the proprietors of that mysterious organisation? You'd be lucky.
posted by riviera at 11:38 AM on August 14, 2002

I don't believe he was trolling and I don't have any problem with what Hamas says or how he says it - he's just fucking wrong.
posted by niceness at 11:41 AM on August 14, 2002

It's no secret that the West currently faces a threat unknown until now.

Unknown to whom? To you? And what, exactly, is the nature of this threat? Is it that much more "threatening" than any number of other "threats" that one faces in the real world?

I don't understand the fearmongering.
posted by rushmc at 11:42 AM on August 14, 2002

I understand it. I just don't buy into it.

It's like lotteries. Good for getting stupid people to give you what you're after.
posted by websavvy at 11:47 AM on August 14, 2002

That is crap and you know it, crunch. You came in and called hama7 a troll just because you don't agree with his viewpoint. In effect you're saying "Don't disagree or it'll cause problems".

Simply saying something doesn't make it so. Are you a mindreader now, that you can ascertain crunchland's motives better than he can himself? Or are you just programmed to automatically defend anyone right-of-MeFi whom you perceive to be "attacked?" I certainly welcome hama7's viewpoints and opinions, but he is responsible for the manner and tone in which he puts them forward. As are you. If one wants to be taken seriously here and have one's points considered, rather than rejected out of hand, then one shouldn't choose an overly-aggressive approach, whatever one's political affiliation, as this merely puts people off and undermines one's credibility.
posted by rushmc at 11:47 AM on August 14, 2002

It's no secret that the West currently faces a threat unknown until now.

Wrong.
posted by TBoneMcCool at 11:47 AM on August 14, 2002

I don't understand the fearmongering.

How can you not understand the idea that there are terrorist cells that want nothing more than to destroy the US and its people...but then understand that there are government officials trying to take away our civil liberties and want nothing more than to keep us in fear of said terrorists?

Duplicity? I think so.
posted by SeizeTheDay at 11:48 AM on August 14, 2002

It's like lotteries. Good for getting stupid people to give you what you're after.

Sorry, I wasn't clear enough. I understand fearmongering by the goverment et al PERFECTLY well. What I don't get is those among the citizenry who take up the cry and work to spread the terror.
posted by rushmc at 11:49 AM on August 14, 2002

but, alas, cheap hackery and lightweight thinking seem to be the order of the day.
damn evan! i KNEW we were kindred souls! but if you've felt this way about the administration all along, why didn't you just say so?!
posted by quonsar at 12:06 PM on August 14, 2002

Get them before they get us now!

I think this line, and the one where he says he had to go rescue someone from being beaten to death are the things that would bother people. I don't think he's a troll though, but my definition of troll is people who understand the community pretty well and try and mess it up by saying things they know will ruin how it functions. Having said that, I think hama7 is just unfamiliar with the more thoughtful reference-based style of metafilter. Some comment I read a while ago said something like, "if people don't agree with you on metafilter they will nit-pick every last thing, including grammar" Which, while I might exclude the grammar part, I don't think is a bad thing. It makes people's comments that are different from others more thoughtful. I would much rather read a comment about why Bush's policies are needed rather than an "attack them now" post, they are also much less easy to ignore.

Also, sure these posters are sophomoric, but I don't think people should assume that this is the height of current anti-war propaganda. It is a photoshop joke being hosted on some guy's idisk.
posted by rhyax at 12:14 PM on August 14, 2002

Weren't the original posters that are being parodied pretty much "cheap hackery and lightweight thinking"? How many people were intellectually and rationally influenced into the war cause by a picture of a sad looking puppy?
posted by Doug at 1:05 PM on August 14, 2002

I absolutely hate your poster jammer. Whatever it was that prompted you to spit out a quick poster that reads "Shut the Fuck Up Liberal Pussies" exactingly underscored the point of "the posters" in Skallas' original link. It is that very "Shutting the Fuck Up" which I, a liberal pussy, will not do. What are you going to do now? Kill me?
posted by crasspastor at 1:11 PM on August 14, 2002

crasspastor: don't be such a pussy! Actually, jammer linked to a poster on one of Something Awful's photoshop phridays, so it may in fact, be sarcasm.
posted by insomnyuk at 1:34 PM on August 14, 2002

If anyone should be able to see the humor in the poster owillis posted, I'd think it'd be hama7. And who can't relate to this one?

The enemy for MeFi'ers, it seems to me, is always going to be lies, intolerance of dissent and fear-mongering. It couldn't be more obvious that both right- and left-wing elements are willing to engage in both when it comes to the War on Some Terror.

hama7: Drop the angry schtick, ignore the morons who use terms like "pussies" to describe opponents, and engage debate foes as intelligent people. As MeFi strategies go, I've found that one is easy and works best. Really. Oh, and the site's been MeFi'd.
posted by mediareport at 1:42 PM on August 14, 2002

crasspastor: What are you going to do now? Kill me?

No, I'm going to laugh my ass off at you. Like I said, I was countering one fanatical polemic with another. Neither should be taken seriously. The fact that you seem to take both seriously would tend to illustrate that perhaps you have too much invested in being a "Liberal Pussy", and too much interest in automatically hating those who dissent from your precious dissent.

insomnyuk: so it may in fact, be sarcasm

It was intended as sarcasm only to the degree that, despite the slanders laid on "warmongers", I wouldn't actually seriously call a liberal pussy a "Liberal Pussy", and instruct him to STFU.

It is a sentiment that I feel, to a less feriocous extent, though. I was mostly responding to the fact that low-quality amatuerish photochops with the usual fanatacal left-wing POV were being referred to seriously as "thought provoking".
posted by jammer at 1:50 PM on August 14, 2002

Ohhhh ahhhhh. I feel so much better now. Being laughed at and all.

What's not to be taken seriously? Who's to say I didn't find some, if not quite a few of the original posters shrill? I merely responded to what I thought was a comedic thud (as it's been brought to my attention that the original was from Something Awful). Consider then, for a moment there at least, your point not gotten. My fault.

The fact that you seem to take both seriously would tend to illustrate that perhaps you have too much invested in being a "Liberal Pussy", and too much interest in automatically hating those who dissent from your precious dissent.

Don't impute how you want me to be defined as evidence that my point is somehow, also shrill. I merely stated that I hated that particular poster. Meaning, sarcasm aside, it engenders (the STFU poster) the exact case in point of this thread's original intent. Not knowing, by way of your tone and a quick read of some of your recent comments jammer, that you were exacting some form of sarcasm, I took exception to the poster you linked to.

Then you say, you're laughing your ass off at me. Laugh at me. Kill me. Whatever. It's all the same.
posted by crasspastor at 2:10 PM on August 14, 2002

insomnyuk: good eye. but hey, not everyone reads something awful, and jammer's post seemed to imply it was his work: "Since lame, hyperventilating photoshops of war posters are now counting as insightful political commentary, I hereby post my response to this thread." and that's exactly the way i took it. i know i was friggin jealous of photoshop skillz such that he could have whipped it out so fast, and i was actually looking closely at it for flaws. :-)
posted by quonsar at 2:22 PM on August 14, 2002

Late to the party, flamewar erupted all over, link has been mefi'd. Sigh.
posted by PrinceValium at 2:31 PM on August 14, 2002

So, jammer, are you not concerned at all about a government that has now decided it can detain U.S. citizens without trial, indefinitely, without offering a single bit of evidence to the judicial system, let alone the public?
posted by mediareport at 2:31 PM on August 14, 2002

the site's been MeFi'd.

homepage.mac.com are the public apple servers, i can still get the main page for his site, but no picures, maybe he took them down?
posted by rhyax at 2:36 PM on August 14, 2002

I was mostly responding to the fact that low-quality amatuerish photochops with the usual fanatacal left-wing POV were being referred to seriously as "thought provoking".


Hmmm. I see, a complete and admitedly ignorant dismissal. No thought required because its the usual fanatical left-wing POV. A few queries, however: What is the "usual...left-wing POV"? What makes it fanatacal? Why should it be dismissed as un-serious (frivolous) if one has categorized it with out thinking about it, (after all, the posters certainly weren't thought provoking, right)? What exactly is wrong with thinking that the "freedom" loving Republican Bushocrats want you to shut the fuck and follow, and you're blindly pushing the message right along? I agree with owillis, that some of these posters are off-target, but the sad dismissal of the intent behind their presentation is convincing me that they are more necessary than ever. Please feel free to report me to Ashcroft now.

And, as an aside, exactly what the fuck is amatuerish about them exept your wish that they be dismissed?
posted by Wulfgar! at 2:47 PM on August 14, 2002

Call me simple, but I thought some of them were pretty funny and I certainly didn't think I was supposed to take them seriously. Was I supposed to?

I've always been interested in propaganda "art", the ability to incite such strong feelings with simple yet intense statements and this style of painting is fascinating. Check out this book, it's about the real thing.
posted by Woolcott'sKindredGal at 3:02 PM on August 14, 2002

Oh crap, I can't make my link work! If I can't make it work this time blame it on my newness.

http://www.papress.com/books/1568981406.html
posted by Woolcott'sKindredGal at 3:06 PM on August 14, 2002

quonsar: yeah, you're right.

I just spend too much time at Something Awful browsing their hilarious photoshop phriday posts. I spend too much time on the net. I could see how crasspastor could take offense to it, but in light of the context of all the other inflammatory posters, it ought to be taken with a heavy grain of salt.
posted by insomnyuk at 3:06 PM on August 14, 2002

It's a rule: when the word "bullshit" has appeared in a thread 16 times, it's time to get out the noseplugs.
posted by swift at 3:10 PM on August 14, 2002

mediareport: So, jammer, are you not concerned at all about a government that has now decided it can detain U.S. citizens without trial, indefinitely, without offering a single bit of evidence to the judicial system, let alone the public?

Wulfgar: Please feel free to report me to Ashcroft now.

See, both of you are demonstrating exactly the point I'm trying to make. I do not like Bush. I hate the way that Ashcroft has been pissing on the Consitution. I even signed up for the TIPS program with a snarky message in the Occupation field just to make my own needle in a haystack point about the NeoStazi. And yet, I am in favor of an attack on Iraq or on any other country that threatens our safety. I despise the "we need to sit here and take it without dishing any back out" attitude. I also resent the fact that because I am not anti-war, suddenly I'm in favor of fighting Iraq just to get Bush re-elected, and other similar typical slanders.

And, Wulfgar, that was my opposition to the posters. As a free thinking, pro-choice, pro-civil-rights, anti-gun-control, anti-taxation, libertarian, especially one who is pro-war, in this case, I get marginalized, and unthinkingly bunched in with those whom I disagree with on many issues. The left think I'm a Conservative asshole, the right think I'm a Liberal pussy, the peacenik Libertarians think I'm an authoritarian jerk... all because they disagree with a portion of my position on issues. Another rehashing of "Bush is a chimp", "The war will be faught to keep Republican control" type messages does nothing to dispel that marginilization, and is exactly the kind of unthinking, hackneyed excuse for "dissent" that I resent. And now that you're faced with similar, in the guise of being called a "Liberal Pussy" for being opposed to war, it doesn't feel so smug and amusing any more, does it?

And I will not argue that the presentation of some of this was far from amateurish -- its very well done. The thought processes that went into them, on the other hand, is the usual left-wing chracter assaults and false assumptions. The merit or lack thereof of this has already been discussed on this thread.
posted by jammer at 3:11 PM on August 14, 2002

jammer: I am in favor of an attack on Iraq or on any other country that threatens our safety.

Wake up, jammer. Iraq "threatens our safety" far less than 1) the growing link between Al Qaeda and Palestinian terror groups, coupled with 2) the U.S. government's continued massive military support for Ariel Sharon's government, in the context of 3) the U.S. government's continued unwillingness to pressure Israeli officials in any meaningful way to stop stealing Palestinian land.

Saddam Hussein is a distraction. Saddam Hussein is a distraction. Saddam Hussein is a distraction. Saddam Hussein is a distraction.

In case you still don't get it, Saddam Hussein is a distraction -- one that provides clear and obvious domestic political benefits. Pressuring Ariel Sharon to stop stealing Palestinian land offers nothing but domestic political problems (read: AIPAC).
posted by mediareport at 3:28 PM on August 14, 2002

Yes, mediareport. I know full well from your previous tiring posts on here that Israel, and US complicity with their actions, is the cause of all the evil in this world. I dismiss that. It has been argued to death on this site and others, and there's nothing more to be gained from debating it here, since your opinions seem to be set in stone (as mine, admittedly, probably are as well).

Nice way of deflecting attention from the fact that your initial assumption about my attitudes re our government's mis-actions was completely wrong, though. See how misleading that unthinking propaganda can be?
posted by jammer at 3:38 PM on August 14, 2002

As a free thinking, pro-choice, pro-civil-rights, anti-gun-control, anti-taxation, libertarian, especially one who is pro-war, in this case, I get marginalized, and unthinkingly bunched in with those whom I disagree with on many issues. The left think I'm a Conservative asshole, the right think I'm a Liberal pussy, the peacenik Libertarians think I'm an authoritarian jerk... all because they disagree with a portion of my position on issues.

We share more than you might think. As I'm sure that owillis will testify, being near the center sucks. If you review, you'll find that I'm the guy who pissed off just about everybody here because I believe that Americans should have the right to fly whatever flag they wish in our country, regardless of the fragile feelings of other nations. How conservative and jingoist of me.

And now that you're faced with similar, in the guise of being called a "Liberal Pussy" for being opposed to war, it doesn't feel so smug and amusing any more, does it?

You see, here's the problem. Nobody called me a "Liberal pussy", and I wouldn't give a salient crap if they did. It's that "Shut up" part that's dangerous. Since this entire thread is about propaganda, its uses and abuses, I again invite you to read this. I'm disheartened, though not surprised, that few seem willing to deal with the idea that this is a competive struggle between ideologies. The left wing character assaults, as you call them, might well be based on actual facts of the Bushites behavior. If you wish to call the manipulations of Ashcroft's/Ridge's/Cheney's/Bush's/Rumsfeld's will to power "assumptions" (and false at that) please do so; but there will be those who understand that what they are doing is dangerous and borderline criminal (sometimes crossing the border {illegal search and seizure, unlawful detention, a war with no congressional declaration and no remaining focus}).

This is the logic, plain and simple. Authority (absolute for the best) is the enemy of "terra". Free rights (those guaranteed by the Bill of Rights) are the enemy of authority. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. Hence, free rights are the friend of "terra-ism". If you don't think the Bushites are operating under that logic, you'd best take a look at what it is they're doing; not what a bunch of "left-wing fanatical" propaganda may offend you with.
posted by Wulfgar! at 3:44 PM on August 14, 2002

I know full well from your previous tiring posts on here that Israel, and US complicity with their actions, is the cause of all the evil in this world.

Oh well. I tried.

Fuck off, jammer.
posted by mediareport at 3:59 PM on August 14, 2002

Shit. Shit. Shit. Shit.

That was a venting move. I do that, then hit Preview, then delete it, write what I should have written, and hit "Post." Except when I've had a couple of beers to get ready for the evening and hit "Post" by mistake. Jammer, I apologize. You raised some interesting points about being, um, typecast or something. Nothing you said deserves the "fuck off"-style comment.

That said, I resent your framing of my position. It's deliberately misleading and a blatant exaggeration.
posted by mediareport at 4:04 PM on August 14, 2002

mediareport, you are my new hero. Medal of Valor coming your way (don't hold your breath; my throwing arm isn't what it used to be).
posted by Wulfgar! at 4:13 PM on August 14, 2002

Wulfgar: Yes, I can see that illusion, and I do fear some of what the Bushites pursue, greatly. I also have some grave concerns about our future national security as long as we continue to turn the other cheek to those who would harm us. Both of these issues show danger to the country, and the ideals, I love. Perhaps I over-react to "liberal propaganda" (and, FWIW, I do agree with some of the posters on that site arguing against the hush-hush attitude and violations of basic civil rights) -- I don't know. I just get tired of the same monotonous, blanket assaults from one side and the other, and its hard to fight them both when you agree with half of each. If you know what its like to be a centrist (is that what I am?), you'll know what I mean.

On preview:

I had some choice comments for you, mediareport, but I see that you slipped up with your "Fuck off" comment, so I'll retract them. As for the framing of your position, I apologize for the blatant overstatement of your beliefs. I whole-heartedly disagree with them, but I was a bit scathing. Tends to happen when that's what happens to you; funny how we reflect behavior that way, isn't it? (Absolutely no snark intended in that)
posted by jammer at 4:19 PM on August 14, 2002

(That and "Wake up, so-and-so" isn't exactly the best way to win people to your side in an already heated debate. I'm probably guilty of the same thing.)
posted by jammer at 4:21 PM on August 14, 2002

now shake hands, good fight.

sorry, couldn't resist
posted by rhyax at 4:59 PM on August 14, 2002

Pressuring Ariel Sharon to stop stealing Palestinian land offers nothing but domestic political problems

Oh lets be fair here, Arafat got his training from ex-Nazi commandos, there is good and bad on both sides.
posted by insomnyuk at 5:54 PM on August 14, 2002

im actually frightened to post my real opinion here

for fear of being labelled a troll or whatever ,

bear in mind that i have been lurking here for some considerable time and i have the distinct impression that
older members are just sitting there waiting for us newbies to say the wrong thing and then we get our asses stomped on which kinda leaves me with little to say other than to retreat into nonsense as a defense mechanism,
i remember one of the interminable i/p threads where everyone was disagreeing with parisparamus and basically demanding that he be taken off metafilter .

i mean , the guy worked a block from the wtc when it happened he's only working through his stuff....

and then theres another thread somewhere on metatalk with people discussing how they are going to control the newbies.......which makes me feel uncomfortable .

maybe i havent been looking hard enough , but i dont know if i really see any posters changing their opinion on any kind of issue , i merely see people reinforcing their own ideas.

which i guess propoganda is all about.

propoganda is all about keeping new ideas at bay.

people dont like new ideas or anything new at all , i know i dont.

it seems to me that the us cant let go of the old idea of this giant outside enemy that disappeared when the ussr collapsed.

what it will do and is already doing , is engaging in the process of creating a new one .

secretly the left are delighted by this as it gives them something to fight too.

what would happen if there was nothing left to fight?
posted by sgt.serenity at 6:26 PM on August 14, 2002

i have the distinct impression that older members are just sitting there waiting for us newbies to say the wrong thing and then we get our asses stomped on which kinda leaves me with little to say other than to retreat into nonsense as a defense mechanism

Fear not! We won't stomp on your ass because you are a newbie. We will stomp on your ass simply because you are here. We stomp on everyone's asses. We don't discriminate. We will shove your words back in your throat regardless of your user number. It doesn't matter if you are a newbie. We still hate you and everything you stand for, especially (but not necessarily) if you disagree with us.

Everything you say is bullshit. Everything you think is crap. And it doesn't matter what you have to say because we've heard it all before, and besides, we already made up our minds before we heard it then. So don't even bother.

Don't be ashamed of your high user number. It just means that you haven't become completely addicted to this place yet, and there's still time for you to git while the gittins good. The rest of us are doomed. Flee while you may.

Metafilter: it's open season on everyone!
posted by crunchland at 7:37 PM on August 14, 2002

"There is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about at all." - Oscar Wilde
posted by semmi at 9:28 PM on August 14, 2002

Pressuring Ariel Sharon to stop stealing Palestinian land offers nothing but domestic political problems

Oh lets be fair here, Arafat got his training from ex-Nazi commandos, there is good and bad on both sides.

Was there something about the words "Palestinian terror groups" that you overlooked in my post? There are two arrows driving this cycle of violence; that's obvious. The problem is those who only see one.
posted by mediareport at 10:24 AM on August 15, 2002

Old Thread Post-O-Rama:

The creator of these poster remixes is Micah Wright. He's got a new comic book out now called Stormwatch: Team Achilles. Pretty good 'mature audience' military fiction, for those that are interested...
posted by El_Gray at 9:08 PM on September 11, 2002