Redditor is given satire from 100 years ago. Still decides to type words x3

As pointed out above, I don't believe you to be arguing in good faith. So I fully expect an add on to describe how I have mischaracterized your arguments here. That's fine, you didn't make full arguments in the first place.

AAAAAAAAAAAA

In the text - after calling out "The law abiding people of the West" for what's in their hearts (murder & cowardice), the last two paragraphs go on to describe the "...East where there are no police," and where the Caliph has the supposed option to have his wives executed with a "gurgling choke" for stealing his cigarettes. It skewers 'lawful' Western culture as restrained but no better at heart than the 'lawless' Eastern culture and 'their' attitude toward the value of women in society. Death for stealing some good smokes...as if he couldn't afford multiple packs for every wife he had. The whole thing is absurd. Or maybe I am just not woke enough lol.

Imagine being a teaching and getting essays this slurred handed in

based wrong poster

Well I think that you're being willfully obtuse

Reddit moment.

Your pulitzer is in the mail

Nice essay, gonna post it on my refrigerator

wrong

I’ve never seen someone be this wrong on the internet before

If only you could put that energy into your relationships

Is the heat death of the Universe here yet?

somebody just refilled their Adderall

All them words won't bring your pa back

I love you all

Reminds me when some put the Sam Houston quote of him stating his opposition to joining the Confederacy and risk civil war but apparently it had the words “states’ rights” so the redditors that replied kept harping on how the Civil War was not about states’ rights but for slavery as if Houston was still alive and actually just wrote that comment.

I'm not used to such hate being directed at me and that made me cry

Snapshots:

• undelete.pullpush.io
• archive.org
• archive.ph (click to archive)

No, we're not joking.

I read three words and got tired

Whats funnier is this advert lances the myth of the sexist 50's because the whole ad is about men wishing they could treat women like objects and servants but they can't, which implies that back home they've got some bulling nag of a woman instead of simpering housewife.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Well I think that you're being willfully obtuse both in the way that you're framing this discussing and in the way that you are describing what happened. I don't really care to argue with dishonest people, but fortunately this is all in writing.

First of all, you're mischaracterizing the original discussion. The original commenter made what was probably in itself an ironic comment, asking "Where do we start on this?" For some reason, known only to yourself, you were compelled to contribute the following ideas to the discussion: 1) the intended audience for this image was living 100 years ago; and 2) that it was satire. In order to prove this point, you offered a link to the wikipedia article for Punch Magazine. The original commenter then (fairly gamely, in my opinion) decided to go with you on the satire argument and asked you what the image was satirizing. In my opinion, you had not at that time offered actual evidence that this is in fact satire. But to try and prove your point you then went into a rather disjoined word salad that offered no actual definition of satire and that just sort of lamely described what is going on in the illustration. I guess sort of pointing out that both sides here are hypocrites in this cigarette ad? While I responded to this comment, I really found it to have nothing worth commenting on, as it is at best an over wordy description of what is in the ad.

What I was really inquiring about was your original half formed argument that 1) The intended audience had a different moral standard than we have today and so therefore we should not try to apply any of our own to it. 2) That this advertisement was satire and therefore the upsetting and hurtful images and text were not to be taken as fully harmful, despite any other historical or cultural context because they were not originally intended to be harmful, they were presumably intended to be funny. Or sell cigarettes through the power of humor. Now this is at best a wantonly cruel philosophy and we'll get into that in a moment.

The first argument I have ties into my use of the word allegedly regarding whether or not this image really did appear in Punch Magazine in 1919. I enjoy this sub and I do truly believe that the moderator of it is curating historical images. The fact remains, however, that I am not looking at this image in an actual 1919 copy of Punch Magazine, nor am I looking at it on a website that maintains an archive of historical Punch Magazines. I am looking at an image on a subreddit on the internet in an age where it's pretty easy to alter images. There's actually more proof pointing to this not being an authentic image and if you don't understand why that is, I don't know if logic or reason can touch your brain. But, like I said, I'll gamely go with the idea that this image was produced to sell cigarettes in 1919 and that it appeared in Punch Magazine. Just because the audience that it was originally intended for had different ideas about racial equality than I do doesn't mean that I have to accept their ideas as more valid or worthy than my own. There's also two kinds of racism--with long and interesting histories--going on in the image and text and there was plenty of historical people even in that time period that knew it was "wrong." Even though this is from 1919, there were people in that dark age that knew that people from the Middle East weren't blood thirsty and that making fun of the facial features of people from Africa was a cheap way to get a laugh or sell cigarettes. It's willfully ignorant of actual history to pretend otherwise. . People in that time had morals, and ethics. I would agree that there are cultural contexts and that the average person who saw that ad would not have the benefit of the last 100 years of progress that the human race has made in overcoming racial differences but they could understand that people from the Middle East and people from Africa are human beings worthy of respect.

If you truly can't grasp this issue, here's a real world example. Most of the clothing that I wear as a person in the west, is probably made in terrible conditions in a setting where people are exploited for their labor. I know that now, as I sit here in the clothing. I know that each new thing I buy is made in a place that I can't understand under conditions I would never go into. I know a little bit about clothing and other textile arts and how they are made and I know it's hard and there's no way that the prices I pay could fairly compensate someone for their time in making it. I know that I'm doing something morally wrong each time I buy clothing. 100 years from now if someone were to say, "this person was a monster, they profited from slave labor." They would be 100% correct. I and my ancestors actually profited from slave labor in thousands of other ways until now and continue to do so. I have no problem with the people of the future making this judgment about me, because it is true. Either ethics exist or they don't Most people are actually bad. If you live in the west, even if you're very poor, you are also bad. But none of us can help it. Those people, 100 years ago, selling the cigarettes with racism they were bad, I have no problem saying it. As a bad person, I know what it is. I know there were countless ways that they could help it and countless ways they couldn't. I freely give all future people the right to judge me, just as I will judge the people of the past. Calling these people bad is not the same thing as refusing to understand the context of their culture, you can walk and chew gum at the same time.

So in the first place, I reject your argument that the people of the past are exempt from moral judgment. In the second place I also reject the argument that satire should be free of moral judgment. Just because someone is just kidding doesn't make a truly cruel joke hurt any less. Your intentions are not greater than the other person's reaction to what you say. I believe that we are personally responsible for what we say and for our actions. I believe, again your argument here is not fully formed, that you are arguing that intentions matter more than outcomes. The road to heck, as they say, is paved with good intentions. If you want to go there, that's on you.

As pointed out above, I don't believe you to be arguing in good faith. So I fully expect an add on to describe how I have mischaracterized your arguments here. That's fine, you didn't make full arguments in the first place.

Can anyone read this for me and explain what they are saying?