Cartoon: Owning the Libs Equals Victory!


If you like these cartoons, help us make more by supporting the Patreon!

Supporters see most of my cartoons early – they saw this one back in November.


I read a thread on Twitter by a woman whose father had recently died of covid. When her father got sick, her brother convinced their father that going to the hospital and receiving treatment would be a fatal mistake. The brother also believed that the reason the father had gotten sick was that he had gone to a family funeral where there were many vaccinated people, and vaccinated people are spreading disease in some fashion.

After the father died, the brother got sick with covid, too. His sister (thousands of miles away) begged him over the phone to go get treated. He went to the hospital, but then checked himself out and died at home a couple of weeks later.

Whether it’s a deadly disease or climate change, people on the right seem increasingly immune to argument. Climate change is a hoax. Covid is a plot. January sixth was just a bunch of tourists in the capital to snap some photos. Trump was the actual winner of the election.

Of course, some on the left are also immune to argument. But the right-wing immunity to argument isn’t just on the margins of the conservative movement; it dominates their party. Donald Trump was their last candidate for President, and very will might be their next candidate too. And no evidence – not even death – can convince them they’re wrong.

Wow, is this post a bummer. But thinking about this stuff led to the image of a right-winger standing in a blasted hellscape crowing that he’d won. And that thought led to this comic strip, which I think is pretty funny.


My biggest worry, drawing this strip, was making the right-wing character recognizable to readers even after he’s gone through an enormous change in circumstances. Hence the red hair, the widow’s peak, the chin-only beard, and the distinctive glasses frames. I think I did enough so that most readers will recognize that it’s the same character without having to think about it.


TRANSCRIPT OF CARTOON

This cartoon has four panels.

PANEL 1

A woman and a man walk on a path in a hilly park (drawn mostly in shades of green and blue). The man, who has red hair and a red chin-only beard (no mustache), is walking ahead, not looking back at her as he talks. He’s wearing a white button-up shirt with a necktie, brown slacks, and glasses. The woman has black hair, and is wearing a white v-neck shirt with red arms, jeans, and red sneakers. She is holding her hands out imploringly as she talks to the man’s back.

WOMAN: This shouldn’t be a partisan issue! We’ll all suffer if the world is destroyed! But if we work together-

MAN: You’re wasting your breath.

PANEL 2

The man, who has crested the hill, turns to look back at the woman, who is still climbing the hill. He sneers with contempt. The woman looks taken aback.

MAN: Don’t show me articles from the New York Times or whatever. Fox told me I can’t trust mainstream media!

WOMAN: But–

MAN: Don’t quote “experts.” Newsmax warned me that those people lie!

PANEL 3

A close-up of the man’s head as he speaks, grinning and intense.

MAN: I know everything outside my bubble is false. Nothing you can say will reach me, and there’s no evidence I can’t dismiss as fake.

MAN: Face it — I’ve won.

PANEL 4

A caption says “YEARS LATER.”

We’re looking at the wreckage of an absolutely destroyed town or city, drawn mostly in shades of brown and orange. There are tree stumps, and telephone poles which have fallen to diagonal positions, wrecked buildings in the distance, a dark brown smog rising into the air from those buildings. Closer up, there are tree stumps, a window lying on the ground, bricks and pipes and a shattered smartphone and other junk scattered around.

Sitting on the concrete slabs of a broken sidewalk is the man from earlier in the strip. His clothes are torn and ragged, and his hair is grown much longer and looks tangled. One lens of his glasses is shattered. He is grinning (missing a tooth) and pumping a fist in the air in front of him.

MAN: Well, I certainly told HER!


This cartoon on Patreon

This entry was posted in Cartooning & comics, Conservative zaniness, right-wingers, etc.. Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to Cartoon: Owning the Libs Equals Victory!

  1. ECD says:

    Amusing, though I am moderately inclined to point out that Haidt’s book (the Righteous Mind) provides some evidence that conservatives and moderates are in fact better at predicting liberal positions/reasons than the reverse…

    However, it is certainly true that republicans have essentially constructed an entire parallel news structure which democrats have not successfully mimicked, yet. Though I do see plenty of contempt for the Nytimes on the left, it doesn’t have the same structural support…

  2. Em says:

    Haidt’s book… provides some evidence that conservatives and moderates are in fact better at predicting liberal positions/reasons than the reverse…

    What’s wrong with being predictable? This is an insult I’ve seen all over this blog, and I frankly don’t understand it. If conservatives are able to predict that I’ll always be against racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, anti-vaccination, climate change denial, etc… then I’m doing well. As for the book, I’ve never read it but I’ve read others like it. I looked at the book’s goodreads reviews and saw something that let me know exactly what to expect:

    This book should be renamed “How to Justify the Action of Oppressing Human Beings In the Name of Getting Along.” (Charlene)

    Give me a break from these books. Conservatives are not an oppressed minority. The people they criticize are. For the author to suggest that we should respect a chosen political position more than a unchosen minority identity really shows what kind of person he is. (I don’t mean to come across as attacking the commenter, I am attacking the book and the arguments of predicability and “getting along”)

  3. nobody.really says:

    Haidt’s book… provides some evidence that conservatives and moderates are in fact better at predicting liberal positions/reasons than the reverse…

    What’s wrong with being predictable?

    The point was not that conservatives do (relatively) well at predicting the views of liberals; it’s that liberals do (relatively) poorly at predicting the views of conservatives. People hold stereotypic views about members of other groups; conservatives tend to hold more accurate stereotypes than liberals.

    In short, EDC is encouraging intellectual modesty in drawing conclusions about conservatives based on stereotypes.

    I’ve never read it but I’ve read others like it. I looked at the book’s goodreads reviews and saw something that let me know exactly what to expect:

    This book should be renamed “How to Justify the Action of Oppressing Human Beings In the Name of Getting Along.”(Charlene)

    Give me a break from these books. Conservatives are not an oppressed minority. The people they criticize are. For the author to suggest that we should respect a chosen political position more than a unchosen minority identity really shows what kind of person he is. (I don’t mean to come across as attacking the commenter, I am attacking the book and the arguments of predicability and “getting along”)

    Haidt’s book addresses (among other things) how the human mind seems less adapted to critical thinking than to self-justification (righteousness). If Haidt ever publishes another edition of the book, he should include this quote as an illustration.

  4. Em says:

    The point was not that conservatives do (relatively) well at predicting the views of liberals; it’s that liberals do (relatively) poorly at predicting the views of conservatives. People hold stereotypic views about members of other groups; conservatives tend to hold more accurate stereotypes than liberals.

    Well, I’m sorry I misunderstood that specific point, but I was connecting it to several other things that have been said on this blog, calling amp’s cartoons and replies to comments “predictable”. I understand that’s not exactly what was being said here, but it is part of it, and I was talking about that part.
    Another thing I’ve noticed is that conservatives (not all of them, because my crying, screaming, stupid SJW self wouldn’t want to sterotype conservatives, would I?) tend to be less direct with their views. While there are ones who are outright hateful and ignorant, most are more subtle, hiding behind books that claim to be about “getting along” but are actually about exalting conservatives and belittling liberals. Meanwhile, liberals are more- blunt. “Self righteous”, is you will. Which is sometimes a bad thing, for example my comment came across as more aggressive than I intended, even with my disclaimer.
    Cartoons like this play a sort of pretend, (which is okay!) saying, what if conservatives were more honest about their intentions? Most conservatives would never outright say, “I know everything outside my bubble is false”, but there’s a difference between a strawman and creative license. Maybe I’m not giving the book a chance. I might read it at some point. And go ahead, have him write a sequel attacking a 16 year old. (I’m not trying to make you feel guilty, I’m completely serious. I want to see what Charlene has to say about that book .)

  5. Ampersand says:

    ECD wrote:

    Amusing, though I am moderately inclined to point out that Haidt’s book (the Righteous Mind) provides some evidence that conservatives and moderates are in fact better at predicting liberal positions/reasons than the reverse…

    I’m not sure how that’s relevant to my cartoon? Could you spell it out for me?

    But also…

    I’m not sure how firmly we can generalize based on Haidt’s study. It’s entirely based on Haidt’s Moral Foundations Theory, which some other scholars have called into question, and if the MFT isn’t actually reliable then I don’t know how meaningful a test of how well liberals and conservatives do at predicting the other’s placement within MFT is.

    It’s also not determined how much a successful prediction of the other side’s responses on the Moral Foundations Questionnaire translates to real-world issues and positions. Here’s a sample question from the MFQ:

    Part 1. When you decide whether something is right or wrong, to what extent are the following considerations relevant to your thinking? Please rate each statement using this scale:

    [0] = not at all relevant (This consideration has nothing to do with my judgments of right and wrong)
    [1] = not very relevant
    [2] = slightly relevant
    [3] = somewhat relevant
    [4] = very relevant
    [5] = extremely relevant (This is one of the most important factors when I judge right and wrong)

    ______1. Whether or not someone suffered emotionally
    ______2. Whether or not some people were treated differently than others
    ______3. Whether or not someone’s action showed love for his or her country
    ______4. Whether or not someone showed a lack of respect for authority
    ______5. Whether or not someone violated standards of purity and decency
    ______6. Whether or not someone was good at math
    ______7. Whether or not someone cared for someone weak or vulnerable
    ______8. Whether or not someone acted unfairly
    ______9. Whether or not someone did something to betray his or her group
    ______10. Whether or not someone conformed to the traditions of society
    ______11. Whether or not someone did something disgusting
    ______12. Whether or not someone was cruel
    ______13. Whether or not someone was denied his or her rights
    ______14. Whether or not someone showed a lack of loyalty
    ______15. Whether or not an action caused chaos or disorder
    ______16. Whether or not someone acted in a way that God would approve of

    If someone does well at faking being a liberal or conservative on this, does that necessarily translate to an actually ability to accurately comprehend and describe actual arguments about (for example) the Earned Income Tax Credit? I have no idea. Finding out would require doing more empirical testing, I think.

    The study also used a sample of convenience – self-selected volunteers who fill out surveys for Project Implicit – and there’s no reason to think that the conservatives and liberals in that group are a representative sample. (Haidt himself noted that the conservatives in their sample were more moderate than conservatives generally are.)

    Interestingly, the study also found that – by the study’s measurements – liberals were also more likely to predict liberal responses to the AFQ wrongly, compared to conservatives predicting liberal responses. That may mean that conservatives understand liberals better than liberals do; but I suspect it means that in some way conservatives are more “in sync” with the questions on the AFQ than liberals.

    I’d honestly be more interested in the results of a careful study based on the Ideological Turing test, perhaps using a set-up similar to Ozy’s game. (I’ll brag that I came in second.)

Comments are closed.