« It's Not About Lieberman | Main | Video of the Day »
July 21, 2006
Not Safe For Work Post
Chris Muir's response to Andrew Sullivan not only proffers up some homophobia of the most banal kind, but seems determined to paint an odd picture of heterosexuality as well. So far as I can tell, semi-hot girl and arty looking guy just finished coitus. And while dude is on his feet, girl is on her knees, apparently wiping something off her face with a towel. Is it any wonder Andy wants no part in this?
July 21, 2006 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c572d53ef00d834d9097669e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Not Safe For Work Post:
Comments
Errrr..... I'm confused. I'd never heard of this Muir guy before the weird 'Kantian nihilism' business. I don't read newspapers any more, so I wonder -- where is Muir published?
Posted by: sglover | Jul 21, 2006 3:17:02 PM
He signed an exclusive 4-year, 6 garbage-bags-full-of-popcorn deal with Pajamas Media, I think.
Posted by: norbizness | Jul 21, 2006 3:22:15 PM
It looks to me like they're at a beach, but... yeah, yikes.
Posted by: Brad Plumer | Jul 21, 2006 3:39:02 PM
Yeah, I think it's a beach scene, not a post-coitus scene. Still...
I seem to recall the early Day to Days weren't so much in the Hugh Hewitt school of in-your-face rightwingery as they are now, but were more like a libertarian take on everyday yuppie life -- the point being I guess that 20- and 30-something urban American life wasn't as pigeon-holed liberal as the entertainment industry portrayed it in sitcoms and movies and things.
Muir's cartoons weren't funny back then either but, like early Instapundit posts, they didn't read like a cog in the rightwing machine, taking shots as Andrew Sullivan and the New York Times for hating America. But everything gets dragged into the machine eventually.
Posted by: Laura | Jul 21, 2006 3:50:51 PM
Muir's cartoons weren't funny back then either but, like early Instapundit posts, they didn't read like a cog in the rightwing machine, taking shots as Andrew Sullivan and the New York Times for hating America. But everything gets dragged into the machine eventually.
Maybe an amusing and instructive exercise would be taking Muir's work, and putting it side by side with comics from the old Soviet magazine 'Krokodil'.
Posted by: sglover | Jul 21, 2006 4:03:30 PM
Ezra:
The couple in this Day to Day strip are indeed at the beach: and a marvelously thorough takedown of Chris Muir's simplistic philosophical misconceptions can be found here .
Posted by: Jay C | Jul 21, 2006 4:23:30 PM
I gotta tell you, whatever the setting, when a comic strip is about backdoor penetration and its shows a shirtless guy buckling his pants while a girl wipes down her face while on her knees, I'm not exactly predisposed to the charitable interpretation.
Posted by: Ezra | Jul 21, 2006 4:35:38 PM
Amanda at Pandagon has a regular feature where readers are asked to help Muir find teh funny. Don't know if she'll touch this one, though.
If it's a beach scene, where's the, um, beach? I don't disagree with the alleged setting, but the art leaves a lot of work for the reader. And the bolding of posteriori was teh subtle, wasn't it?
Posted by: paul | Jul 21, 2006 4:42:10 PM
How is this homophobic? I don't get. . .it. . .wait a minute. . .
Ooooohhhhhh! Posterior-i!!!
HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
Whew! That is really clever. Wow. I hope he gets paid for work like that, because that's a good use of money, right there, that is.
Posted by: Stephen | Jul 21, 2006 7:27:46 PM
Now that everyone's explained it, I can see -- the flat beige strip is sand, and the thin, flat blue strip above it is water. Wow.
You gotta wonder what makes someone who can't draw and isn't funny think, "Hey! I should be a cartoonist!"
Posted by: Swopa | Jul 21, 2006 9:26:50 PM
I'll admit to having made up my own share of "a posteriori" jokes. Like, "Philosophers of science do it a posteriori." But there's no justification for saying "a a posteriori" like Muir does. It's an adjective, meaning "able to be learned from experience" and it shouldn't be introduced by an article. It'd be like saying "This is a tasty."
Posted by: Neil the Ethical Werewolf | Jul 21, 2006 11:35:17 PM
Amanda at Pandagon has a regular feature where readers are asked to help Muir find teh funny.
Yeah, but Muir is actually published and isn't some unknown blogger.
She hates him, criticizes his work regularly and gets her blog regulars to do the same and Muir is unaware of her existence. I think it works out perfectly for both of them, don't you?
Posted by: Fred Jones | Jul 22, 2006 12:23:17 PM
fred,
yes, because we know if someone is published that means they got talent. my venue is film, and I can tell you that every film that is shown by hollywood is a masterpiece. I imagine comic strips are the same way.
Posted by: akaison | Jul 22, 2006 2:08:08 PM
She hates him
The verb you're looking for is 'scorn.' And she's not the only one.
Posted by: Karl the Grouchy Medievalist | Jul 22, 2006 3:17:35 PM
Well, Karl, *somebody* (and probably a many) likes him as they buy his stuff and pay him money. Pandagon, on the other hand, is simply a rant board for lesbian homos and women who feel they are the eternal victims.
I really don't want to get into a disussion of Pandagon here. Ezra thinks criticizing Amanda or any of her partners in crime is somehow off limits. She is a protected group of her own and as such, enjoys protected status here on his board. suffice it to say that everyone who goes there understands what Pandagon is all about.
Posted by: Fred Jones | Jul 22, 2006 4:20:45 PM
Copy and paste the graphic. Please, whatever you do, do NOT send traffic to Muir's purile, sophomoric, and desperately unfunny "comic."
Posted by: Jimmmmm | Jul 22, 2006 7:16:10 PM
Wow! 8.5 million hits and counting!
Posted by: Fred Jones | Jul 22, 2006 7:43:59 PM
Fred, "Day by Day" is to the contemporary right blogosphere what political operas were to China under Mao -- people convinced themselves they liked those operas because it made them feel solidarity with what they believed was a Great Cause.
Posted by: Steve M. | Jul 22, 2006 11:14:09 PM
Yeah, but Muir is actually published
By the Hemingford [Nebraska] Ledger, no less.
Posted by: Hamilton Lovecraft | Jul 22, 2006 11:52:51 PM
OMG Chris Muir doesn't even know who Amanda Marcotte is? Burn.
An especially biting insult for a feminist, since everything they do is for male approval and praise.
Muir probably imagines he's created some sort of libertarian Seinfeld (only in comic strip form!!) but really it just isn't funny.
Posted by: ellenbrenna | Jul 23, 2006 1:32:47 AM
The telling difference:
Pandagon is re-publishing his stuff, he is not re-publishing theirs. ellenbrenna probably imagines she's created some sort of liberal Seinfeld.
Posted by: Fred Jones. | Jul 23, 2006 2:24:34 PM
Pandagon, on the other hand, is simply a rant board for lesbian homos and women who feel they are the eternal victims.
I really don't want to get into a disussion of Pandagon here.
In other words, you hate it when they shoot back after you open fire. I know just how you feel.
Posted by: Hogan | Jul 24, 2006 5:06:53 PM
Responding to Pandagon on these issues is like arguing with a street person why they shouldn't get a free handout.
First, their position is self-serving and secondly, they have no power to affect anything.
Posted by: Fred Jones | Jul 25, 2006 8:32:40 AM
Responding to Pandagon on these issues is like arguing with a street person why they shouldn't get a free handout.
Let's try it:
"Fred, you shouldn't get a free handout."
On reflection: no, it's not.
Posted by: ahem | Jul 25, 2006 9:33:43 AM
Pandagon is re-publishing his stuff, he is not re-publishing theirs.
His stuff is getting re-published for the express purpose of mockery. Why would Muir re-publish parodies of himself?
Fred could have his own comic but unfortunately "non-sequitor" is already taken.
Posted by: ellenbrenna | Jul 31, 2006 7:43:04 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.
