Leaving aside your view of the comic strip discussed round the site, I have this question for the folks who are clamoring for progressive pushback on policies they disagree with -- was the reaction to the complaints helpful to persuading folks to your view on the issues (as opposed to the comic strip or the cartoonist)?
Of course not everyone is trying to persuade - a lot of time (maybe most of the time) we are just sounding off, expressing our points of view. If that is the sum of the aspiration, then of course the persuasive capacity of the approach is not an issue.
If that is the primary view, then by all means, fight for your "right" (Daily Kos is a privately owned website so there is no actual right to post anything) to write and post whatever you like. But do understand that Management has conclusively decided that point. Like it has many others (no support for non-Democrats in elections, no 9/11 Trutherism, DBAD, etc.)
If persuasion is not an interest, then the question is how much more is there to say about the latest brouhaha? Very little no? In the scheme of things, this brouhaha has nowhere to go. The rule has been established.'
But what if you do want to persuade? Is not having the tool of comic strips that depict black persons the way Obama was depicted a crippling blow to your persuasive powers? Surely not.
The next question is obvious, is insisting that the protests to the comic strip are not sincere really gonna help you persuade on the need for progressive pushback? For me, no. YMMV.
More on the flip.
I'm a bit surprised that some did not try to cudgel Markos with the criticisms he received for the title of his book, American Taliban. I think that was different, but that's just my opinion man. If you want to read why - see this.
But what of the question of persuasion? Doesn't use of the phrase "American Taliban" detract from the power of persuasion of the argument? In my opinion, it does not. In fact, the opposite. It is a very powerful phrase that I would be loathe to relinquish. The reason is it effectively captures a powerful issue that confronts progressivism - the power of religious imposition on secular public policy. Yes, I wrote about that too - Link.
You may disagree with my assessments here (but see Religious objections to contraception mandate). but there is some logic to my thinking.
Perhaps someone can explain to me why drawing Obama in the way he is depicted in the comic strip is critical to the progressive argument. Cuz I don't see it. Since it is not critical, or even helpful, to the argument, why insist on its acceptance?
Anyone care to explain?