Remove this ad

#21 [url]

Feb 17 16 10:02 AM

Horerczy wrote:
Looks like majority says to keep it up. Because Murica.

That is the laziest response ever.

You don't have to lose the article; you could add on to it that Latuff's work has slightly changed with the times (actually there was a period when he stopped doing art at all.)

It is a Wiki after all; those are updated to match the facts.

Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad

#22 [url]

Feb 17 16 10:42 AM

fallinq wrote:

Peter Smith wrote:
I think there are a number of things wrong with that article, so I will address them in list form.

1) The reviewer is too close to the subject. There needed to be another reviewer alongside Oddguy; on the basis of having been treated badly by Latuff online, an editor at a publication would have said no if Oddguy asked to review the Brazilian.

Reviewers have other site members look over their reviews before they post them. I'm assuming Oddguy did for the Latuff review as well before getting the go ahead, so there was input from other people. Also, editors don't publish works that have personal bias? Are you kidding? They do it all the time! When they're honest about it, they call them "editorials." And Oddguy fully disclosed his interractions with Latuff, so it's not like he's being sneaky and trying to trick people here.
2) The cartoons are harsh, but they're not propaganda. Look at Thomas Nast's cartoons from the 19th century, especially his "The Chicago Platform" (1864) - this is black comedy at it's bleakest.

image

Um... it's propaganda. Just because you don't like the connotation of the word and don't like it applied to Latuff's work, doesn't mean the definition doesn't fit.

And are you really implying that the picture you posted above and compared to Latuff's work is NOT political propaganda just because it's old? And even then, there's an important distinction. This piece mostly presents events that actually happened, although it selects and presents them in a way to convince people to a certain viewpoint. Latuff's work is full of completely fictional scenarios, such as Netanyahu masturbating to images of dead Lebanese people, and an insurgent in Iraq going Rambo on US soldiers. As political critiques, the two aren't the same at all.

As for your second post, "Other people do it too!" is not a valid excuse.

The only thing that seems valid here is that the review could possibly be updated with the Turkey stuff, to show that Latuff has at least made an attempt to be consistent about his beliefs.

Latuff's work wold be considered propaganda if he was paid by Hamas, but Latuff (as far as I know) is a freelancer. Calling Latuff propaganda is like calling Ted Rall a propagadist. Maybe that flies on Fox News, but not in the real world.

I guess I should have used an easier example than the Nast cartoon.

The right-wing Israeli cartoon was posted as an an example, not an excuse; Oddguy makes the implicit claim that the Israelis are better than Lautff, I showed a counterexample.

This isn't a case like Billy the Heretic or that creep "A. Wyatt Mann" where the artist hasn't drawn a new cartoon in years and I'm asking you to look at the art again for a "deeper meaning"; by not updating your Wiki article despite the fact that Latuff has changed targets signals that you really don't care about accuracy. If he was run over by a Rio bus tomorrow, you would have to update the article.
 

Quote    Reply   
avatar

fallinq

Heavy User

Posts: 292

#23 [url]

Feb 17 16 11:21 AM


Latuff's work wold be considered propaganda if he was paid by Hamas, but Latuff (as far as I know) is a freelancer. Calling Latuff propaganda is like calling Ted Rall a propagadist. Maybe that flies on Fox News, but not in the real world.

I linked you to a definition of the word "propaganda" because you don't seem to know what it means. Clearly you didn't read it. What makes something propaganda has nothing to do with whether it's officially funded by some larger organization. 
I guess I should have used an easier example than the Nast cartoon.

Easier? Easier to prove what, exactly?
 
The right-wing Israeli cartoon was posted as an an example, not an excuse; Oddguy makes the implicit claim that the Israelis are better than Lautff, I showed a counterexample.

The Israeli cartoon was a tacky racist joke, it didn't paint Obama as a perverted murderer who gets off on the death of innocent civilians. Which is worse is entirely subjective and your opinion means no more than Oddguy's.

 
This isn't a case like Billy the Heretic or that creep "A. Wyatt Mann" where the artist hasn't drawn a new cartoon in years and I'm asking you to look at the art again for a "deeper meaning"; by not updating your Wiki article despite the fact that Latuff has changed targets signals that you really don't care about accuracy. If he was run over by a Rio bus tomorrow, you would have to update the article.
 

Now you're putting words in people's mouths and assuming ill intent based on scenarios that exist only in your head. This is especially hilarious since your directing these comments to ME, the one who said that yes, perhaps the review could use an update! We get it. You like Latuff. You're not helping your case. At all.

Quote    Reply   

#24 [url]

Feb 17 16 11:42 AM

fallinq wrote:
 
This isn't a case like Billy the Heretic or that creep "A. Wyatt Mann" where the artist hasn't drawn a new cartoon in years and I'm asking you to look at the art again for a "deeper meaning"; by not updating your Wiki article despite the fact that Latuff has changed targets signals that you really don't care about accuracy. If he was run over by a Rio bus tomorrow, you would have to update the article.
 

Now you're putting words in people's mouths and assuming ill intent based on scenarios that exist only in your head. This is especially hilarious since your directing these comments to ME, the one who said that yes, perhaps the review could use an update! We get it. You like Latuff. You're not helping your case. At all.

Actually I look at his cartoons only occasionally. If I was a screaming fanboi there would be a lot more references to the Syrian Civil War and the dastardly Israelis.

What I find hilarious is that I posted two comments laying out a case, and almost immediatly I get responses defending an ariticle that has been online for more than seven years.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

Bertbutt

Heavy User

Posts: 214

#25 [url]

Feb 17 16 2:05 PM

I've yet to read anything that clarifies what we would actually do with the review, should anyone actually come out on top in this argument of semantics and dick measuring. 

The review seems to be dated in the subject matter it adresses, but a quick google search reveals that Carlos hasn't gotten any more subtle or established a better understanding of political nuance. So it is still acurate in what kind of experience to expect while reading his comics.

My vote's in the 'meh' corner. Since OP indicated that the comic "seemed to have slipped out into the vast junk drawer that is the Internet uncontested or remarked on," it is fairly odd that they care about the review enough to insist it be???? What did you even want us to do with this review again?
 

Quote    Reply   
avatar

Shan

Living Spambot

Posts: 1,966

#26 [url]

Feb 17 16 3:01 PM

Bertbutt wrote:
I've yet to read anything that clarifies what we would actually do with the review, should anyone actually come out on top in this argument of semantics and dick measuring. 

The review seems to be dated in the subject matter it adresses, but a quick google search reveals that Carlos hasn't gotten any more subtle or established a better understanding of political nuance. So it is still acurate in what kind of experience to expect while reading his comics.

My vote's in the 'meh' corner. Since OP indicated that the comic "seemed to have slipped out into the vast junk drawer that is the Internet uncontested or remarked on," it is fairly odd that they care about the review enough to insist it be???? What did you even want us to do with this review again?

 

Well, if you think it's a tie, then the current default is to leave the review as it is.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

Shan

Living Spambot

Posts: 1,966

#27 [url]

Feb 17 16 3:07 PM

Peter Smith wrote:

fallinq wrote:
 
This isn't a case like Billy the Heretic or that creep "A. Wyatt Mann" where the artist hasn't drawn a new cartoon in years and I'm asking you to look at the art again for a "deeper meaning"; by not updating your Wiki article despite the fact that Latuff has changed targets signals that you really don't care about accuracy. If he was run over by a Rio bus tomorrow, you would have to update the article.
 

Now you're putting words in people's mouths and assuming ill intent based on scenarios that exist only in your head. This is especially hilarious since your directing these comments to ME, the one who said that yes, perhaps the review could use an update! We get it. You like Latuff. You're not helping your case. At all.

Actually I look at his cartoons only occasionally. If I was a screaming fanboi there would be a lot more references to the Syrian Civil War and the dastardly Israelis.

What I find hilarious is that I posted two comments laying out a case, and almost immediatly I get responses defending an ariticle that has been online for more than seven years.

OK, so once again, write your counter argument as a new section (call it 2016 Update or something like that) and post it here and we'll look at it. If there's a majority opinion for inclusion, then it will be added. As I said, the 7 years old review is a snapshot of how things were as per the opinion of the writer so unless there's a really compelling argument I can't see it being deleted any more than print publications would go back and purge their paper archives. Nature of a continually updated Wiki noted but also, as a Wiki, a majority consensus has to come out of a group discussion to radically change and/or delete something. You still haven't got that yet, maybe at least start with a counter argument additional paragraph about what's happened since the review has been written for starters plus maybe your interpretation of what oddguy covered?

Quote    Reply   
avatar

Long Tom

Living Spambot

Posts: 1,101

#28 [url]

Feb 17 16 3:23 PM

I've said on other threads that reviews don't need to be updated unless there are compelling reasons for doing so.  Art may change drastically, the webcomic may have changed its tone or purpose, and so forth.

Unless Carlos Latuff's cartoons are definitely different in tone from the time the review was written, I see no purpose in any update.  If he has become pro-Israel, for instance, that would be different.  But I get the impression that Latuff's political views are much the same as before.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

Shan

Living Spambot

Posts: 1,966

#29 [url]

Feb 17 16 4:07 PM

Long Tom wrote:
I've said on other threads that reviews don't need to be updated unless there are compelling reasons for doing so.  Art may change drastically, the webcomic may have changed its tone or purpose, and so forth.

Unless Carlos Latuff's cartoons are definitely different in tone from the time the review was written, I see no purpose in any update.  If he has become pro-Israel, for instance, that would be different.  But I get the impression that Latuff's political views are much the same as before.

Well, that's the line of argument I'm going with. He needs to compel us with something by stating a reason why the review should be modified and give good enough reasons.

Not seeing it yet.

Quote    Reply   

#30 [url]

Feb 18 16 12:36 AM

Peter Smith wrote:
Horerczy wrote:
Looks like majority says to keep it up. Because Murica.

That is the laziest response ever.

You don't have to lose the article; you could add on to it that Latuff's work has slightly changed with the times (actually there was a period when he stopped doing art at all.)

It is a Wiki after all; those are updated to match the facts.



Majority says we ain't doing shit to it. Your arguments fail to sway us. Either come up with better ones or accept our answer.

I don't need a long post with big words or small difficult words to point that out.

Because Murica.

_____________________________________________________________________

People have a common defense mechanism they employ to defend themselves from the threat of contrary viewpoints. This shield they wield is the act of dismissing such contrary viewpoints by arbitrarily undermining their validity.

Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad
avatar

oddguy

Living Spambot

Posts: 631

#31 [url]

Feb 18 16 1:38 PM

I wrote the review so here is my response to this thread:

1. In regards to me being too close to the subject matter - When I'm not here I spend my time on the Encyclopedia Dramatica forums where I get called a kike 5 times a day and befriend literal neo nazis and islamists who want me dead. I do this willingly and with great joy. These things don't phase me. I looked up Israel on DA, found this guy's cartoons and thought they were comically exaggerated. Later I discovered that he already has some online notoriety and decided to write a review. Any attempt to paint my anecdote about my one and only interaction with the man as some proof of a long standing grudge is patently false. If you view this article as the result of some personal bias I believe you are seeing things that simply aren't there.

2. You have a very narrow definition of the word propaganda. If it's so unacceptable in your eyes for me to use the term in any but one precise interpretation, imagine I'm using hyperbole or employing some creative licence. There is no need to be so literal minded and nit-pick about flamboyant language in the name of entertainment not being 100% accurate.

3. It is true the review, like many of our reviews, is dated. That is because, even though we call ourselves The Bad Webcomics Wiki, we are mostly a comedy review site. This is a wiki mostly in the sense that it acts as a list and that anyone can edit it. But in most respects it is a wiki in name only. If you feel the need to update the review, I welcome you to do it. Though I have never seen a point in it, I don't try to stop people from updating reviews when they ask me if they should.

Lastly, someone mentioned that all reviews here are looked over, while someone else pointed out I'm the admin so I might not follow the rules. While it's true I sometimes take some liberties, if anyone finds issue with what I wrote, and enough people agree with them, they (or I myself) can change the review even if I don't think they are correct. I'd be a hypocrite to run this site and not realize the dangers of being overly defensive of your own work. However, in this case, you seem to be in the minority opinion.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

oneof5

Casual User

Posts: 74

#32 [url]

Feb 18 16 2:59 PM

Shan wrote:

oneof5 wrote:
haha, I didn't know it was you Shan, and I was to lazy to go find the thread. I just skimmed through it the other day. But yes, convince us. If there is anything that we oblivious like to do here, its debate a point until we're all blue in the face. (and then pick it back up next week)

I think you obviously meant 'obviously', not 'oblivious' but that's the perfect Freudian slip typo to describe what goes on here probably more often than not. Please don't change it.

heh, thats what I get for relying on autocorrect.

I honestly don't get what this guy is after??  Latuff still makes crappy political cartoons about current events.  Surprise, surprise, current events aren't exactly the same as they were seven (or whatever) years ago.  His skills haven't improved, his politics haven't changed, he's still just a wacko on the internet screaming into the void.  What would you have us add to the review? 

Quote    Reply   
avatar

Shan

Living Spambot

Posts: 1,966

#33 [url]

Feb 18 16 3:44 PM

oneof5 wrote:

Shan wrote:

oneof5 wrote:
haha, I didn't know it was you Shan, and I was to lazy to go find the thread. I just skimmed through it the other day. But yes, convince us. If there is anything that we oblivious like to do here, its debate a point until we're all blue in the face. (and then pick it back up next week)

I think you obviously meant 'obviously', not 'oblivious' but that's the perfect Freudian slip typo to describe what goes on here probably more often than not. Please don't change it.

heh, thats what I get for relying on autocorrect.

I honestly don't get what this guy is after??  Latuff still makes crappy political cartoons about current events.  Surprise, surprise, current events aren't exactly the same as they were seven (or whatever) years ago.  His skills haven't improved, his politics haven't changed, he's still just a wacko on the internet screaming into the void.  What would you have us add to the review? 

Well, until he gives us an example of what specifically he wants to add and/or change and posts it here, the Majority Report is leave it alone. It's not enough to say something should be changed or added and then not tell us what that is. That's the other thing Wikis do, up to and including Wikipedia which is have a discussion about major changes and then rely on majority consensus and a vote (which currently is clearly do nothing in absence of anything concrete to suggest otherwise). This is in effect a talk page for the article (I just remembered there's actual talk pages for the article but here this is better so whatever).

Quote    Reply   
avatar

Sindy

Living Spambot

Posts: 833

#35 [url]

Feb 26 16 12:38 AM

Ssssooooooo...
​he came here to fish for replies he can take out of context so he can make a blog post on how Oddguy is awful and BWW is shit.






​But Oddguy has a personal problem with someone he reviews.

​Okay.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

Bertbutt

Heavy User

Posts: 214

#36 [url]

Feb 26 16 12:49 AM

Y'know, there's a lot that can be said about the BBW. A lot of fair points about rehashing, poor review output, falling into our own circle jerking and, if you wanted to just talk about the reviewers, far worse shit authors of reviews have done besides write a review no one gave a shit about for a comic no one gave a shit about and then didnt change because someone turned out to care just enough to say something about it, but not suggest what would even be changed about it. But no all those thing's are shit under the bridge compared to you, Oddguy. You're the worst person ever. Not that one white supremacist who wrote the Faithful Hearts page and got arrested for planning to kill a bunch of people.

Classy article. Kind of wish it had a point. As it stands it's just mindless butthurt that'll join the review and comic in the bowels of the internet as yet more garbage no one cares about. 

Quote    Reply   

#37 [url]

Feb 26 16 10:03 AM

Classy.

_____________________________________________________________________

People have a common defense mechanism they employ to defend themselves from the threat of contrary viewpoints. This shield they wield is the act of dismissing such contrary viewpoints by arbitrarily undermining their validity.

Quote    Reply   
avatar

Long Tom

Living Spambot

Posts: 1,101

#40 [url]

Feb 27 16 7:58 PM

Bertbutt wrote:
U tellin me this aint a forum about voluptuous babes? Shit, where's the door?

"Big Beautiful Women" refers to babes, but not of the voluptuous type.  More the beach ball-shaped types.

Quote    Reply   
Remove this ad
Add Reply

Quick Reply

bbcode help