Oops wrong thread.
Eggplant Squire fucked around with this message at 15:05 on Apr 2, 2014 |
|
# ? Apr 2, 2014 14:27 |
|
|
# ? Apr 29, 2024 07:35 |
|
I don't think this is really a terrible editorial, but for lack of a better place for discussion [Url] http://www.salon.com/2014/04/01/my_white_liberal_frenemies_when_twitter_exchanges_reveal_untrustworthy_allies/?source=newsletter[/url] While she is right that there are plenty of liberals who ate racist or just dismissive of minorities opinions I think #CancelColbert is shaky ground to build that on.
|
# ? Apr 2, 2014 16:50 |
|
KomradeX posted:I don't think this is really a terrible editorial, but for lack of a better place for discussion No, I think that's a pretty terrible article, even though the broader point about how liberals can be dismissive of minority opinions is undeniably true. But in this specific case, she doesn't actually put forth an argument, attempt to persuade anybody or back up her point with anecdotes or experiences or reasoning. She just asserts her correctness as if by birthright. Compare it to Ta-Nehisi Coates, who absolutely puts in the legwork for his articles that this writer utterly refuses to.
|
# ? Apr 2, 2014 21:32 |
|
KomradeX posted:I don't think this is really a terrible editorial, but for lack of a better place for discussion The Ching Chong Ding Dong character isn't mocking asian people it's mocking racists. I don't know how anyone could so completely not comprehend a bit, it's not that nuanced of a commentary to require much active examination to understand. It's making fun of people like the girl at the start of this video who make casual racist statements by showcasing their ignorance: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zulEMWj3sVA Mo_Steel fucked around with this message at 21:45 on Apr 2, 2014 |
# ? Apr 2, 2014 21:42 |
|
Mo_Steel posted:The Ching Chong Ding Dong character isn't mocking asian people it's mocking racists. I don't know how anyone could so completely not comprehend a bit, it's not that nuanced of a commentary to require much active examination to understand. I think it's a bit more complicated than that. It's true that in this case it was straight up satire, but Colbert has previously been caught doing his fake Asian accent as a straight up joke when he thought he wasn't in the public eye. Honestly as an Asian American I haven't been that put out over either event, but I can see how people would be bothered by references to it. And while my thinking on the original issue doesn't line up with a lot of the people upset over this, I can definitely understand being miffed at the response of a bunch of liberal white people trying to rather forcefully explain to you that this time being bothered by a racial issue isn't correct since this time it's one of the good guys. My biggest problem with the editorial is the endorsement for #CancelColbert as a tactical move to increase attention. If people are calling for removal over things even they see as minor with no real intention to provoke official action, what are would you do if you found out something legit racist, like Asian writers were being kept out of the Colbert Report staff? You're already calling for the shows cancellation, what new level do you go to to show that this time the behavior really is unacceptable.
|
# ? Apr 2, 2014 23:05 |
|
cafel posted:It's true that in this case it was straight up satire, but Colbert has previously been caught doing his fake Asian accent as a straight up joke when he thought he wasn't in the public eye. You were kidding, right? The "intercepted satellite feed" was a bit. It was another example of the Colbert character being an insensitive imbecile.
|
# ? Apr 2, 2014 23:15 |
|
KomradeX posted:I don't think this is really a terrible editorial, but for lack of a better place for discussion It was on shaky ground because the "activist" behind it is a profoundly ill person that has latched on to various social justice causes. I don't understand how you can openly be internet BFFs with Michelle Malkin who, aside from writing a book supporting Japanese internment in order to make the case for Muslim internment, has contributed articles to loving VDARE since 2002, and have any credibility as an anti-racist activist. She's like the second coming of Hugo Schwyzer.
|
# ? Apr 2, 2014 23:37 |
|
Yeah if I tweeted #theskyisblue and Michelle Malkin agreed with me, I would reconsider my position on the subject...and probably apologize publicly to the Japanese communit just to be sure.
|
# ? Apr 2, 2014 23:49 |
|
This spat between Michelle Malkin and Colbert reminds me of when John Hawkins got mad at Alex Baldwin after he made a bunch of homophobic remarks. Normally that would be laudable but here is John Hawkins writing on the subject of homosexuality.quote:If you're gay, you're not allowed to act on it. If that seems harsh or unfair to you, well, sorry, but you'll have to take it up with God. It's His rule. Hawkins seemed oddly unconcerned about homophobia before this specific case, as if there were something different, hmmmm.
|
# ? Apr 3, 2014 00:09 |
|
Mr. Funny Pants posted:You were kidding, right? The "intercepted satellite feed" was a bit. It was another example of the Colbert character being an insensitive imbecile. Huh, watched the clip all the way through and it was a bit different than how I had remembered. Thought it had a more serious and apologetic tone. Of course the last time I saw it was over eight years ago, guess my memory of my early teen years is starting to go, I have a false memory of there being some controversy over the whole thing, but googling it doesn't bring up anything. The current furor makes even less sense then.
|
# ? Apr 3, 2014 00:51 |
|
cafel posted:Huh, watched the clip all the way through and it was a bit different than how I had remembered. Thought it had a more serious and apologetic tone. Of course the last time I saw it was over eight years ago, guess my memory of my early teen years is starting to go, I have a false memory of there being some controversy over the whole thing, but googling it doesn't bring up anything. The current furor makes even less sense then. No problem. My memory is shot beyond belief.
|
# ? Apr 3, 2014 01:23 |
|
Is there even a furor? I thought it was just a few nobodies on blogs trying to stir poo poo up. I haven't heard anything about this from real news sources. I wouldn't have known about it if not for this thread.
|
# ? Apr 3, 2014 01:27 |
|
I have a hypothesis that the real Michelle Malkin has been dead for over a decade, and now some alien that doesn't quite understand human social customs is trying to impersonate her.
|
# ? Apr 3, 2014 01:33 |
|
Entropic posted:Is there even a furor? I thought it was just a few nobodies on blogs trying to stir poo poo up. I haven't heard anything about this from real news sources. I wouldn't have known about it if not for this thread. No, it's basically Malkin and a twitter activist who has a long history of being a joke banging the drum.
|
# ? Apr 3, 2014 01:41 |
|
CHARLES G. KOCH posted:I have devoted most of my life to understanding the principles that enable people to improve their lives. It is those principles—the principles of a free society—that have shaped my life, my family, our company and America itself. Every citizen has the right to donate the cost of two teacher's salaries to the political process, just like me! What wealth inequality?
|
# ? Apr 3, 2014 02:32 |
|
Reminder that the Koch Brothers' daddy was one of the founding members of the John Birch Society.
|
# ? Apr 3, 2014 02:46 |
|
Blarghalt posted:Reminder that the Koch Brothers' daddy was one of the founding members of the John Birch Society. And that he made his fortune drilling oil for the Soviet Union after the big American companies tried to sue him out of business.
|
# ? Apr 3, 2014 03:39 |
|
MisterBadIdea posted:No, I think that's a pretty terrible article, even though the broader point about how liberals can be dismissive of minority opinions is undeniably true. But in this specific case, she doesn't actually put forth an argument, attempt to persuade anybody or back up her point with anecdotes or experiences or reasoning. She just asserts her correctness as if by birthright. Compare it to Ta-Nehisi Coates, who absolutely puts in the legwork for his articles that this writer utterly refuses to. Ta-Nehisi Coates has been getting a lot of talk on the forums lately, I have to look up some of his work. As for #cancelColbert, I think that the author highlights twitter activism, which is a really awful platform to have debates on, since 140 characters is not a lot of space to say something of any merit on complex subject. Also how the gently caress can you be friends with Michelle Malkin and be outraged at what Colbert said highlighting how stupid/racist the owner of the Redskins is.
|
# ? Apr 3, 2014 18:14 |
|
kik2dagroin posted:Every citizen has the right to donate the cost of two teacher's salaries to the political process, just like me! What wealth inequality? Anyone can buy OCP stock! What could be more democratic than that?
|
# ? Apr 4, 2014 11:14 |
|
MisterBadIdea posted:No, I think that's a pretty terrible article, even though the broader point about how liberals can be dismissive of minority opinions is undeniably true. But in this specific case, she doesn't actually put forth an argument, attempt to persuade anybody or back up her point with anecdotes or experiences or reasoning. She just asserts her correctness as if by birthright. Compare it to Ta-Nehisi Coates, who absolutely puts in the legwork for his articles that this writer utterly refuses to. I'm fairly disappointed in Coates, who I have respected as an activist, getting on the Suey Park train. Park is an absolutely horrible, irredeemable person with a prove track record of prioritizing self-promotion over real activism. I think there is a tendency to reflexively support activists of color who are on the receiving end of racist hate, but the problem here is that while Suey Park deserves none of the racist hate she's getting, that doesn't undermine the legitimate criticism of her actions. She is 100% deserving of the non-racist criticism she's gotten and by simply responding to the racist stuff she's painting all of her detractors with the same brush, which conveniently obviates her responsibility to address legitimate beef people have with her campaign. Just because assholes are criticizing you doesn't make you right, or make all of your opponents wrong. Otherwise I could spend five minutes on the Assata Shakur forums and permanently undermine the arguments of every Black activist in America.
|
# ? Apr 4, 2014 14:52 |
|
DAD LOST MY IPOD posted:I'm fairly disappointed in Coates, who I have respected as an activist, getting on the Suey Park train. He did? Where?
|
# ? Apr 4, 2014 17:51 |
|
DAD LOST MY IPOD posted:I'm fairly disappointed in Coates, who I have respected as an activist, getting on the Suey Park train. Park is an absolutely horrible, irredeemable person with a prove track record of prioritizing self-promotion over real activism. I think there is a tendency to reflexively support activists of color who are on the receiving end of racist hate, but the problem here is that while Suey Park deserves none of the racist hate she's getting, that doesn't undermine the legitimate criticism of her actions. She is 100% deserving of the non-racist criticism she's gotten and by simply responding to the racist stuff she's painting all of her detractors with the same brush, which conveniently obviates her responsibility to address legitimate beef people have with her campaign. Can you link to this? I can't find anything in his Atlantic archive about it but that doesn't mean he didn't mention it. He has spent most of the last week or so schooling the gently caress out of Chait, though.
|
# ? Apr 4, 2014 23:03 |
|
This incredibly awful editorial was in my newspaper today entitled - "Billionaires - ya gotta love em!"quote:WASHINGTON — Rush Limbaugh can relax. The popular “demon of the right” has been replaced at least through the midterms by the Koch brothers, Charles and David. Just literally slopping on the Koch brothers knob the whole time. This sets a new low in official editorials.
|
# ? Apr 8, 2014 23:04 |
|
DAD LOST MY IPOD posted:I'm fairly disappointed in Coates, who I have respected as an activist, getting on the Suey Park train. Park is an absolutely horrible, irredeemable person with a prove track record of prioritizing self-promotion over real activism. I think there is a tendency to reflexively support activists of color who are on the receiving end of racist hate, but the problem here is that while Suey Park deserves none of the racist hate she's getting, that doesn't undermine the legitimate criticism of her actions. She is 100% deserving of the non-racist criticism she's gotten and by simply responding to the racist stuff she's painting all of her detractors with the same brush, which conveniently obviates her responsibility to address legitimate beef people have with her campaign. The other thing is that it's way easier to target liberals for your social justice fury, legitimate or not, than it is to target actual racists and conservatives. Of course liberals can be racist, and need to be called out when they are, but that's not what I'm talking about. Shame-based "social justice" is easy as all hell because you can guilt liberals and make snarky comments instead of addressing what they actually believe, which is what you have to do with conservatives and actual racists. Your average Republican dogwhistle racist like Paul Ryan doesn't give a poo poo if you tell all your tumblr/twitter friends that he's problematic or if you call him a shitlord on the internet. You actually have to put some effort into explaining why what he's saying is not just lovely, but wrong, and why no one should listen to him. When you normalize the opposite—easy, cheap, snarky criticism of your own allies for the sake your ego—you're going to find yourself swamped with opportunists who realize that they can make decent money/get a lot of attention by putting in only marginally more effort than everyone else.
|
# ? Apr 9, 2014 06:54 |
|
via Terminal Lance: Bold the whole thing, holy SHIIIIIIIT http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/article/20140409/NEWS05/304090064 quote:Sgt. Maj. of the Marine Corps Barrett: Less pay raises discipline I want to know about this guy's deployment history: is he a career desk jockey, or did he suffer a traumatic brain injury? I don't think there are any other possibilities. The marines I knew when I was in the military kind of took it as a point of we're-tougher-than-you pride that their facilities suck. That doesn't mean they want it all to suck more. I'm from Alaska and we take full advantage of our "you don't know what cold is" bragging rights, that doesn't mean we want it to get colder. VideoTapir fucked around with this message at 04:50 on Apr 10, 2014 |
# ? Apr 10, 2014 04:42 |
|
VideoTapir posted:via Terminal Lance: You know, the vets I've known have been pretty unanimous in disliking being painted as bloodthirsty psychopaths who care less about getting paid decently than about getting to kill people. I'm curious as to who thought giving this guy a mic was a good idea.
|
# ? Apr 10, 2014 04:49 |
|
Once I realized how crazy this guy was I had to check the date on the article. I was thinking "no way this guy is real."
|
# ? Apr 10, 2014 04:54 |
|
And this guy is the most senior enlisted person in the Marine Corps...
|
# ? Apr 10, 2014 04:59 |
|
VideoTapir posted:I want to know about this guy's deployment history: is he a career desk jockey, or did he suffer a traumatic brain injury? I don't think there are any other possibilities. He's the top enlisted Marine, he spends all his time hanging out with Pentagon scum. Obviously he's learned to move seamlessly among them. I really want to see what revolving door job he gets when he cashes out. If you can plead "cut my benefits!" with a straight face you are officially one useful motherfucker. e: not to mention he's totally in touch with the budget of today's junior enlisted! wiki posted:The salary for SMMC is $7,609.50 per month woke wedding drone fucked around with this message at 05:25 on Apr 10, 2014 |
# ? Apr 10, 2014 05:13 |
|
I'm posting this article on the wall of everyone I know who posted those burgerflippers dont deserve min wage soldiers deserve min wage shitboxes.
|
# ? Apr 10, 2014 05:25 |
|
quote:“In my 33 years, we’ve never had a better quality of life,” Barrett said. “We’ve never had it so good. If we don’t get ahold of slowing the growth, we will become an entitlement-based, a health care provider-based Corps, and not a war fighting organization.” An entitlement-based, a health care provider-based Corps.
|
# ? Apr 10, 2014 11:30 |
|
Next thing you know, the US is invading countries left and right to improve their healthcare. We can't have that. Boots on necks people, boots on necks.
|
# ? Apr 10, 2014 12:01 |
|
SedanChair posted:He's the top enlisted Marine, he spends all his time hanging out with Pentagon scum. Obviously he's learned to move seamlessly among them. Not sure about him, but I know that SMA Chandler (Army counterpart for this guy) has several combat deployments under his belt. In today's Army combat deployments are looked at as a quality of leadership, so a lot of the Army's upper leadership have time in a combat zone in one way or another. Then again, SMA Chandler isn't using pay cuts as a way to 'toughen up' Soldiers, so I'm not going to draw any conclusions on the SMMC. quote:e: not to mention he's totally in touch with the budget of today's junior enlisted! USMC 2014 pay scale for SMMC is $7,196 per month, which leads to $86352 per year. This is before BAH, BAS, or any other special pays or deductions he gets for his current assignment. Those can add up, so he's probably pushing, if not over, six figures, not to count the specialized housing, security details, admin vehicles and other benefits incurred for his position. On the other hand, a Sergeant makes $2,090, not counting pays and deductions, which is $25080 per year. At best, he may get close to $40,000 if he's married and in a high COLA/BAH area. I know you were being sarcastic, I was just showing some figures to demonstrate just how out of touch he can be.
|
# ? Apr 10, 2014 13:47 |
|
VideoTapir posted:I want to know about this guy's deployment history: is he a career desk jockey, or did he suffer a traumatic brain injury? I don't think there are any other possibilities. He's got a wikipedia page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micheal_Barrett Important info: quote:In September 1987, Sergeant Major Barrett was assigned to 3rd Battalion 9th Marines at Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton, and trained as a Scout Sniper to serve as a platoon sergeant for the unit's STA platoon. As a staff sergeant, he was deployed to Saudi Arabia and Kuwait for the Gulf War, earning a Navy and Marine Corps Commendation Medal with a valor device for engaging enemy mortar positions with his Barrett M82 sniper rifle in early 1991. So as far as deployment goes, he's done some stuff. I'm not military but I assume that in the latter deployment he did desk work since he was a SgtMa. The article goes into to detail with his training and appointments prior to the Gulf War deployment. Looks like in general he was just a perfect member of the military and did everything he was told to do well. I guess that's to be expected, since he's the top NCO in the Marines now. I don't agree with him, but I don't think his opinions come from him being soft, but from him being utterly immersed in the military. This guy has lived and breathed USMC every second of his life since he was 17 years old. If there is a experience to be had in that branch, he has had it, since he's extremely well trained, really good at desk work, and saw combat. I think he's just thinking along the lines of "There are going to be cuts—fact. We can cut salaries, or we can cut other things, like modernized equipment, which as the USMC we are not exactly drowning in as it is. Therefore, we must cut salaries for the health of the USMC." He's sort of an ant in the colony right now (not to say he's stupid; he's clearly not), in that he's going to advocate for whatever he thinks will make the corps stronger. That doesn't mean he's right or that his idea will even be good for the USMC, but I think that's where he's coming from.
|
# ? Apr 10, 2014 18:35 |
|
Mineaiki posted:That doesn't mean he's right or that his idea will even be good for the USMC, but I think that's where he's coming from. Yeah. He's not stupid, he's just ridiculously gung ho and tone deaf.
|
# ? Apr 10, 2014 18:40 |
|
Orange Devil posted:Next thing you know, the US is invading countries left and right to improve their healthcare. We can't have that. Boots on necks people, boots on necks. That's not really what he's getting at. I don't agree with him, but he's not wrong about the healthcare thing. The "entitlement" stuff sounds like his conservative political bias seeping through. Still, armies have traditionally recruited people who don't do well in regular society. There are a lot of people in the military who would do very poorly if they were ejected from it. Right now they're taken care of, fed and housed, and in return they do one of many jobs that the military will find for them and train them to do, while also paying them and taking care of them. The military will also take care of their families, scaling up as their families grow. This is why failing or poor states can do so well recruiting men for their armies, or at least in keeping them in once their mandatory service period ends. The military provides a great deal of security, and for many that's a good enough reason to put oneself at risk. It isn't radically different in a wealthier state like the U.S., the only difference is that the people who are really capable of success here probably won't join. There will still be a ton of people in the military who would have otherwise been working at a gas station until they were 30. What I think he's sort of getting at there is that he's afraid of that one role of the military, of it being a protector and provider for its own members, will expand faster than the military's role as a functioning exerciser of force. With the rapid technological advancement of weaponry, he's kind of right. The more we're able to kill people and accomplish objectives without boots on the ground, the less necessary all those men will be, and the more money we'll just be throwing away keeping them and their families provided for. In that sense, though, he should be advocating for cutting troop numbers, which is admittedly already happening, but not like it should. He wouldn't advocate for that though, because his entire life is the military and the military is the most important thing in the world according to his worldview. Less men = weaker military to him, much like any cut to the military's actual strength in his eyes. But paying the men less? That's alright since we're still strong.
|
# ? Apr 10, 2014 18:46 |
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:Yeah. He's not stupid, he's just ridiculously gung ho and tone deaf. You're making it sound like he's a career military man.
|
# ? Apr 10, 2014 18:49 |
|
If there is one branch of the military that doesn't need budget cuts, it's the Marines. Marines would wind up at Fort Bragg fairly frequently to beg for our extra parts so they could fix their equipment; I think they're running about as lean as they can be expected to. If the defense budget needs to be trimmed (and we all know it does), I would agree with him that base pay is a much better place to take it from than to reduce services to servicememebers and familymembers like healthcare (it would be better still to just not fund some of the new experimental weapons that cost billions of dollars, but that's not being talked about here). Leave most of the important entitlements (I'm using this in the "military budget" sense, since it is a real term in military finance) that support families in place, and the single guys in the barracks can carpool and eat in the chow hall more often or something; that's what I did my first couple years in the army anyway.
|
# ? Apr 10, 2014 19:28 |
|
Ogmius815 posted:And this guy is the most senior enlisted person in the Marine Corps... Joke's on us. The whole point of creating the Sergeant Major of Every X rank in the first place was to give the enlisted soldiers an advocate in tne Pentagon and provide the top brass with the enlisted perspective. Leave it to the Marines to get it exactly backwards No but seriously, he should take E-1 salary, no BAH so he can get in on that all-important thrift and discipline. Set the example for your troops Sergeant Major, you've got nothing to lose but the waste and sloth of a six-figure paycheck!
|
# ? Apr 10, 2014 19:34 |
|
|
# ? Apr 29, 2024 07:35 |
|
VitalSigns posted:Joke's on us. The whole point of creating the Sergeant Major of Every X rank in the first place was to give the enlisted soldiers an advocate in tne Pentagon and provide the top brass with the enlisted perspective. It happens to every E-9: spend way too much time with senior people and you lose track of the people on the ground. This satire article is pretty spot-on.
|
# ? Apr 10, 2014 19:46 |