|
Jesus. How about goddamn barbaric?
|
#
¿
Nov 26, 2009 11:46
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 24, 2024 09:07 |
|
|
queen_maeree posted:Actually in my teenage years, I used to attend a Baptist church. (Not by choice.) I already began to see a problem with certain messages they preached (anti-gay, etc), but had no idea how much more deeply into politics they would get! Once they started telling people who to vote for, I got the hell out of there.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2009 23:20
|
|
|
EggsofSteel posted:What you just read are the crazed writings of a mad man who knows close to nothing about natural law theory, the founding fathers, or the constitution
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2009 21:01
|
|
|
Normally I'm fairly hesitant to use the word, but I'm pretty sure accusing Obama of being a welfare fraud is, in fact, incredibly racist.  Also, more French died in WWI than all Americans in all wars combined. Supposedly they can't defend themselves without us. Yeah, bullshit, they've got the third-largest nuclear arsenal in the world. I often wonder what would happen if the US really tried to gently caress with France, like if Sarah Palin or someone actually influenced by Bill O'Reilly were elected. It's not actually a country you want to gently caress with. EggsofSteel posted:Well, the guy I was debating on facebook ended up being some crazed libertarian. A lot of fun ensues. I broke up his blocks of text a little better:
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2009 15:56
|
|
|
jackpot posted:Those 200,000 civilians were but a drop in the bucket compared to the number that would have died without the bombs - and I for one am still humbly waiting for a simple "thank you." http://www.amazon.com/History-Wars-Enola-Battles-American/dp/080504387X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1260230405&sr=8-1 But to say they should thank us is pretty disgusting. War sucks, nobody should thank anyone else for nuking their cities, sorry brah. 
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2009 01:02
|
|
|
Maarak posted:A totally legal firing as well. Of course, he'd have a hell of a time proving that's why he was fired, so it's not like a court case is ever going to happen.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2009 01:25
|
|
|
sheri posted:Well, if it was a protected class, it would matter. Being in a right to work state doesn't mean you can be fired for being pregnant, or black, or any other such characteristic of a protected class.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2009 02:29
|
|
|
jackpot posted:Let me stop you right there.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2009 19:05
|
|
|
Intel&Sebastian posted:The Lou Dobbs tax break I want to believe Lou Dobbs is in too deep with the mob after calling in a series of hits against Mexicans he saw on the street, and had to step down from his show because he's about to be kidnapped and murdered by the mafia and doesn't want anyone to find out about his dirty little hobby. 
Cognac McCarthy fucked around with this message at 23:23 on Dec 10, 2009 |
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2009 23:20
|
|
|
I'm also pretty surprised that he supposedly wrote two books, since he seems incapable of forming even the most basic spelling. Then again this is the age of Sarah Palin's book. 
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2009 11:40
|
|
|
Zwabu posted:I thought the Swift Boat Vets were supposedly Navy folks who'd supposedly "served with" Kerry on the, er, Swift Boat units in Vietnam? (Many of whom did not in fact "serve with" Kerry at all of course.)
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2009 17:36
|
|
|
I also think it's a bit funny and probably overlooked by people who actually believe that email that the tomato industry in the US is huge, and by proportion it's probably the biggest employer of undocumented workers. I sense some cognitive dissonance.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2009 13:22
|
|
|
That would've been pretty impressive for Bush to bring about 8 years of unprecedented prosperity with 4 years of being president. Though if he's going to think economic policies project forward that much, that makes the recession that happened under Bush Reagan's fault. He needs to decide if he likes Bush or Reagan more.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 20, 2010 03:32
|
|
|
akula posted:I was under the impression that all tax brackets will be increased unless congress acts.. anyone?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 24, 2010 18:27
|
|
|
MrPhaethon posted:I actually think it's pretty okay to disagree with your professor if you think they're wrong and have a good case to prove your point. It's an important part of education, as long as it's done politely. It's pretty craven to sneer at someone for challenging "the man in charge of grading your tests." That's not really the point. The crux of his argument is essentially "everybody knows professors are Democrats", therefore political science is indoctrination class. Given how awfully it's written (and thought-out), there's no reason to believe the quotes he's given are real. Persecution complex leads people to make a lot of poo poo up about how hard they have it.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 17, 2010 19:13
|
|
|
Ben Bernanke's Doctoral thesis! gently caress, page snipe. I have literally nothing, since my whole family doesn't want to debate me on politics. I guess I will say that I've had people remove me as a friend on Facebook over debates. One friend was complaining about liberals "whining" about Bush v. Gore, so I gave a well-reasoned response based on my research in my Polisci class, and she promptly un-friended me. Cognac McCarthy fucked around with this message at 06:17 on Sep 21, 2010 |
|
#
¿
Sep 21, 2010 06:15
|
|
|
In the spirit of intellectual honesty, it should be said that Rome was a better and nicer sponsor state than most the Israelites had known, and the same can be said for a lot of the Roman world. 
|
|
#
¿
Sep 22, 2010 03:06
|
|
|
Cowslips Warren posted:Not an email, but there was some Law and Order SVU episode where some guy was killing 'anchor babies' of illegal citizens. One of the cops goes to a couple to tell them their eight year old son has been murdered, and the mom starts wailing that he 'was their anchor' and now they're in trouble.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 15, 2010 07:13
|
|
|
nm posted:epublicans know their anti-immigration/racist stances will keep hispanics (except cubans) from voting republican for generations. It seems they really do think they can stop the demographic readjustment that'll give Latinos majority populations in much of the US. It'd be hilariously idiotic on their part if it didn't have offensive and tragic human rights impicatioms: the GOP is calling for a wholesale US economic invasion of Latin America but literally wants to wall the US off to stop the demographic effects of economic realignment. Essentially, they're filling a balloon with water and working their asses off to hold the hole shut. And they don't give a poo poo if the balloon pops, as long as the water doesn't come out where they're holding it shut. The good news is that people are getting through anyway, and there's definitively no way they can stop the wave that's coming. The GOP had a choice about 10 years ago to either court or pour hatred onto the Latino population. They really easily could've secured their vote, since the Latino population is largely conservative and Catholic. All the GOP had to do was make them vote on moral rather than economic lines, like they've gotten poor white voters to do for 30 years. But they hosed it up. The Republicans under Bush demonstrated they weren't interested in reconciling with Latinos, and they came down further to the right than Bush on immigration. It's a colossal fuckup that probably hasn't begun to be felt just yet. In 20 years as Latinos born here start voting they'll come down decidedly for Democrats. The GOP just won't be able to turn around on the immigration issue. They can quiet down on gay rights because young people in the US just don't care and the GOP is starting to see this. Xenophobia and hatred of all Latinos is, on the other hand, alive and well among lots of young white people in the US. The GOP absolutely won't abandon these people, and there can't be any sort of coalition between them and Latinos. The influence of these people is going to very suddenly start decreasing in 15-20 years. Children of undocumented immigrants get to vote just like everyone else, and needless to say there are a lot of these people. It's going to be great to watch the GOP collapse, at least.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 15, 2010 16:02
|
|
|
Bobby Digital posted:Along these lines, last night my uncle claimed that there were constant riots all over Europe because of "socialism." My cousin was going to fly Paris when all the protests started recently, and she expressed some (perfectly reasonable) concern that places being shut down as a result would limit the activities available to her and her kids. One of her friends advised her not to go because (paraphrasing) "Things are different over there. They have all kinds of people we don't have, and thankfully we wouldn't let them get away with that here." Basically she simultaneously attributed the general strike to Muslim terrorists, socialism, and thuggery.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 16, 2010 04:26
|
|
|
VideoTapir posted:Disney princesses, romantic comedies and rich-girl TV dramas present the unattainable standard for men. But it's presented to women, so we aren't like "sigh, why can't I be flawlessly handsome, rich, and simultaneously strong and a total pushover who likes a girl with no obvious charms?" we're just like "WTF is wrong with these women?" That's where MRAs miss the point so much - they talk about unrealistic bodies in media but they completely ignore who that media is aimed at. Ridiculously proportioned women in superhero comics is a male sexual fantasy, but ridiculously proportioned men aren't (by design, anyway) a female sexual fantasy in the same way: they're a male power fantasy. Men in porn traditionally don't look the way they do to appeal to women, and given the labor conditions and relative worker power for men in porn, they're certainly not valued by producers who know that a man in the shoot just has to look a certain way for it to be successful. Because for most porn the male body is just a replaceable stand-in.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2013 02:15
|
|
|
Wait I'm confused - is he making fun of environmentalists by insinuating that human civilization can continue without the loving ocean or is he parodying conservatives who dismiss environmental disasters or
|
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2013 07:11
|
|
|
ClothHat posted:He didn't realize it was a fake article and is trying to play it off. No I get that - I'm just trying to figure out the logic of his joke. Like, it doesn't read as genuine self-deprecating panic (like "oh no everything on here is true and the oceans are gone, I'm freaking out!"). Even in realizing that the articles are fake he still manages to come off as the kind of rear end in a top hat who says things like "the Earth is warming? Heh, cool, it's too cold in Minnesota anyway  ". I know he's not actually saying that the oceans aren't necessary for human survival, but the tone of his comment is the same as if he had. It's a telling tendency.e: I guess what I'm trying to point out is that, presented with the embarrassment of not being able to detect an obviously satirical news site, his reaction was neither "Oh man that's embarrassing" nor "Oh jeez can you imagine what it would actually be like if the oceans dried up?": it basically amounted to "yeah sure the news is fake but can you imagine how those goddamn ENVIRONMENTALISTS would react if the oceans dried up? loving losers." Cognac McCarthy fucked around with this message at 07:55 on Sep 28, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2013 07:48
|
|
|
I don't update the OP anymore but feel free to post those links in this thread. I'm sure there are people trying to figure out how to respond to this misinformation, so it would be super good of you to do.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2013 03:31
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:As with all things, I blame Obama. In 2008, the quiet racists were pretty confident that a black man named Barack Hussein Obama wasn't going to win against war-hero John McCain, Bush gently caress-ups-be-damned. Sure, plenty of people said they were going to vote for Obama, but that is all part of the facade that everybody puts up so they don't get accused of being racist. Then Obama won and their brains melted. I mean, O'Reilly basically called for the Race War and not only was he not alone, he was a comparatively moderate voice. On the plus side, that meant that people started talking about race a lot more and a lot of hidden racism started getting more attention. Things have now progressed to the point where we can actually have a discussion about cops killing black people and how maybe that isn't a good thing and how maybe it is pretty hosed up.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2014 10:51
|
|
|
I said the '80s because it was a period of actively dismantling the progress made by minority groups during the '60s and '70s, rather than just maintaining a static segregated society.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2014 14:47
|
|
|
Shbobdb posted:I think it is a very good thing. It is forcing us to confront our racist system. The statistics I've seen don't suggest that white on black (especially police on black) violence have significantly increased during Obama's tenure, we are just paying more attention now. That is a huge net positive. Ah ok I was just a little confused because of some of the wording in the earlier post.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2014 17:49
|
|
|
I also had to really wrestle with what to take away from that article, but one of the responses made me cringe by opening with "I'm a good white person, I majored in African American Studies". I think what you're supposed to get is that white people should just be a little quieter with their activism and advocacy, and shouldn't presume to be perfect allies all the time. The article contradicts itself a bit by bringing up the criticism of #crimingwhilewhite without actually including the author's own take on the critique. I can see why people find the hashtag irritating but I also see its purpose and usefulness, but bringing up the controversy accuses "good white people" of drowning out nonwhite experiences (which sounds like it's discouraging people from speak up - after all, it's hard for white people to know if a given hashtag/rhetorical strategy/what have you is helpful or not), even as the rest of the article is concerned with the way good white people don't speak up enough. I get that the point of it is to say that white people refuse to critically examine fundamental causes of injustice, but in my mind #crimingwhilewhite is a pretty drat fundamental critique of racial inequality, so I don't get why that hashtag was brought up and not one of the more obviously problematic attempts by white people (hello libertarians) to co-opt the Michael Brown/Eric Garner cases for their own purposes. What also really bugged me about the article was that it was attributing to "good white people" some very, very plainly lovely behavior. Not even "these are bad allies" behavior, but "these people can't even be considered allies" behavior.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2014 12:54
|
|
|
Defenestration posted:White people wanting cookies ITT. Uh what? We're literally all saying the article does a good job of critiquing white people who want to be congratulated for not being awful pieces of poo poo. We're not even really criticizing the article for not providing solutions (the post above yours concedes she doesn't have to take the time to educate white people if she doesn't want to). People are literally asking in good faith if anyone has another article with good concrete suggestions for white people to avoid being lovely. People like the conversation and want to continue it to better support people of color, how is that bad?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2014 14:36
|
|
|
E: I am dumb and didn't look at who I was responding to. Obvious sarcasm went over my head, sorry. I would also say as a pretty hard rule that it's best for white allies to never, ever invoke the words of [insert black leader] when defending themselves against criticism from people of color. Even if your intentions are good and the quote is apt, it's a terrible idea because you're arguing that your nonwhite critic needs to listen to [insert black leader] and you, who agree on an issue. And all the other reasons it's a terrible idea. Cognac McCarthy fucked around with this message at 15:00 on Dec 18, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2014 14:54
|
|
|
The weirdest thing with the Morgan Freeman is that it spawned a bunch of lovely fake Facebook and twitter accounts as well as fake image macros attributing dogwhistle racist quotes to him and people ate it up.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2014 18:40
|
|
|
Wanamingo posted:I have to work with cops sometimes, and I'm really hoping I never hear what they think about this all. It's a small PD and they all seem like nice people, I'd hate to know they're on the wrong side of this. To be fair, aren't big city cops often quite a bit worse than smaller PDs? Most things I've read give me the impression that big city PDs are concerned with lawsuits first and foremost, which encourages a lot of lovely behavior, while the risk of a lawsuit is much lower in smaller towns. Obviously there are other factors to consider too, but that's at least one important incentive for lovely policing potentially removed. bobservo posted:Most of what I'm seeing is a false equivocation of the cop murders with Brown and Garner's. Nothing flagrantly offensive, just the faux-intellectual "see BOTH sides have problems" garbage. I know this is a thread for lovely anti-intellectual chain mail, but if anyone's interested here's a good articulation for precisely why this kind of thought is completely loving stupid. ToxicSlurpee posted:The other snag is the "blue wall of silence." Police will generally refuse to testify against other police, which makes punishing police that have misbehaved quite difficult. Considering that you often need the police to make an arrest in the first place before criminal proceedings can even start, well, good luck convincing Lieutenant Hatesallblacks to arrest his good drinking buddy Sergeant Murderedakid. In the same vein, here is a great article on why police unions/fraternities are loving awful. Dr. Arbitrary posted:I think that people underestimate how much ugliness we're willing to put up with when it comes to police behavior. Even on these forums there were a lot of people sticking up for the police in the Tamir Rice shooting because of how realistic the gun looked. It wasn't until the video came out that the sentiment strongly shifted to "Cops murdered a kid" That's part of what's so goddamn dumb about people arguing that Obama/Holder/De Blasio/whoever are whipping up anti-police sentiment (whatever that actually means) for political gain. Aside from the fact that they're simply not doing it, outright mistrust of or opposition to police is not a popular position in the US. If Obama came out and said "gently caress the police, they just maintain the oppressive status quo through force and murder when necessary", the majority of even his liberal base would abandon him in an instant. Police unions' response to reasoned calls for more accountability has been to act as though the very foundations of law and order are under coordinated assault by a sizable chunk of politicians in Washington and the media, because it's a good way of getting the Right to vocally oppose any police reforms whatsoever. I don't know if the police are doing this because it's a good political strategy or because they are honestly dumb enough to believe it, but given how loving stupid some of the statements coming out of police fraternities have been recently, I'm sort of leaning toward the latter.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 22, 2014 10:33
|
|
|
iajanus posted:Can't find the other thread, but can anyone give me a succinct rundown of why this article is retarded (link link link) ? All the super-Christian people on my facebook feed are trumpeting it and it'd be nice to have some simple ways to shoot it down. I'm on my phone so can't do too much reading/linking myself (yay Christmas holidays!). I'm not an expert on this by any means and can't speak to specifics, but (aside from the criticisms of this article's fundamental assumptions which others have pointed out), I'm guessing the whole "it's mathematically impossible for Earth-like planets to naturally occur!" trope could be thrown out the window very easily with some of the findings of SETI programs in the past decade or so. From what I understand it was once assumed that planets formed around stars only in rare circumstances but recent findings indicate they may actually be the norm, they're just very hard to see. This is also assuming that the criteria the article claims Sagan and others laid out as 100% necessary for the formation of life aren't being misrepresented or simply outmoded. That rebuttal would require a very specific investigation into the claims.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 28, 2014 14:07
|
|
|
You know, typically the most important requirement for getting people to buy into your prophecies is writing them really well, with biblical allusions and mysterious imagery or at least with a good command of the language. Most of those read like something written by a dumb high school student trying to sound erudite and using vocabulary he doesn't fully understand. Who finds that poo poo compelling? Read a sci-fi novel, it'll have better descriptions of the apocalypse. Also, Dmitri Duduman  e: I realize the irony of initially using the wrong word in trying to characterize why these people sound dumb. Cognac McCarthy fucked around with this message at 15:19 on Dec 29, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2014 15:16
|
|
|
Jerry Manderbilt posted:Honestly, one thing that got me about the whole They are wrong, however, in assuming that adherence to late 18th-century liberal ideology makes any goddamn sense in a late industrial (or post-industrial) society, or that you can divorce the limited-government ideology of the late 1700s from the racism and political aristocracy that put it in place and benefited from it in the first place.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 30, 2014 18:56
|
|
WON'T SOMEONE THINK OF STERLING
|
Salon can be pretty good I think, it's sort of like a midpoint between barely-tolerable-but-well-meaning Huffington Post articles and harder to approach but much more satisfying stuff like Jacobin.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 31, 2014 10:44
|
|
|
sweart gliwere posted:I mean, I still feel awful when reading about any persecuted person having so little hope that they choose suicide. And I haven't read up on the details of this case, and sure that meme poster is a jackass. And of course white Americans are way too complacent toward fixes and progress for anyone's good in this country. I don't know if you've ever been suicidal but people seriously contemplating suicide often spend a lot of time thinking about how they want to do it, and if they're really serious they might gravitate towards methods that are 1) guaranteed to be fatal, 2) easy to achieve, logistically, and 3) sudden, or at least fast enough so that it's impossible to back out of it at the last minute. Yeah sure stepping in front of traffic sucks because it forces other people to witness your death but it meets all three criteria so it's not like the decision was made from a "gently caress yeah these people are gonna have to see it" rationale.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 1, 2015 02:14
|
|
|
Zeitgueist posted:Had a nice debate the past week with a guy using evopsych to justify how making GBS threads on fat people is a behavior from evolution, sociology is a 'soft' science that is not worth paying attention to compared to evopsych, and eventually he said PZ Myers sounds like a creationist criticizing evopsych. I'm almost 100% sure he has no idea who PZ Myers is or his history regarding creationists. I don't know how/where to make smilies expand like I see sometimes, but this needs an  the size of the entire campus of whatever lovely college this guy went to.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2015 13:07
|
|
|
Zeitgueist posted:Business major Evo psych is the perfect pairing then.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 5, 2015 09:55
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 24, 2024 09:07 |
|
|
Mister Bates posted:I've met some members of the Islamic community here in Oklahoma a few times, they're generally pretty cool people. They're also thoroughly Americanized, and pretty much completely indistinguishable from everyone else.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 15, 2015 12:07
|
|