'asinine' would be accurate if this cartoon had no other way of being read than the literal reading. this one is quite clearly not intended to be taken literally. there are a number of alternative, non-literal readings here...
surely a point is being made in this cartoon about the way in which large media corporations are mishandling the current rapidly changing landscape of copyright law and distribution. this seems to be a not unreasonable point to make. along the way it also takes potshots at those creators of cultural artefacts who are only in it for the money. this is also a pretty good target (if a little barn-door-like).
finally, the cartoon satirises the slowness of mainstream media to deal accurately with these phenomena, which are deeply and recursively linked to the mainstream media itself. there is an extent to which precisely that failure of the cartoon to mention the actual payment systems to writers of heavily borrowed books, to which streetlawyer refers, is all part of the fun.
'asinine' is defined here as meaning 1) utterly stupid or silly, or 2) of, relating to, or resembling an ass. let us, perhaps charitably, discard the second of these two definitions as being non-relevant to the discussion in hand. as i believe i have demonstrated above, the cartoon was not *utterly* stupid or silly, despite there being a long and noble tradition of precisely such a kind of cartoon.
streetlawyer's response, being short, off the cuff, and essentially incomplete (but *why* did the factual inaccuracy make it silly? it's a satirical cartoon, not an academic treatise...), is probably too thin to qualify as asinine.
this overblown response to streetlawyer's response, now, this *is* asinine. i rest my case. (whatever it was.)
[ Parent ]