Mallard Fillmore, that’s who.
Well, I should say, actually: Who loves to attribute the ad baculum?Â This seems a very strange sort piece of communication, one that were it actually true or believed to be true, wouldn’t actually be performed in this fashion.Â That is, if Bruce TinsleyÂ really believed that the President would bomb him for opposing his agenda or other democrats or for thinking that Nancy Pelosi isn’t attractive (WHUH?), he’d order a drone strike.Â Or would be willing to threaten one… would Tinsley write a version of this cartoon?Â Surely not.Â So what’s this cartoon actually communicating?
6 thoughts on “Who loves the ad baculum?”
Colbert does a bit in this same vein where he fawningly supplicates himself to the government in response to an imaginary drone spying on him. Colbert is simply funnier about it.
Hey Jem, I think I’ve seen the Colbert bit on the drones changing his mind. Sure, it’s funny, but because he (as I take it) is just being absurd. Fillmore isn’t funny, and I think its because he’s not intentionally speaking nonsense.
Good point. I think that’s why Colbert is sometimes mistakenly appreciated by some Right-wingers — they don’t get that the joke is on them.
Hey Jem. That’s right. I’ve got a publication on this issue of indirect communication and Poe’s Law. Here’s a link:
Oy. I can’t make my tags work. Here’s the URL:
The message I drew from the cartoon is that you may need to use a few hellfire missiles to puncture the proverbial balloon in which certain people reside, happily insulated from the facts – and even that may not be enough. That’s not what the author intended?
Comments are closed.