|
Jackie D posted:click quote on the reply page, it adds it to the text box. zylche posted:I hope this makes it clear enough. OK. It seems to have worked, but am I correct in thinking that I can only multiquote the current page (ie, I can't multiquote something from a different thread or from much earlier in the thread?
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2013 18:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 12:17 |
|
|
EvilHawk posted:I'd just like to remind people that Taylor Schrembs is still not banned. Yes, the person that has literally explained how you kill the President of the United States is not worthy of a ban. Did you know that it's illegal to say "I want to kill the President of the United States of America"?
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2013 18:37
|
|
|
ButtonJ posted:OK. It seems to have worked, but am I correct in thinking that I can only multiquote the current page (ie, I can't multiquote something from a different thread or from much earlier in the thread?
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2013 18:37
|
|
|
Sourcing everything from one place, and then claiming that it was intentional is called "not arguing in good faith" and is not appreciated or intellectual.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2013 18:39
|
|
|
ButtonJ posted:That sounds like a pretty biased view of the Tea Party (shocking). I'm going to selectively pick this article apart here. We'll see. In general, it would be nice if these articles were academic in nature, and actually cited anything stated as fact. quote:In the Aurora, Colo., shooting, seven theatres showing the Batman premier were within a 20-minute drive of the suspect’s apartment. Researcher John Lott reports that the killer did not pick the closest theatre or the largest theatre. He picked the only one of the seven that banned concealed weapons. I'm assuming he's talking about the research explained here: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/09/10/did-colorado-shooter-single-out-cinemark-theater/ . This research does nothing to actually link the killer's actions to a concealed carry ban; he mentions no interviews with the killer where the killer said this is what he did, he only points out that such a thing is true. This is hardly a causal relationship. For all we know the theater was the wrong color of purple. quote:
This is a slippery statement, because nothing is really defined well. It would be useful to line this statement up against the numebr of locations that allow handguns at all, and see if it's still statistically significant. quote:From a historical perspective, U.S. gun controls from 2000 to date have been relatively restrictive. Part of that time, we had a ban on assault weapons. The entire time, we had background checks. Nonetheless, random mass killings occurred three times more often since 2000 than over the decade of the ’80s, when gun controls were weaker. This is not true, according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rampage_killers:_Americas; with 18 happening in the decade of the 80s and 14 happening in the decade of 2000. quote:Mental illness. A second step is earlier detection and treatment of mental illness. I do not pretend to be an expert on mental health, so I am not prepared to offer specifics. But I do believe that early detection and treatment can be a legitimate function of government. It’s part of a state’s police power to protect residents against rights-violating activities, such as the criminal use of firearms. quote:Third, guns are already the most heavily regulated consumer product in the United States. Handguns are the only consumer product that cannot be purchased outside the buyer’s state of residence. Firearms retailers, wholesalers, and manufacturers all require federal licenses. Each retail sale must be pre-approved by government. Nationwide, thousands of laws regulate who can own a gun, how it can be purchased, and where it can be possessed and used. quote:Consider island nations that do not have to deal with cross-border smuggling, such as Ireland, the United Kingdom, and Jamaica. All three of them imposed bans but saw violent crime increase.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2013 18:39
|
|
|
romeo x-ray fucked around with this message at 23:20 on May 27, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2013 18:41
|
|
|
Just to let ButtonJ know we've got a diversity of opinion here, "gun control" is pretty low on my list of priorities. Having said that, I think we absolutely should not let known crazy-people get guns and that a capacity limit of say, 30, is not the same as "taking away your right to bear arms" -- having a pistol with 10 rounds, a semi-auto rifle with 15, etc. is still "bearing arms." But regardless, I think gun violence is a symptom of bigger issues like poor mental health services, poverty and insecurity over basic needs like healthcare and education, and a cutthroat, hateful, shallow society -- so we need to fix that if we want any real change.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2013 18:48
|
|
|
OwlBot 2000 posted:Just to let ButtonJ know we've got a diversity of opinion here, "gun control" is pretty low on my list of priorities. Having said that, I think we absolutely should not let known crazy-people get guns and that a capacity limit of say, 30, is not the same as "taking away your right to bear arms" -- having a pistol with 10 rounds, a semi-auto rifle with 15, etc. is still "bearing arms." But regardless, I think gun violence is a symptom of bigger issues like poor mental health services, poverty and insecurity over basic needs like healthcare and education, and a cutthroat, hateful, shallow society -- so we need to fix that if we want any real change. No you see welfare makes people weak and depend on the government, what we need to do is take away their ability to feed their children then they will manifest a job out of thin air but even that failed because that evil obummer raised the minimum wage and took that americans right to work for 3 dollars an hour to feed their children. I guess they could turn to crime as that would be the only option left then we could put them into the work camps oh I'm sorry prisons where they belong.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2013 18:52
|
|
|
McDowell posted:Cato is a Free Market think tank that was recently purchased by the Koch Brothers, but at the end of the day nothing is objective. It was not recently purchased by the Koch Brothers. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...EJJ2V_blog.html The agreement dictates that Cato will be governed by a self-perpertuating board comprised of 12 long-term members, including David Koch. Charles Koch and Ed Crane, along with Katherine Washburn, will no longer be members of the board. I thought you guys were sticklers for facts and things. Your obsession with the Koch Brothers is no more rational than the right's obsession with Soros. RE: Sequester. I'm for reducing government spending as I've already said. There are better ways to do, but both sides in Washington are being idiotic. Obama already got his tax hike, it's time to to cut spending. He wants a "balanced solution", but since he already got his tax hike, a second step that is not mostly spending cuts is the opposite of a balanced solution. Have to go to work. so as far as you guys are concerned, I'm running away with my tail between my legs. I can live with that. As someone already said, I'm old. I'm old enough that mindless insults don't bother me.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2013 18:52
|
|
|
ButtonJ posted:Have to go to work. so as far as you guys are concerned, I'm running away with my tail between my legs. I can live with that. As someone already said, I'm old. I'm old enough that mindless insults don't bother me. I'm going to say this the next time I want to excuse myself from learning anything.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2013 18:56
|
|
|
That Cato article on Obamacare is absolute garbage. Here it is on preexisting conditions: Preexisting Conditions The administration’s second rationale for invoking the Necessary and Proper Clause is no more convincing: Namely, it is essential that everyone be covered for preexisting conditions, and the insurance mandate is key to accomplishing that goal. Interestingly, PPACA allotted $5 billion for the Department of Health and Human Services to provide stopgap insurance to persons with preexisting conditions until the man date is effective in 2014. Taxpayers subsidize 65 percent of the costs; coverage is extended to anyone turned down by a single insurance company; and premiums vary only by age, not health status. From the program’s inception in July 2010 through January 2011, combined federal and state enrollees numbered just over 12,000. Compare that to HHS estimates of 375,000 enrollees in the first four months and 400,000 more each year. That prompted the Wall Street Journal to editorialize that claims about a nation of sick indigents who are denied insurance may well be bogus. The country likely does not need a multitrillion-dollar entitlement to help 12,000 people. So because one government insurance program had only 12k people sign up that means that only 12k people are denied coverage. Oh, and the numbers it's citing are from a WSJ editorial. Very professional. Meanwhile, estimates by the HHS of the number of people (covered by an employer at the time or not) who could potentially be denied coverage if forced to buy private insurance puts that number at 50-129 million as of 2011 http://www.healthcare.gov/news/reports/preexisting.html Edit: That probably needs to be put into perspective. The study basically says that you have a roughly %15-40 (%28 being the mean of those two numbers) chance of being affected by preexisting condition clauses. Assuming %10 unemployment (31.4 million people) and that every single person with a job has coverage that would put the number of people actually at risk at 4.7 - 12.8 million people with the mean of those two numbers at 8.7 million. Still FAR higher than Cato's estimates. readingatwork fucked around with this message at 19:23 on Mar 2, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2013 18:56
|
|
|
Well, the challenges was to create a strong argument for a single position, since it's pretty clear to me that you don't actually agree with some, or even most of the Tea Party "platform", such as it is. I'll admit that my perceptions of Tea Party positions is based on the words and actions of its members and congressmen, as it lacks any sort of official platform.ButtonJ posted:
ButtonJ posted:2) I believe we should avoid ObamaCare. It isn't designed to solve the problem. I don't know what it is designed to do, but it is not designed to lower the amount we spend on health care. I've lived in Central Europe where they had nationalized health care insurance. I would not want to live in a country with a single payer health care system. http://www.cato.org/doc-download/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/ObamaHealthCareReform-Levy.pdf ButtonJ posted:3) When has anyone suggested we invade Iran? Do you believe we should allow Iran to develop a nuclear weapon? As a state-sponsor of terrorism, I will strongly argue that we should not allow them to develop a nuclear weapon. Since that isn't really a position of the tea party or anyone else, I'm not going to bother looking for anything. ButtonJ posted:4) I'm more for cutting spending. The federal government was spending 20% of GDP just a few years ago, we are now spending 25% of GDP. Our long-term average federal tax revenue averages about 18.5% of GDP. I believe we need to get spending down to 18% of GDP. http://www.cato.org/doc-download/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/workingpaper-13.pdf If you are willing to continue, go ahead and make a full argument for either 2 or 4, addressing my own evidence with counter-evidence. I look forward to it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2013 18:57
|
|
|
ButtonJ posted:Have to go to work. so as far as you guys are concerned, I'm running away with my tail between my legs. I can live with that. As someone already said, I'm old. I'm old enough that mindless insults don't bother me. A little catty, but you don't sound completely bothered. The running away thing presumably come from the fact that you suddenly disappeared without announcement (yeah, seems dumb to announce when you're leaving in a forum) when the debate was just getting started leading to the assumption that you ran off. If this was a slower thread, you could get away with completely disappearing and then showing back up as late as you did with no one the wiser.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2013 18:59
|
|
|
ButtonJ posted:Have to go to work. so as far as you guys are concerned, I'm running away with my tail between my legs. I can live with that. As someone already said, I'm old. I'm old enough that mindless insults don't bother me. Have a good day at work, ButtonJ. You seem like a good guy and hope you come back and talk some more. I'd like to know how you'd react to the assertion that Food Stamps are actually GDP positive, in that a 1$ government expenditure on food stamps results in a $1.73 increase in GDP. Also, tax cuts can work, but usually not for the richest brackets. This might seem weird at first, but it makes sense if you think about it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marginal_propensity_to_consume Basically, if you give a impoverished person $1,000, they will spend it right away on food, clothes and rent. If you give that same amount to a person who has all their necessities met, they don't have any immediate necessity to do anything with that money. They can just put it in savings and never spend it in their lives. The more wealth and income a person has, the lower their marginal propensity to consume. So giving extra money to someone with a lot of money already does very little, macro-economically speaking. But giving extra money to someone with very little almost always results in increased demand and economic activity.  By the way, these numbers come from Mark Zandi, the chief economist at Moody's Analytics, whose concerns are less about politics than just making sure investors who use their services make money. OwlBot 2000 fucked around with this message at 19:44 on Mar 2, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2013 19:05
|
|
|
Do I ever hope that was sarcasm.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2013 19:09
|
|
|
ButtonJ, thank you for your 10 dollar contribution to the forums to prove that The Tea Party backs down on any issue when things don't look well and rely on last words to save face.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2013 19:15
|
|
|
Just a note. Some filters will block https://www.somethingawful.com but not forums.somethingawful.com
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2013 19:16
|
|
|
Why even argue with him at this point? It is pretty clear he loves false equivalences, what with the adamant denial of the fact that the Koch Bros are dumping ridiculous amounts of money into our political system to create things like the Tea Party. George Soros is only the same deal if all you think the Kochs have done is donate to Republicans. Not to mention citing Cato Institute, which is a right-wing creation much like the Heritage Foundation and does not produce scientific and rigorous studies.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2013 19:19
|
|
|
ButtonJ posted:Yes, you clearly have the moral high ground by infiltrating a site for people with political views different from yours and attempting to destroy it. I don't see it that way. I see SA trying to make TPC see themselves for what they really are. I see SA poking fun at them. What I see here is a lot of educated, intelligent people with the ability to think for themselves and have the brainpower to see the racist, hypocritical, and immoral garbage spewing from the toxic waste site known as TPC. It should be listed as one of the EPA's Superfund sites. I was on the site for two weeks (thinking that the worst of them were in the minority), tried to make them see themselves the way SA does, and decided they never would take their blinders off. I'm far too moderate for them, and probably somewhat too conservative for SA, but at least SA hasn't flamed me for my views, posts, and opinions. I'd MUCH rather be associated with the people here than the anyone associated with TPC. Besides, the SA people actually have a sense of morality in the larger context of what's right in the world, and some of the funniest people I've ever had the pleasure to read. I know this comment is late, but the first caller on Thursdays TPC show was an absolute scream for me. If you've had even a high school class in chemistry, you should know that dihydrogen monoxygen is H2O. As a scientist, i was rolling on the floor over that one!!! Just wanted to know, was that a real caller or one of the "trolls?" Mafic Cloud fucked around with this message at 19:37 on Mar 2, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2013 19:19
|
|
|
Speaking of Cato I just edited my last post to better explain the numbers. Basically, using HHS numbers and some quick and dirty math, the number of people actually at risk of being denied for preexisting conditions is 4.7 - 12.8 million people with the mean of those two numbers being 8.75 million. Still far higher than Cato's assertion of 12k or so. readingatwork fucked around with this message at 19:25 on Mar 2, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2013 19:23
|
|
|
Mafic Cloud posted:I know this comment is late, but the first caller on Thursdays TPC show was an absolute scream for me. If you've had even a high school class in chemistry, you should know that dihydrogen monoxygen is H2O. As a scientist, i was rolling on the floor over that one!!! Just wanted to know, was that a real caller or one of the "trolls?" That was one of ours.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2013 19:26
|
|
|
escape artist posted:I always loving bring this up. Anyway you look at it, Jesus was basically conceived via ghost rape. He was also the first 120th trimester abortion.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2013 19:29
|
|
|
Wildlife Analysis posted:Why even argue with him at this point? It is pretty clear he loves false equivalences, what with the adamant denial of the fact that the Koch Bros are dumping ridiculous amounts of money into our political system to create things like the Tea Party. George Soros is only the same deal if all you think the Kochs have done is donate to Republicans. I really am trying to have a good faith discussion with him; the idea that there may be conservatives that support positions based on evidence and reason rather than dogma or selfishness is immensely heartening. Cato is biased, sure, but I'll allow him to use it so long as their arguments are based in good information. I think that they generally draw incorrect conclusions, but it's better than the blogs and youtube videos most of them post.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2013 19:29
|
|
|
This is so much fun. I've just gone full retard and I'm attacking anyone that has views to the left of say... Hitler. It's fun watching people on medicare losing their poo poo when you mention it's a socialist policy. They can't handle it. Cheap thrills.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2013 19:37
|
|
|
ButtonJ posted:RE: Sequester. I'm for reducing government spending as I've already said. There are better ways to do, but both sides in Washington are being idiotic. Obama already got his tax hike, it's time to to cut spending. He wants a "balanced solution", but since he already got his tax hike, a second step that is not mostly spending cuts is the opposite of a balanced solution. What tax hike? During the Fiscal Cliff the Bush era tax cuts were supposed to expire - the President wanted them to be renewed, except for the 250k+ bracket rate, which would return to the same rate as the 1990's. Congress did not go along with this, so the Bush era rates were maintained but a payroll tax cut was allowed to expire. I wouldn't call this a hike. ButtonJ posted:
Except for the fact that they also run Americans for Prosperity, which 'libertarians' love to cite. Simply ask yourself who benefits most from discouraging labor organization, lowering all taxes, and eliminating environmental laws. Is it the average man on the street? Or the owner of an energy company? Also Mitt Romney's selection of Paul Ryan was most certainly a political move to connect with the Kochs. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8n9WXqIALnY Governor of Wisconsin Scott Walker is actively advancing their anti-labor agenda (and what district does Paul Ryan represent?) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WBnSv3a6Nh4 One more Americans for Prosperity/Koch classic: http://www.thenation.com/blog/171906/david-koch-now-taking-aim-hurricane-sandy-victims Mc Do Well fucked around with this message at 20:01 on Mar 2, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2013 19:39
|
|
|
Wildlife Analysis posted:That was one of ours. She's a terrific actress! I loved it!
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2013 19:40
|
|
|
samsquantch1 posted:They are all open for honest debate, oh yes!! It's just that no one has ever tried to honestly debate them. If only there was a group of people who could go there and attempt to present them with facts and such.  "What I know to be true" isn't how debates work.escape artist posted:I always loving bring this up. Anyway you look at it, Jesus was basically conceived via ghost rape. No you see, it was a gift from God, like all rapes. That whore should be grateful. 
a shiny rock fucked around with this message at 19:47 on Mar 2, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2013 19:42
|
|
|
Mafic Cloud posted:I don't see it that way. I see SA trying to make TPC see themselves for what they really are. I see SA poking fun at them. What I see here is a lot of educated, intelligent people with the ability to think for themselves and have the brainpower to see the racist, hypocritical, and immoral garbage spewing from the toxic waste site known as TPC. It should be listed as one of the EPA's Superfund sites. I was on the site for two weeks (thinking that the worst of them were in the minority), tried to make them see themselves the way SA does, and decided they never would take their blinders off. There is absolutely nothing wrong with being a conservative as long as you can logically back up your beliefs with facts and data. Saying that gun control is bad because it takes away our freedom doesn't mean anything because there isn't any quantifiable proof of what you're saying. Extrapolating that into "Gun control is bad because it takes away our freedom to own weapons and has been proven to not work in cases like X, Y and Z" is a much better argument. You can actually discuss this point because there is content there to discuss. I personally believe that you can hold whatever belief you want, no matter how much I disagree with it, and I will respect it if you can defend it. The lack of defense or willingness to defend shows a weakness in your argument and in your comprehension of the subject. You also should be able to admit when you're wrong like a mature adult. I'm not saying you did any of this, either positive or negative, but don't think that SA is anti-conservative or anything. SA is anti-idiot and anti-ignorance if anything. You also signed up on my 7th year "anniversary" of being here 
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2013 19:47
|
|
|
This man's poems are truly a revelation: https://www.teapartycommunity.com/profile-67761/ He seems to post like a couple dozen a day. Presumably this is his full-time job? I particularly love the overuse of commas and random capitalization.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2013 19:48
|
|
|
escape artist posted:I always loving bring this up. Anyway you look at it, Jesus was basically conceived via ghost rape. That's a funny image, but where do you get the idea that it was non-consensual? I mean, at least in the Catholic and Orthodox faiths she's honored for willingly accepting the Christ-child.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2013 19:50
|
|
|
OwlBot 2000 posted:That's a funny image, but where do you get the idea that it was non-consensual? I mean, at least in the Catholic and Orthodox faiths she's honored for willingly accepting the Christ-child.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2013 20:01
|
|
|
OwlBot 2000 posted:That's a funny image, but where do you get the idea that it was non-consensual? I mean, at least in the Catholic and Orthodox faiths she's honored for willingly accepting the Christ-child. I don't remember the exact wording or passage, but apparently some of the original religious texts (I think you have to go with a more accurate translation than KJV) had indications that Mary was more or less "well, whether I wanted it or not would have made no difference so I've accepted my fate". You can extrapolate from there.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2013 20:06
|
|
|
fool_of_sound posted:Cato is biased, sure, but I'll allow him to use it so long as their arguments are based in good information. I think that they generally draw incorrect conclusions, but it's better than the blogs and youtube videos most of them post. I just don't see the point of it. All he will post is poorly sourced and cited right-wing think tank information. It would be like me trying to argue about wolf depredation and while I am using npwrc.usgs.gov as a source, my opponent is citing wolvesarebad.miscitedstudies.org. I mean, sure, it is better than the guy that posts ihatewolves.blogspot.com, but damning faint praise etc. I just cannot see any kind of rational dialogue arising from it. He has made it pretty clear by now that he is not opposed to parting shots, either. e: Cowman posted:SA is anti-idiot and anti-ignorance if anything. This is probably why SA comes off as anti-conservative.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2013 20:07
|
|
|
God also helped one of Mary's barren relatives conceive, as proof of the 'you're preggo' claim. Deities impregnating mortals is a pretty common religion/mythology trope. Making Virgin Mary rape jokes is pretty tasteless, however. Even to Muslims since the miracle birth of the Prophet Jesus is part of Islam.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2013 20:10
|
|
|
romeo x-ray fucked around with this message at 20:42 on Mar 2, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2013 20:12
|
|
|
[quote="Cowman" post=" I personally believe that you can hold whatever belief you want, no matter how much I disagree with it, and I will respect it if you can defend it. The lack of defense or willingness to defend shows a weakness in your argument and in your comprehension of the subject. You also should be able to admit when you're wrong like a mature adult. I'm not saying you did any of this, either positive or negative, but don't think that SA is anti-conservative or anything. SA is anti-idiot and anti-ignorance if anything. You also signed up on my 7th year "anniversary" of being here [/quote] Touché! I didn't intend imply that any of you have kicked me for my beliefs, only that by reading through the previous thread as well as this one, my political leanings are somewhat right of most people here. Not all. And I don't think I've brought up anything political here other than to contribute to the thread my opinion of the idiocity of the TPC site. I, too, get annoyed by the general stupidity of some people. I got in my parting shot in TPC and it felt good! I can't get it to post here, but it's at the top of pg 168 of the previous thread. As for the replies, God forbid for being able to think for myself. Bunch a morons over there... I'm glad I signed up.  I'm having fun!Well I kinda screwed up the quote, tho. Sorry guys 
Mafic Cloud fucked around with this message at 20:18 on Mar 2, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2013 20:15
|
|
|
McDowell posted:God also helped one of Mary's barren relatives conceive, as proof of the 'you're preggo' claim. Also we care about good taste now?
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2013 20:15
|
|
|
This discussion is probably almost over already, but let me just say this in defense of my trolling: I feel that if you post a political opinion on the internet, in effect a public forum, you should do so with the expectation that it be seen and challenged. Otherwise, you are doing nothing more than congratulating yourself. The Tea Party Community, however, exists for the express purpose of continually affirming people's views; its administration seems to remain confused about what to do with people who don't do this. The fringe right in the United States is well on its way to creating a parallel narrative and set of facts for the entirety of the country's discourse; as I see it, that makes the process of democratic government more and more unworkable the longer it goes on. Is this website an echo chamber? Perhaps so, in some places anyway, but it was not set up for that purpose and it is not administrated to that end. And it's possible that I will learn something from it that I didn't previously know, whereas the most the TPC will do is tell me something I've already heard a second or third time. Is this thread an echo chamber? Well yes, but only because it self-selects for people who dislike the Tea Party; that's the only position anyone here can be guaranteed to have in common, and for every other subset of topics discussed on SA, GBS, whatever, you're going to see a different set of views.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2013 20:16
|
|
|
Cardiovorax posted:As is deities giving mortals not terribly much of a choice about it. Eh it's one thing to horrify people with Goatse and tubgirl, being straight-up blasphemous doesn't strike me as entertaining. Not to mention that rape jokes aren't funny (with the exception of the meta-joke with Carl and Handbanana on Aqua Teen).
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2013 20:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 12:17 |
|
|
StandardVC10 posted:This discussion is probably almost over already, but let me just say this in defense of my trolling: I feel that if you post a political opinion on the internet, in effect a public forum, you should do so with the expectation that it be seen and challenged. Otherwise, you are doing nothing more than congratulating yourself. The Tea Party Community, however, exists for the express purpose of continually affirming people's views; its administration seems to remain confused about what to do with people who don't do this. The fringe right in the United States is well on its way to creating a parallel narrative and set of facts for the entirety of the country's discourse; as I see it, that makes the process of democratic government more and more unworkable the longer it goes on. Is this website an echo chamber? Perhaps so, in some places anyway, but it was not set up for that purpose and it is not administrated to that end. And it's possible that I will learn something from it that I didn't previously know, whereas the most the TPC will do is tell me something I've already heard a second or third time. Is this thread an echo chamber? Well yes, but only because it self-selects for people who dislike the Tea Party; that's the only position anyone here can be guaranteed to have in common, and for every other subset of topics discussed on SA, GBS, whatever, you're going to see a different set of views. So they're the TvTropes (I mis-typed and wrote "gropes" and almost let it stay.  ) of the right wing. Got it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2013 20:26
|
|
