[alt text: an illustration of a person with a head-empty expression on their face, who is saying, "Not letting your cat outside is CRUEL!" Around the person are various gruesome scenes of different cats in distress. From the top and going clockwise, the scenes include: a cat being carried away by a hawk; a cat that is on fire; a dead cat in the road that has been run over by a car; several dead kittens; a cat that is missing an eye and various patches of fur; a cat that is feasting on a songbird; and a cat that is being carried away by a coyote. The person appears to be completely oblivious to these scenes of distress.]
This neither funny nor informative. You're just antagonizing for the sake of it.
i care a lot about the health and happiness of cats AND about the health of my local wildlife. Clearly some folks don't understand that letting their cats roam outside is bad for the cat and for the local native wildlife, so I would argue that this post is plenty informative.
Edit: generally, I would say this follows the format of other political cartoons - using an illustration to make an argument succinctly.
It's not a very clever cartoon, you're just painting the one you don't agree with as a literal shithead.
while pointing out the contradiction in the statement, with the various scenes surrounding the shithead.
I agree with the point of the cartoon, but I also agree it is not a good cartoon. There are bits of ableism and in general it just seems like it wants to be shocking to get a reaction. It is a good topic to discuss, but there are better ways to go about it.
sure, that is fair. it's not my favorite cartoon ever, i will admit. but it makes a point that i don't think needs a lot of subtlety.
Ah that was the subtle detail I missed.
/s
i forgot, political cartoons are only valuable if they are highly clever and subtle.
It's aesthetics at the end of the day, I can deal with very blunt cartoons too. I think it's not a good sign if a cartoon relies on being overtly literal.