i’m against Hegseth, full-stop, but all the jokes and glee over his makeup kinda makes me uncomfortable because it has an undercurrent of homophobia to me. lots of guys wear makeup. Hegseth has plenty of awful things about him without having to make fun of the fact that he wants to look good on camera. (see also Vance, who i have zero sympathy for, but making fun of his guyliner also makes me uncomfortable)
I go back and forth on those kinds of jokes. I try not to post them, but sometimes I think they strike me as good, funny digs at men like Vance, Hegseth and Tramp, because it’s ironic that such homophobic shitheads wear makeup, which they would deride other men for doing. But yeah, that doesn’t seem to outweigh the ill of perpetuating the accompanying homophobic idea that men wearing makeup is bad because it’s supposedly a “gay” thing to do. Thank you for the reminder.
In addition to the uncomfortable undertones, I worry about jokes that are primarily funny because they feed into anger about the subjects. And while I wouldn’t argue with that anger, it really isn’t very conducive to silly grins…
i didn’t mean it to sound like i’m calling you or anyone out about it, it’s just how it reads to me. it just feels like low-hanging fruit as far as reasons to take him (or vance, or trump, or anyone like them) down a peg go.
Lotta billboards like this one around Richmond.
These things always bring up that Nemo would mate with his father-turned-mother, but he wouldn’t, because baby clownfish leave home before that happens. Why is “scientific accuracy” always half-applied in the worst way?
I think the reason for the mockery is the fact that he has the Defence Department to run and yet sees press conferences as his priority. That makes him fair game as far as I’m concerned.
that’s a fair point. Everyone trump has selected for positions seems to be from TV, so it’s no wonder they all have a priority for the camera.
Incidentally, for those who may not know, the encabulator has a long and storied history. In particular:
Circa 1977:
1962:
The original original is an article from 1944, published in Students’ Quarterly Journal. Somewhat shockingly, it’s paywalled:
Quick, J. (1944). The turbo-encabulator in industry. Students’ Quarterly Journal, 15(58). doi:10.1049/sqj.1944.0033.
And, as usual, there is no mention whatsoever that no type of encabulator would even be possible without the cavity toggle floggle.
First developed as a theoretical concept by Ernest Rutherford in the 1920ies who thought it wouldn’t be possible to build with the technology available at the time and didn’t pursue the idea any further.
But then Tommy Flowers succeeded in building a, admittedly somewhat crude, prototype as proof of concept in the 1930ies during his time at the Post Office Research Station at Dollis Hill in Middlesex. Flowers kept tinkering with it when time and resources allowed, but ultimately had to give up on it in 1941when Alan Turing asked him to help out at Bletchley Park with developing Colossus, the machine that helped to win World War II.
However, the prototype and copies of Flowers’ files on it were brought to the USA in September 1940 as part of the “Tizard Mission” (officially the British Technical and Scientific Mission) on the personal insistence of Winston Churchill, and the rest is, as they say, history.
Needs crossposting in the “women, amirite?” thread
Not really,Pam is the most capable character in the strip.
There’s a tv commercial (for hotel chain?) on recently where a company poses a question and a guy suggests an idea. No one pays and attention and a woman says the same idea. Suddenly everyone loves it and commends her. She even uses the name the guy suggested. This of course is the reversal of what normally happens to woman in business meetings. That’s what makes it work as humor despite playing on a business problem. The same thing is going on in the Brewster Rockit strip.
Yes, what if??? What if the damage is reversed, the suffering undone, the dead brought back to life? What if???
WHAT IS YOUR POINT?