Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us $3,400 per month for bandwidth bills alone, and since we don't believe in shoving popup ads to our registered users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
«106 »
  • Locked thread
Urban Space Cowboy
Feb 15, 2009

All these Coyote avatars...they make me nervous...like somebody's pulling a prank on the entire forum!

Local free magazines and newspapers are the best at being the worst about columnists disingenuously whining about taxes.

Mark J. Lucas posted:

Dude…

F**k. Doing. Taxes.

I’m sure the second we print this, a team from the IRS, clad in black fatigues, is going to be dispatched from the wretched underground lair in which they are based. It’ll take time away from their everyday activities like puppy sacrifice, but that’s why we fall in line. It’s like the Mafia. I’d rather owe money to a bookie with a knife fetish than the IRS.

Of course, there’s always that one friend you have that says something about taxes being unconstitutional, or something, and claims that if you sign some secret paper, locked in a vault somewhere, that you can be emancipated from the practice. Yeah. Sure. Well pal, technically all the bullies that used to kick my rear end weren’t allowed to do that, and yet, they proceeded daily with newfound vigor.

I definitely pay my taxes. Every time. You hear that, Men In Black? Every time. And I can’t even get close to fudging numbers. A couple years ago, I made about $8,500 (word to the wise, aspiring writers … get used to water in your cereal). This year, the IRS sent me a letter telling them I owe them $1,200 from that year. Oh, and their devil math concluded I owed them this year, too. Hell, I smoke a pack of cigarettes a day. Do you know how much I pay in taxes through that? They could build an elementary school with what I gave them, and they want more.

I’ve got a buddy that cheats on his taxes like a sugar-crazed kid playing Monopoly. He’s claiming kids that never existed, lives never lived, candy bars. I get something off by one dollar, they need to do a cavity search on every record I’ve ever had, and they’re not stopping until they feel trachea.

That’s right.

I got audited.

Apparently, the IRS was just as shocked as I was that someone could live on such a pittance.

They couldn’t believe it, either.

Remember that feeling from when they used to make you keep logs of all your homework in school and it was worth, like, half of your grade. And you’re asked to go back to cross-reference it later, and papers are missing and now it’s a grilling session? The IRS audit is essentially the adult version of that. It’s the dream where you didn’t go to a class all semester, and now the big test is tomorrow, but you don’t wake up from the dream. That dream is waiting for you, and it’s got a calculator and the authority to tear you a new one. Of course, all my receipts for everything reside in a shoebox – a crack filing system, if ever there was one. My mother has every check she’s ever written in her life. Every one of them, since she was 16. Why didn’t I inherit that kind of organization instead of these dashing good looks and razor-sharp wit?

It’s bad enough having a pathetic salary, now I have to go back through it, step-by-step, and justify why I spent $1.50 on pens. And somehow, I always owe. All my friends are always talking about how they’re going to get their tax return back and go on vacation with the money. You know, “or whatever.” I then spend the next 10 minutes picturing my friend’s plane being lost at sea.

A couple years ago, GM paid no taxes. None. I paid more tax than General Motors did. Some people fantasize about one day owning a boat or a mansion. I fantasize about the day that I finally make enough money to hire a sweet accountant. Others are salivating over a copy of Yacht Monthly, I’m staring longingly at the Taxes Quarterly.

It doesn’t matter how organized I get, either. I could have every single receipt and paystub from the year before. Somehow, it’s going to take me a week to get my taxes done. I’m sitting there, sweating and crunching numbers, retrieving forms from the most remote reaches of the tax code. There’s always a glimmer of hope, too, that I might actually come out ahead, then it’ll tell me to take double that money and subtract it from what I’m owed. In the end, I’ve got to send it all in a mail crate from the 1940s and it’d better have every single fingerprint, retinal scan and blood test imaginable to be accepted, or the whole process starts over again.

Then, if I screw up something, they’ll send me a letter in the mail where they figured out that I put something in the wrong box …

WHY THE F**K DIDN’T YOU JUST DO MY TAXES FOR ME, AND SEND ME THE BILL THEN?

They know how much I owe them. Was this all just some sick game to make me know that I’m their bitch? That’s clearly what it is. There’s a whole division of government dedicated to letting me know that I don’t make what a McDonald’s employee makes, that I should have gone to law school and that I owe them more money.

That’s it! Screw ’em! Next year, I’m just not paying. They can come for me all they want to. They can level their army of number crunchers at me. They can send every form imaginable my way. I’ll just do what my cousin does and toss that sh*t in the trash.

What are they going to do? Kill me?

… oh … right. The audit …

I take it back! I take it all back! I didn’t mean it! You can have my money! You can have all of it! Just don’t send the auditor again! His eyes were so black! His soul was so empty! The putridity of his wicked smile haunts the deepest recesses of my psyche, day and night! I was never more certain, when in his presence, that I was staring into the void of all that is good in this world, and that happiness, love and hope were all a cruel and vindictive lie, thrust upon humanity to keep us quiet!

Oh, and by the way, can we get a flat tax going, already? I mean…what’s the story with that, anyway?
The story is that you'd almost certainly owe more under a flat tax!

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

constantIllusion
Feb 16, 2010


amaranthine posted:

I'd have probably hated that too, except that I was too busy frothing at the mouth over yet another case of military hero worship.

I also wanted to say Ms. West Point sounded like a figment of the writer's imagination with the way he was over her, but I didn't have time.

constantIllusion
Feb 16, 2010


Urban Space Cowboy posted:

free magazine

What I want to know is how someone who made only $8500 in one year, has a tax liability of $1200 when:

-One's taxable income is almost always less than their real income thanks to deductibles and credits,

-At such a low income, he would've definitely qualified for the Earned Income Tax Credit, which would have given him a refund,

and

-Up until last year the IRS would have prepared his tax return for free. This year he would have been sent to a Volunteer Income Tax Assistance center operated by a local non-profit.

Either I'm missing something or this guy is full of bullshit.

Ghost of Reagan Past
Oct 7, 2003

rock and roll fun


constantIllusion posted:

What I want to know is how someone who made only $8500 in one year, has a tax liability of $1200 when:

-One's taxable income is almost always less than their real income thanks to deductibles and credits,

-At such a low income, he would've definitely qualified for the Earned Income Tax Credit, which would have given him a refund,

and

-Up until last year the IRS would have prepared his tax return for free. This year he would have been sent to a Volunteer Income Tax Assistance center operated by a local non-profit.

Either I'm missing something or this guy is full of bullshit.
Newsflash: conservatives don't understand how taxes work.

Choadmaster
Oct 7, 2004

I don't care how snug they fit, you're nuts!


As far as the numbers go, I coincidentally made about $8500 this year and yes, I owed just about exactly $1200. Zero income tax (yeah, I'm one of those freeloaders) but as a freelancer I still have to pay self-employment tax (Social Security and Medicare). EITC shaved about $200 off it.

The author is somewhat correct in that the tax code is a bloody mess, and that leaves huge advantages to people who can hire slick accountants. However the flat tax is a stupid as gently caress solution to that.

Arglebargle III
Feb 21, 2006



Uh Jesus I made more than that last year and the IRS gave me money for bothering to file. I don't want to tell you you're doing something wrong, but somebody is doing something wring. The tax code is all kinds of hosed up.

Seriously you should not have to pay taxes on income that's like 50% the poverty level. How did you end up paying taxes on that?

Armyman25
Sep 6, 2005


Arglebargle III posted:

Uh Jesus I made more than that last year and the IRS gave me money for bothering to file. I don't want to tell you you're doing something wrong, but somebody is doing something wring. The tax code is all kinds of hosed up.

Seriously you should not have to pay taxes on income that's like 50% the poverty level. How did you end up paying taxes on that?

Poor people still pay FICA, right?

Choadmaster
Oct 7, 2004

I don't care how snug they fit, you're nuts!


Arglebargle III posted:

Uh Jesus I made more than that last year and the IRS gave me money for bothering to file. I don't want to tell you you're doing something wrong, but somebody is doing something wring. The tax code is all kinds of hosed up.

Seriously you should not have to pay taxes on income that's like 50% the poverty level. How did you end up paying taxes on that?

Armyman25 is right, (non-self-employed) poor people still pay FICA. This is ~6%, because their employer pays the other half (and the employee's half is withheld immediately from their paychecks, making it less obvious). However, FICA doesn't apply to the self-employed; they pay a self-employment tax, which really isn't any different than FICA except you're paying the full amount (you have no employer to cover half), so ~13%-15%.

This is why the conservative "48% of people are freeloaders who pay no taxes!!" canard is bullshit; that stat refers to federal income taxes, and not other federal taxes (or state taxes, sales taxes, etc.).

Choadmaster fucked around with this message at May 15, 2012 around 19:38

Leon Einstein
Feb 6, 2012
I must win every thread in GBS. I don't care how much banal semantic quibbling and shitty posts it takes.

The guy smokes a pack a day, and is spending about 30% of his income on them. He's clearly an idiot.

Goatman Sacks
Apr 4, 2011

by FactsAreUseless


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...?mod=hp_opinion

Wherein, the WSJ blows what can only be described as a dog vuvuzela

Arglebargle III
Feb 21, 2006




I can't believe my family still gets that rag. They've been getting it since I was a kid and it was a respectable publication and sheer inertia has kept them renewing it every year even though they now disagree with virtually everything it says. I keep telling them to cancel and get the NYT if they want a paper but whenever I visit or mention it my mom is always like "oh I forgot and just renewed it again."

constantIllusion
Feb 16, 2010


Goatman Sacks posted:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...?mod=hp_opinion

Wherein, the WSJ blows what can only be described as a dog vuvuzela

That's a lot of words to say "Holder's People". Who wrote this crap, A Freeper or some wealthy College Republican little poo poo?

VanSandman
Feb 16, 2011
SWAP.AVI EXCHANGER

I really, really ought to know better than to read letters to the editor.
USA Today (insert pithy comment here) is particularly terrible, with at least one "BOOTSTRAPS!" letter a day, every day.

Mo_Steel
Mar 7, 2008

Let's Clock Into The Sunset Together



Fun Shoe

Katherine Kersten has a lot of terrible opinions, but her editorial today in the Star Tribune is particularly appalling:

Katherine Kersten posted:

The faulty case for changing marriage laws
Supporters often cite 'discrimination.' Here's why that argument doesn't apply.

--

Sometimes you have to take an argument to its logical conclusion to see its flaws.

I'd guess, for example, that 95 percent of Minnesotans would oppose redefining our marriage laws to include temporary marriages, where the partners' marriage certificate includes an end date; marriages of three or more people (say, two lesbians rearing their child with a gay male sperm donor), or marriages between siblings in a nonsexual relationship.

Yet how would such marriages hurt anyone else's marriage? If the individuals in question love and care for each other, isn't that all marriage is about? Doesn't love make a family? Don't people bound by affection deserve the benefits of marriage -- and suffer stigma if these are withheld? If you disagree, aren't you discriminating against others' "fundamental right" to marry as they wish?

These questions are, of course, the same as those posed by same-sex marriage advocates to fellow Minnesotans who support preserving one-man/one-woman marriage in our state Constitution.

If you think the marital forms just described are fantasy, you should know that some very smart people are telling us that promotion of such arrangements is the logical next step in the marriage debate. These individuals made their case in a 2006 statement entitled "Beyond Same-Sex Marriage," whose signers include Gloria Steinem; Princeton University's Cornel West, and hundreds of other lawyers, writers and scholars from some of our nation's most prestigious universities.

Why do the marriage permutations they describe strike most of us as inappropriate, just as the marriage of two men or two women did until a few years ago? The reason is that marriage has a unique public purpose, which distinguishes it from all other human relationships, no matter how valuable they may be to the people involved.

Marriage has always and everywhere been a male/female institution because it is rooted in biology and human ecology. Across the globe and through the millennia, its public purpose has been the same: To connect men with their children and the mother who bore them, so that every child has a loving, committed mother and father.

Though the best environment for raising children is a married mother and father, the power and inconstancy of human sexual attractions make this hard to achieve. Marriage brings social norms and pressures to bear to create a socially supported framework to ensure stable unions -- thereby forming the next generation and promoting the common good.

Same-sex marriage supporters are wrong, then, to compare laws enshrining one-man/one-woman marriage to laws barring interracial marriage. Jim Crow-era laws did not challenge the nature or meaning of marriage. On the contrary, they sought to frustrate its natural goods by artificially keeping black and white men and women apart to perpetuate a racist legal order.

What will happen if we buy the civil-rights analogy and redefine marriage as a "unisex" institution on grounds that "equality" requires it?

First, we will weaken the institution's ability to support men and women in forming permanent, sexually exclusive unions. Norms of fidelity and permanence are central to heterosexual marriage, where sex acts can produce children. But they don't have the same logical necessity in unisex relationships, which are more like friendships in this respect.

If marriage becomes the union of any two people based on affection -- losing its core purpose of binding men and women together -- people will find it increasingly difficult to understand the rationale for marital norms, which are hard to live by. As shared, public understanding of its purpose falls by the wayside, marriage will become just one of many lifestyle choices. Increasingly, people may fail to see any intrinsic reasons to marry at all.

As men and women drift away from marriage and its norms, children will suffer. Government will be compelled to play an ever-increasing role in the functions of the family.

Finally, if support for one man/one-woman marriage becomes the social equivalent of racism, people who believe all children need and deserve a mother and father will face persecution in the public square. The state's massive civil-rights enforcement regime will bear down upon them, effectively silencing them and sometimes even putting their employment at risk.

Do traditional marriage laws inappropriately discriminate against people who seek legal recognition for nonmarital, affection-based unions, which can take many forms? The answer is no. It is not "discrimination" to treat different things differently.

The law, by its nature, distinguishes among people. The question is whether it does so on grounds that serve a legitimate public purpose, and whether it employs criteria that are genuinely relevant to the distinctions it makes.

Our marriage laws -- perhaps more than any others -- clearly meet that test.

"I'd guess"? Well if that's our threshold than "I'd guess" that 95% of Minnesotans would like to watch you swim in a sewer so best get to it.

She continues from there to bemoan that marriage has always been this one way (it hasn't) and that if you allow the gays to marry then why will straight people see any need for marriage and won't you think of the children oh and bigots will be ostracized by people too.

Pththya-lyi
Nov 8, 2009

Ia-R'lyehl Cihuiha flgagnl id Ia!



Marriage exists so that kids can grow up with a mom and dad, and that is why our society allows:
  • People who can't or don't intend to have children to marry.
  • Parents to divorce.
  • Single parents to remain single.

The Dark One
Aug 19, 2005

I'm your friend and I'm not going to just stand by and let you do this!


Can't you see? Marriage is about turning women into baby factories. If we start letting in people who only want use it as an expression of their love, then hetero women might also start thinking that their union is based on more than just procreation. What relationship could stand up in the face of such artificially high expectations?

Windozer
Nov 1, 2009

by Y Kant Ozma Post


Urban Space Cowboy posted:

Local free magazines and newspapers are the best at being the worst about columnists disingenuously whining about taxes.
The story is that you'd almost certainly owe more under a flat tax!

People pay for this poo poo? This is like a poorly-written blog post. I think we've found out why he makes so little!

Antifa Turkeesian
Aug 20, 2006



Broken Cake

The Dark One posted:

Can't you see? Marriage is about turning women into baby factories. If we start letting in people who only want use it as an expression of their love, then hetero women might also start thinking that their union is based on more than just procreation. What relationship could stand up in the face of such artificially high expectations?

I can't remember where I saw it (I think it was in a documentary about Prop 8 in California that I saw on Netflix) and there was a preacher speaking to his congregation and he said of "the opposition" that "they think that love is enough!" in a way that suggested he was disgusted with the idea or found it naive. There was a shot of an old lady in the congregation sadly shaking her head.

So there's definitely something to this idea, though its adherents would try to keep the central claim implicit.

Branis
Apr 14, 2006

they all wear pants that are too tight and they all secretly wanna bang wearing their campaign hats. use this to your advantage

What is minnesotas massive civil rights enforcement regime? I grew up and spent most of my life in MN and never ran afoul these thugs.

Dr. Tough
Oct 21, 2007



Attention UK goons: Good news! There is no austerity in Britain!

quote:

Britain, "austerity," and the lessons of economic history

Economists and pundits alike are going wild over the United Kingdom’s recent “double dip” recession. The 2008-09 recession prompted the election of a conservative coalition led by Prime Minister David Cameron. Cameron decided the best path for economic recovery was “austerity,” a program of reduced government spending and smaller government debt. The new coalition – with the aid of Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne – sought to drastically slash the government budget. With the addition of increased taxes, the plan was dubbed “Tax and Axe.”

Two years later, the United Kingdom is back in recession. Keynesian economists are enjoying a savory “I told you so” moment, as many pointed out the dangers of austerity during troubled times. The logic runs as follows: when businesses, households, and governments all try to pay back their debts at the same time, they spend less. As they spend less, national income falls, leading to even less spending. This sets off a cycle of decreased spending and economic collapse.

The Keynesian solution is government spending. It goes like this: Governments can increase spending during recessions to keep national income up, preventing the spending collapse. In short, more stimulus is the answer.

In turn, many progressives in the United States are arguing that any similar austerity here (such as Congressman Paul Ryan’s budget plan) would have equally bad results: another recession.

Unfortunately, this reasoning is based on a faulty premise. Here is the reality: There is no austerity in the United Kingdom.

Quite the contrary, government spending in Britain has increased in the last two years, and will continue for the foreseeable future. In real terms (based on estimated inflation and GDP growth), spending was set to decrease this fiscal year. Unfortunately, this prediction was made on the assumption of positive yet small GDP growth. As we now know, this assumption was bad and GDP shrank, heralding a recession.

Public debt in the United Kingdom continues to rise. The 2012 budget clearly outlines increases in public debt all the way until 2016 (when the predictions stop). To top it all off, these numbers exclude the 2008-09 emergency financial interventions. The financial sector in the United Kingdom took a hit in the previous recession and was promptly bailed out in 2009. Since then, the government has borrowed an additional 124 billion pounds to keep banks afloat.

Furthermore, some British think tanks estimate that only around 6 percent of Cameron’s cuts have been implemented, with the remaining 94 percent still waiting to actually be cut by 2016-17. Is this “austerity” (itself a loaded term) in any sense of the word? Suppose you were driving towards a cliff. Is it enough to ease off the gas pedal, or do you need to hit the brakes?

Economists such as Paul Krugman are already branding Europe’s approach a failure. In many ways, it is. But what is really at stake is the real reason things are failing. We cannot allow history to think that the United Kingdom tried austerity. It is simply not true. If we interpret this wrong, we will get the wrong historical lessons.

In fact, something similar happened during the onset of the Great Depression. Herbert Hoover was in office when panic struck and the history books claim he tried free-market principles, which failed. In the first year of the depression, 1931, federal expenditures rose from $4.2 billion to $5.5 billion. The federal government incurred a $2.2-billion deficit the same year. In 1932, Hoover raised taxes.

Sound familiar? Despite the fact that President Hoover increased government spending and debt, his approach was labeled “free market.” The exact opposite is true. When running against Franklin Roosevelt, Hoover actually argued that Roosevelt would make things worse by lowering taxes and decreasing spending. Roosevelt responded by accusing Hoover’s administration of being a profligate spender.

The same classification error is happening again today. The United Kingdom has raised taxes, increased government spending, and taken on more debt. This is the exact opposite of the clear meaning of austerity. What sort of Orwellian doublespeak is being used when “free market” means more government?

Of course, the situation in the United Kingdom is not identical to the United States. Exact comparisons and examples do not translate. One thing we do know, however, is that the British have not attempted to rein in out-of-control government spending. Like many governments, Britain scheduled cuts years into the future and continue to pile on debt. Before we even consider the failure of austerity in England, we must first be convinced austerity has really happened.

Arglebargle III
Feb 21, 2006



I love that austerity has been so thoroughly discredited in the U.K. at this point that pro-austerians have to claim that what they're doing isn't actually austerity at all. They're backpedaling so hard that they can't possibly claim a shred of intellectual honesty to an intelligent observer.

tigersklaw
May 8, 2008


Branis posted:

What is minnesotas massive civil rights enforcement regime? I grew up and spent most of my life in MN and never ran afoul these thugs.

The person who wrote about the civil rights regime and how people against gay marriage will be publicly shamed or fired because of it seem to think that, given the chance, the LGBT community will happily do to them what they have been doing to gay rights advocates for years. All they see is a cycle of revenge.

Duck_King
Sep 5, 2003

leader.bmp


There's just something about this way of thinking with a lot of the far right. They seem to assume that everyone they hate is just as crazy and vindictive as they are, and you see it a lot in the Freep thread.

Shalebridge Cradle
Apr 23, 2008




Duck_King posted:

There's just something about this way of thinking with a lot of the far right. They seem to assume that everyone they hate is just as crazy and vindictive as they are, and you see it a lot in the Freep thread.

There's some research to show that people who believe in conspiracy theories do so because they are willing to conspire in the first place. Its classic projection, I'm willing to do it so they are too.

http://www.psmag.com/culture-societ...-mindset-30295/

quote:

“At least among some samples and for some conspiracy theories, the perception that ‘they did it’ is fueled by the perception that ‘I would do it,’” University of Kent psychologists Karen Douglas and Robbie Sutton write in the British Journal of Social Psychology.

They think the other side will publicly shame people because they are willing to shame the gays.

Frog Act
Feb 10, 2012


This showed up in my local newspaper today. The editorial page is always outlandishly offensive, but this one bugged me in particular:

quote:

History is the propaganda of the victorious

Editor, Times-Dispatch:

Dr. Charles Bryan states that the Civil War sesquicentennial commemoration has embraced the full story that slavery was the root cause of the war. One might with more veracity say that abolition was the root cause, for the ancient institution of slavery was worldwide at the founding of the U.S., whereas abolition was not.

We all know the South held slaves. We all don't know that the North sold its slaves down the river during the Industrial Revolution when steam power replaced muscle power. But the South, with its large population of African slaves, could not do like the North. Slavery was a means for the social control of a large alien population, and it was protected by the federative nature of the Constitution. But that nature became a stumbling block for Northern industry, and the North sought to subvert it to its interest — to the South's peril.

When the North abolition party won the presidential election of 1860 by a strictly sectional majority, the South seceded for self-preservation. The North should have been glad to be rid of it. But Northern industrialists needed the South's cotton and markets, which they would lose to England if the South got from under the North's control. So after Northern abolitionists drove the South out of the voluntary union, the Northern capitalists drove it back in with bayonets. They then disenfranchised the white and put them under Reconstruction regimes until the federative nature of the Constitution could be effectively gutted.

History is the propaganda of the victorious. Dig there if you want the full story.

H.V. Traywick Jr.

Richmond.

Confederate apologism, with a nasty underlying "slavery is just the way things are" theme.

Benagain
Oct 10, 2007

Student of the principle art of posting

Fun Shoe

Ignoring that whole bit where Andrew Johnson basically bent over backwards and let the south do whatever the gently caress they wanted.

poopy pee pee
Feb 13, 2012

I'm a nice guy, hoping to have some fun on these forums, Lol

poopy pee pee fucked around with this message at May 17, 2016 around 00:28

Political Whores
Feb 13, 2012



I was always under the impression that the industrial revolution is what made cotton in the South so profitable. Cotton isn't useful in large quantities unless you can process it efficiently, which is what the Cotton Gin did. Factories in the north demanding cotton for their textiles is what fulled the expansion of southern plantations and the continuous import of more slaves, depressing local labour markets and making plantation owners hugely rich.



Then these same plantation owners convince their poor, destitute neighbours that it's really black people's fault all the land is growing cotton now and there are no jobs, not the fault of the assholes on top who set up the system in the first place. They convinced the poor commoners to fight a war to maintain a system that was loving them over and was slowly destroying their society. This is not to mention the huge environmental problems that came from soil depletion after continuously growing the same cash crop year after year. In no way was slavery in the South necessary or sustainable, on top of it being morally wrong. There was nothing of "self-preservation" in the civil war, unless you count the preservation of inflated profits of Southern landowners.

poopy pee pee
Feb 13, 2012

I'm a nice guy, hoping to have some fun on these forums, Lol

poopy pee pee fucked around with this message at May 17, 2016 around 00:30

Political Whores
Feb 13, 2012



Senor Gato posted:

Well, I'm admittedly not an expert, but many Southerners were convinced that Lincoln was going to be a tyrant who'd take their slaves and freedoms away, and destroy Southern culture and institutions; that's why poor white people fought so hard for the Confederacy. They enslaved an entire race of people (or at least, in the case of poor whites who couldn't afford slaves, treated them as less than equal members of society), and projected their own motives and thought processes onto others. Thus, in their eyes, abolitionism became an attempt to relegate white Southerners to second-class citizens. It's sort of like how homophobes are always afraid that gay people and tolerant straight people are going to start bullying and ostracizing them or whatever.

Oh, I'm sure they thought they were doing the right thing. I was just trying to point out that Southern culture would have had a reckoning at some point, even if they'd managed to successfully secede. Eventually, the problems inherent with the Southern economy being powered by slavery would have caused a collapse. Nothing about slavery, as a method of social control or otherwise, ensured the long-term survival of Southern culture. So H.V. Traywick Jr. can go gently caress himself,glorious Dixie wouldn't have been any better off now if it had somehow managed to preserve its backwards and terrible institutions.

poopy pee pee
Feb 13, 2012

I'm a nice guy, hoping to have some fun on these forums, Lol

poopy pee pee fucked around with this message at May 17, 2016 around 01:35

Bruce Leroy
Jun 10, 2010


tigersklaw posted:

The person who wrote about the civil rights regime and how people against gay marriage will be publicly shamed or fired because of it seem to think that, given the chance, the LGBT community will happily do to them what they have been doing to gay rights advocates for years. All they see is a cycle of revenge.

Exactly. It's the same thing soft white supremacists claim about non-whites.

Smashurbanipal
Sep 12, 2009
ASK ME ABOUT BEING A SHITTY POSTER


Senor Gato posted:

Only if they were Confederate leaders. In fact, southern whites routinely disenfranchised black people during Reconstruction, even in majority-black districts and counties. Most often this was achieved by violence against black people, perpetrated by white-supremacist terrorist groups such as the KKK.

The latter part of this statement rings false. It was AFTER Reconstruction, with the end of martial law and the removal of Federal troops from Dixie that the tide swung away from the enfranchisement of the Black population. It was a slow unpleasant slide into racially based law from the "1877 Compromise" to the official beginning of Jim Crow in 1890. This is not to say that all was instantly perfect for the newly freed slave population and existing free Blacks, but in many terms most notably political involvement and property rights, Reconstruction marked a sadly short lived high point.

poopy pee pee
Feb 13, 2012

I'm a nice guy, hoping to have some fun on these forums, Lol

poopy pee pee fucked around with this message at May 17, 2016 around 01:36

turn it up TURN ME ON
Mar 18, 2012

In the Grim Darkness of the Future, there is only war.

...and delicious ice cream.


While I kind of like this article, something seems a bit off about the way it's framed around the religious narrative. Take a look at it:

http://www.charlestoncitypaper.com/...ent?oid=4094572

While somewhere inside I am rejoicing that the Citadel is getting in trouble, the human part of me is revolted by what this guy did and how he manipulated several local trusted organizations to do it. Here's the part I think is kind of terrible reporting though:

quote:

"Unfortunately, Mr. ReVille — according to him — he experienced that as pleasurable because he had an adult male giving some attention to him. And then some 18 months later, his best friend of the same age that was a grade ahead of him brought home a sex education pamphlet from school. And from that began a series of presentations between him and his friends that expanded out to other boys his age.

"So what we have is someone who certainly appears to be biologically predisposed to be attracted heterosexually to adult females, but due to repetitive autoerotic behavior and behavior among his peers for a number of years, he has developed a deep-felt arousal for children."

Is it just me, or does it sound like they're trying to say that that particular incident caused the homosexuality and school-based sex ed programs enabled him to learn more about it?

Antifa Turkeesian
Aug 20, 2006



Broken Cake

SquadronROE posted:

While I kind of like this article, something seems a bit off about the way it's framed around the religious narrative. Take a look at it:

http://www.charlestoncitypaper.com/...ent?oid=4094572

While somewhere inside I am rejoicing that the Citadel is getting in trouble, the human part of me is revolted by what this guy did and how he manipulated several local trusted organizations to do it. Here's the part I think is kind of terrible reporting though:


Is it just me, or does it sound like they're trying to say that that particular incident caused the homosexuality and school-based sex ed programs enabled him to learn more about it?

That "doctor" seems to conflate homosexuality and pedophilia really readily in that quote, and by omission and implication seems to suggest that trauma can turn you gay. Since he's a "counselor" and not a psychologist, I wonder what kind of Ph.D./M.D. he has.

The really gross implication of that quote is that everybody in this community is going to be suspicious of the kids this guy raped, since by the "counselor's" logic they too have the potential to become child molesters. And the first comment (never read internet comments) makes it clear that these kids will be seen as tainted or damaged:

quote:

Does this mean there are 35 time bombs waiting to go off?

And of course the same religious fundamentalism that allowed this guy to use faith as a cover for his crimes also informs that sort of victim-blaming.

Antifa Turkeesian
Aug 20, 2006



Broken Cake

After googling the doctor (who does have a degree in psychology, though from the Citadel), it seems like his comments were made in the context of explaining how it could be that the molester explained that he was sexually attracted to adult women and young boys:

http://www.postandcourier.com/artic...years-in-prison

quote:

Burke said tests showed that ReVille is attracted to women and young boys. That could stem from a couple of events in his childhood, he said.

ReVille's parents divorced when he was quite young, and his mother remarried soon after, leaving ReVille feeling isolated. Then, in third grade, a teacher took ReVille aside, had him strip and sketched him in the nude, Burke said. “He experienced that as pleasurable because he had an adult male paying attention to him,” he said.

One of ReVille's friends then brought home a sex-education pamphlet, and the boys began experimenting, Burke said. That behavior continued with other boys, he said.

The omission in the first article makes me think that the reporter's letting some bias through.

Although I have to wonder how mainstream it is for psychologists to explain pedophilia in terms of reenacting past trauma. I know kids will do that and it can be a sign of abuse and that there's a strong correlation between growing up with domestic violence and either being abused or being an abuser.

But pedophilia seems like it's usually explained as something innate and incurable, since kids who reenact their abuse are usually suffering from PTSD and can be helped with regular therapy and people always talk about how therapy doesn't help child molesters. Maybe I've just been watching too much Law and Order.

turn it up TURN ME ON
Mar 18, 2012

In the Grim Darkness of the Future, there is only war.

...and delicious ice cream.


Yeah, I also found an article more fully explaining the device being used. While it seems a bit arcane, it doesn't sound stranger than any other first-generation device being used to try to quantify a qualitative analysis.

http://www.readability.com/articles/u8y2wvlq

Full disclosure: The reporter is someone who I know personally, and tries quite hard to remain neutral. I'm planning on trying to give him specific feedback, and posted the article here since I'd rather not be accusing him of being biased out of hand. Any suggestions would be interesting.

Something does sound really fishy about that entire quote though.

Political Whores
Feb 13, 2012



Jack Gladney posted:

The omission in the first article makes me think that the reporter's letting some bias through.

Although I have to wonder how mainstream it is for psychologists to explain pedophilia in terms of reenacting past trauma. I know kids will do that and it can be a sign of abuse and that there's a strong correlation between growing up with domestic violence and either being abused or being an abuser.

But pedophilia seems like it's usually explained as something innate and incurable, since kids who reenact their abuse are usually suffering from PTSD and can be helped with regular therapy and people always talk about how therapy doesn't help child molesters. Maybe I've just been watching too much Law and Order.

I'm no expert, but I was under the impression that pedophilia is just another form of paraphilia, that is a divergent sexual attraction brought on by conditioning. It's not necessarily abuse that does it, but I'm pretty sure it's never been linked to any innate characteristics or neurology, they way being gay or trans* has.

From googleing, it doesn't seem that there has been a lot of study into the causes or treatments of pedophilia, although they are available.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

rkajdi
Sep 11, 2001

End the populist machination of democracy.
End the repression of the superior betters of society from criticism by worthless dregs via the tyrannous bullhorn known as the 'vote'.
Only the meritorious can rule!


This boot tastes soooooo good.


SquadronROE posted:

Yeah, I also found an article more fully explaining the device being used. While it seems a bit arcane, it doesn't sound stranger than any other first-generation device being used to try to quantify a qualitative analysis.

http://www.readability.com/articles/u8y2wvlq

Full disclosure: The reporter is someone who I know personally, and tries quite hard to remain neutral. I'm planning on trying to give him specific feedback, and posted the article here since I'd rather not be accusing him of being biased out of hand. Any suggestions would be interesting.

Something does sound really fishy about that entire quote though.

That article is serious stuff. Starting using body reactions as the basis for legal proceedings is drat close to, if not actually, thought crime. And throwing an extra level of pseudo-science on top of it makes the whole article seem one degree removed from phrenology.

  • Locked thread
«106 »