Terrible Editorials, Opinion Pieces and Letters to the Editor

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Terrible Editorials, Opinion Pieces and Letters to the Editor

«‹›106 »

Eggplant Squire: Aug 14, 2003

I'm almost impressed that conservatism so shamelessly parades constant spirituality at the same time as mindless consumerism at the expense of spending time with family or eating something not bought at a fast food restaurant.

# ? Nov 29, 2013 07:32

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Apr 25, 2024 10:36

OwlBot 2000: Jun 1, 2009

On an unrelated note, can anyone give me a reason I shouldn't find Matthew Yglesias smarmy and awful? He has reasonable (or even good!) columns now and again, but more often than not it's horrible, harmful garbage and "just so" stories. Probably has something to do with his being a privileged, East Coast Ivy Leaguer and smug liberal.

OwlBot 2000 fucked around with this message at 07:44 on Nov 29, 2013

# ? Nov 29, 2013 07:35

cafel: Mar 29, 2010; This post is hurting the economy!

OwlBot 2000 posted:

Every day is 'Buy Nothing Day' in North Korea�and look where that�s gotten them

Of course, the number one problem with North Korea is that they don't shop on Black Friday. Secondly, where the Hell is this pilgrim myth coming from? Wasn't the change to prevent owners in the colonial joint-stock company from just lazing about and collecting money while the poor people did all the work (i.e. capitalism)?

Using Calvin Coolidge quotes to make a point about how we need irrational exuberance and rampant consumption is so :ironicat:

that I can't handle it. I mean every one knows we had the Roaring 20's and then it just continued and never stopped and the next decade wasn't marked by anything memorable at all.

# ? Nov 29, 2013 07:42

woke wedding drone: Jun 1, 2003; by exmarx; Fun Shoe

OwlBot 2000 posted:

On an unrelated note, can anyone give me a reason I shouldn't find Matthew Yglesias smarmy and awful? He has reasonable (or even good!) columns now and again, but more often than not it's horrible, harmful garbage and "just so" stories. Probably has something to do with his being a privileged, East Coast Ivy Leaguer and smug liberal.

He will age first into Thomas Friedman, then into Richard Cohen. At one time both of those men did journalism, then they got positions that made them way too comfortable.

# ? Nov 29, 2013 15:03

Caros: May 14, 2008

30.5 Days posted:

Basically every joint-stock settlement had a period of time in which things were more communal because it (surprise) made it more efficient to bootstrap the colony together if people were more worried about everyone surviving the winter instead of who owns what. This was, on paper, a temporary arrangement, and successful colonies were intended to transition to more traditional capital/merchantile as the colony got on its feet. Again, ALL joint-stock settlements. Every one. But this fact, combined with Jamestown's early troubles invents this thing where like, Jamestown has (more) communism, things are going bad, people are being lazy, later things are better and they have less communism. Therefore,

Its also worth noting that the Jamestown example is facepalmingly bad because of the actual circumstances of what made that colony successful the second time around. The libertarian/Rush Limbaugh/Lunatic view on it says that there was socialism and everyone nearly starved, then there was capitalism with tabacco and stuff and everything is great.

What they don't tell you is how Jonestown failed because of conflicts with local native americans, drought and lack of supplies from england. They had 2-300 people dropped on them shortly before winter with almost none of their supplies, and between that and the lazy 'gentlemen' they pretty much ended up eating each other.

Then a second expedition came and landed in the same place. This expedition was well armed, fanatical and took no poo poo from anyone. They effectively genocided several sub-tribes and stole massive swaths of land for the Jonestown colony, and also weren't in a drought.

Its almost as if that fat gently caress is lying to everyone.

# ? Nov 29, 2013 17:02

Pththya-lyi: Nov 8, 2009; THUNDERDOME LOSER 2020

Radish posted:

I'm almost impressed that conservatism so shamelessly parades constant spirituality at the same time as mindless consumerism at the expense of spending time with family or eating something not bought at a fast food restaurant.

That's because spirituality and material success are conflated through the Protestant work ethic. As Wikipedia says, "Hard work and frugality, as well as social success and wealth, were thought to be two important consequences of being one of the elect [i.e. one of the people who will go to Heaven]; thus, Protestants were thus attracted to these qualities and supposed to strive for reaching them." It seems that the "hard work and frugality" part eventually gave way.

# ? Nov 30, 2013 09:47

swimgus: Oct 24, 2005; Camlin bought me this account because I'm a Jew!

Caros posted:

What they don't tell you is how Jonestown failed because of conflicts with local native americans, drought and lack of supplies from england. They had 2-300 people dropped on them shortly before winter with almost none of their supplies, and between that and the lazy 'gentlemen' they pretty much ended up eating each other.

Then a second expedition came and landed in the same place. This expedition was well armed, fanatical and took no poo poo from anyone. They effectively genocided several sub-tribes and stole massive swaths of land for the Jonestown colony, and also weren't in a drought.

Its almost as if that fat gently caress is lying to everyone.

I think Jonestown failed because they drank poison.

# ? Nov 30, 2013 19:54

Fritz Coldcockin: Nov 7, 2005

swimgus posted:

I think Jonestown failed because they drank poison.

I laughed harder than I should have at this.

# ? Nov 30, 2013 21:19

Caros: May 14, 2008

swimgus posted:

I think Jonestown failed because they drank poison.

Well played sir, well played.

# ? Nov 30, 2013 23:45

zakharov: Nov 30, 2002; Tater Love

Once a week, the NYT publishes an "Invitation to a Dialogue," a letter to which they publish responses on the following Sunday. This week's really is false_equivalence.txt.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/04/opinion/invitation-to-a-dialogue-overcoming-media-bias.html?ref=opinion

quote:

To the Editor:

An autobiography gives an intimate account of a life, but to get the larger picture, you also need the biography.

The same goes for news. Relying on one source, or even on several sources with the same bias, will leave you with only part of the story.

That�s why the much maligned right-wing media is just as important as the so-called mainstream press. Fox News and others on the right certainly have a deeply embedded conservative bias, but the liberal bias on the other side is just as pervasive. Taken together, they roughly fill each other�s omissions.

Fox, for example, spent a good part of the past year digging into the Benghazi attack and I.R.S. tax-exempt status stories and talking hopefully about smoking guns, while the mainstream press was determined to take the Obama administration�s word for it that it did nothing wrong in either case.

More recently, when the president�s pronouncement about keeping your health insurance proved false, it was reported as a lie by the right and as a simple misstatement by the left.

And when the Obamacare website failed so miserably that not even the mainstream press could cover for it, the networks were obliged to sound like Fox for a while, although noticeably lacking was the appetite for pursuit that characterizes their coverage of Republicans.

Fairness in journalism requires not that every story or point of view receive equal weight but that every valid position receive equal respect. Thus the pro-life position should be treated with the same validity as pro-choice; small-government conservatives with the same respect as tax-and-spend liberals; Republicans as more compassionate than they sound and Democrats as less omniscient than they think.

But since journalists and news organizations are partisan at heart, one must sift through the best reporting and punditry from each side of the journalistic divide and take all the biases and agendas into account to arrive at an informed understanding of any story.

MARK R. GODBURN
North Canaan, Conn., Dec. 2, 2013

The writer is an antiquarian bookseller.

I scrolled to the end and as shocked to see that he wasn't from some right-wing think tank.

# ? Dec 4, 2013 05:38

woke wedding drone: Jun 1, 2003; by exmarx; Fun Shoe

Look you have to have two kinds of press. On the one hand there's the kind of news where you try to report events that are happening, and on the other there's the kind where you make events up. Remember, in any discussion it's important to include everyone's perspective, including liars. Fabricating news is really a civic duty, because sometimes the elaborate lies you tell end up corresponding to real life.

# ? Dec 4, 2013 06:30

My Q-Face: Jul 8, 2002; A dumb racist who need to kill themselves

Shalebridge Cradle posted:

This is amazing. If everyone has off then that means no one is working in those stores. So by making employees work on Thanksgiving you make it so plenty of people don't have off that day.

Employees aren't people, what are you talking about?

# ? Dec 4, 2013 11:33

MaxxBot: Oct 6, 2003; you could have clapped

you should have clapped!!

Yes Huffington Post, I totally come to your supposedly super liberal website to have gay writers tell me to stop being so gay and gross and by the way, go back into the closet. No one wants to hear about that poo poo anyways, just act like you're straight and you'll be accepted!

quote:

Are Gay Men Scared of Monogamy?

In a recent blog post I wrote on The Huffington Post, "8 Things Gay Men Need to Stop Saying," I listed "Do you want to sleep with other people?" as one of the things that gay men need to erase from their phraseology. My tongue-in-cheek look at gay culture, which was meant to be taken with a grain of salt, created a maelstrom, with hundreds of people tweeting and responding to this one specific question that has come out of the mouths of so many gay men.

"Don't tell me how to be in a relationship."

"Why are you dissing open relationships?"

"I will do what I want with my partner."

These were several of the (more polite) messages I received once the blog post went viral and people all over the world were responding to it. It even sparked a discussion of HuffPost Live -- "Queer Monogamy: All It's Cracked Up To Be?" -- in which I participated. I seemed to be the only person in the discussion who truly believed that gay male relationships should be monogamous, and in a Carrie Bradshaw moment, I thought to myself, "With all this opposition to gay monogamy, are gay men simply scared of monogamy?"

I honestly don't care what people do behind closed doors. I come from the old school: What you do in your own bedroom is your own business. But with gay couples fighting for the right to marry in every state in the country, why on Earth would this conversation come up? Isn't it an oxymoron? Don't we want straight people to understand that we want what they want? Whether or not they partake in open relationships or threesomes as their gay counterparts do, they certainly don't talk about it as openly as we do. So to me, the gay community is essentially saying, "We are fighting to have the same rights that you have, but we are going to continue to sleep with people outside our relationship and partake in threeways, because we can, and it's our right to do whatever we want." You're trying to make a case for equality, but it doesn't seem that you want to adapt; you'd rather rewrite the rules, even though marriage usually involves only two people in the boudoir. In fact, sleeping with someone outside your marriage is usually grounds for divorce.

I've thought about this topic a lot, and I discussed it with a friend over dinner the other night. We sat down next to a friend of his, who was dining with his best friend Jim. Aside from Jim, everyone at the table was in a long-term relationship. Jim moaned about the trials and tribulations of dating in New York and how difficult it is to find a quality boyfriend. When I asked him how he was looking, he told me that he rarely goes to mixers or parties; instead, he uses Tinder and Grindr to search for a boyfriend. Mind you, I do believe that these apps can be useful (mainly for hooking up or connecting guys in rural areas who do not have a safe place to congregate), but I do not believe that either is useful for finding true love.

My friend and I told Jim that we may be able to connect him with one of our friends, and when we asked him what he was looking for in a guy, he regaled us with a long list of physical attributes. He had designed the perfect-looking man in his mind. However, when I asked what he was really looking for in a man, personality-wise, the only thing he could come up with was, "Someone funny." Everyone wants someone with a good sense of humor. But really? When I asked him if he would like me to put him in touch with Mixology, a completely offline matchmaking service strictly for gays, he told me, "No, thank you. I have all I need to find a beau, and it's in my pocket," referring to the apps on his mobile phone. I went on to speak about Mixology's success rate with matching people offline based on personal interests and education; in fact, they withhold photos of people's potential matches in order to match them based on personality rather than looks. But he wanted no part of it.

To me, it seemed that this man was frightened of monogamy. He would rather sift through thousands of photos every day, searching for the perfect-looking man rather than the perfect man for him. Everyone wants a perfect-looking mate, but if that perfect-looking mate has poo poo for brains, then it's back to the drawing board, and the cycle essentially beings again.

Afterwards, I went straight to Meghann Novinskie, a woman I have great respect for. She has helped me through a relationship crisis or two, and she has years of experience working in the dating industry. She is also the relationship expert and one of the brains behind Mixology.

"There is a place for Tinder and Grindr in our culture," she told me, "but not for those who are actually looking for relationships. Tinder and Grindr aren't the place to search for a soul mate. They're more of a distraction, if anything, if you're looking for a partner."

So if people are using those apps to look for a relationship and it's clearly not working out, why do they continue to do the same thing over and over again, expecting a different result?

"Relationships can be scary," Meghann said, "and I believe that some people use those apps to [postpone] really trying to be in a relationship, potentially because they are scared of settling down. Plenty of my clients have confessed to using Grindr, and there is nothing wrong with that, but they come to me once they have gotten it out of their system and are ready for something meaningful and special rather than a one-night tryst. It could also be the fact that until recently, gay relationships and marriages haven't been as accepted as straight marriages, so it potentially hasn't been in the minds of many gay men to settle down until recently."

As we continue to fight for the right to marry in every state while also trying to redefine relationships to make nonmonogamy acceptable, it leaves many in the gay community confused. I know plenty of gay couples who are in happy, healthy relationships who don't cheat or partake in threesomes, but I also know many who do. Why is the gay community now trying to redefine what a relationship between two men or two women should entail?

"I have always had the firm belief that if you find someone that you really love, the question of 'do you want to sleep with other people?' rarely comes up," Meghann told me. "But if it does, have a plan. Are you OK with this? Or not? What's the plan if you're not game for the shift from monogamy to 'monogamish,' as Dan Savage likes to say?"

Certainly, some straight men and women cheat on each other or have open relationships or threesomes, so it's a wonder that we don't hear about it more often. And it's a wonder to me that gay men are so vocal about their open relationships and their need to redefine relationships on their terms if they also want the same rights as everyone else.

I suppose it all comes down to personal preference. I prefer to be in a monogamous relationship with my boyfriend, but many other gay men do not. However, it seems to me that if we want our relationships and marriages to be accepted by our straight counterparts, then maybe it's time to keep a lid on what exactly it is that we do behind closed doors. Maybe it's just no one's business.

# ? Dec 6, 2013 23:02

Gynocentric Regime: Jun 9, 2010; by Cyrano4747

MaxxBot posted:

Yes Huffington Post, I totally come to your supposedly super liberal website to have gay writers tell me to stop being so gay and gross and by the way, go back into the closet. No one wants to hear about that poo poo anyways, just act like you're straight and you'll be accepted!

I actually thought that was a pretty good piece, I am tired of the war on monogamy and I don't need to know what kinds of relationships people are in. If your pansexual polygamous hippie commune works for you great, but I don't need to hear about it every time you open your mouth.

# ? Dec 7, 2013 08:05

socialsecurity: Aug 30, 2003

Hasters posted:

I actually thought that was a pretty good piece, I am tired of the war on monogamy and I don't need to know what kinds of relationships people are in. If your pansexual polygamous hippie commune works for you great, but I don't need to hear about it every time you open your mouth.

Who do you talk to so much that this is an issue?

# ? Dec 7, 2013 08:14

woke wedding drone: Jun 1, 2003; by exmarx; Fun Shoe

Hasters posted:

I actually thought that was a pretty good piece, I am tired of the war on monogamy and I don't need to know what kinds of relationships people are in. If your pansexual polygamous hippie commune works for you great, but I don't need to hear about it every time you open your mouth.

Now ask yourself how that's any different from telling your co-workers that you have a wife and kids.

# ? Dec 7, 2013 08:17

VideoTapir: Oct 18, 2005; He'll tire eventually.

Bring your spouse to a company picnic. Man kisses wife on cheek, no one notices. Gay man kisses gay husband on cheek, boss throws up in mouth, knows who's getting the promotion.

# ? Dec 7, 2013 08:22

Bel_Canto: Apr 23, 2007; "Pedicabo ego vos et irrumabo."

Hasters posted:

I actually thought that was a pretty good piece, I am tired of the war on monogamy and I don't need to know what kinds of relationships people are in. If your pansexual polygamous hippie commune works for you great, but I don't need to hear about it every time you open your mouth.

On the other hand, you could also opt to deal with people's variant relationships like a mature adult.

# ? Dec 7, 2013 08:22

Gynocentric Regime: Jun 9, 2010; by Cyrano4747

SedanChair posted:

Now ask yourself how that's any different from telling your co-workers that you have a wife and kids.

It's not, but if every time it gets brought up someone launches into a child free hardcore diatribe or the media was filled with people saying having children was wrong and unnatural it would get a little annoying.

socialsecurity posted:

Who do you talk to so much that this is an issue?

It's not so much talking as reading, I should have said. It's hard to go a day reading news in the LGBT community without someone telling me that my marriage is wrong, I'm wrong for being in a monogamous relationship and everyone is supposed to cheat all the time.

# ? Dec 7, 2013 08:27

El Pollo Blanco: Jun 12, 2013; by sebmojo

Hasters posted:

It's not so much talking as reading, I should have said. It's hard to go a day reading news in the LGBT community without someone telling me that my marriage is wrong, I'm wrong for being in a monogamous relationship and everyone is supposed to cheat all the time.

As a person who has literally never seen any news from LBGT communities saying that heterosexual monogamous relationships are 'wrong', do you have any sources on this?

Also, the loaded word 'cheat' used to refer to someone's sexual activities in anything that is not a monogamous relationship is disingenuous at best, downright offensive at worst.

# ? Dec 7, 2013 10:14

VitalSigns: Sep 3, 2011

Hasters posted:

It's not so much talking as reading, I should have said. It's hard to go a day reading news in the LGBT community without someone telling me that my marriage is wrong, I'm wrong for being in a monogamous relationship and everyone is supposed to cheat all the time.

So you seek out news published by a sexual minority discussing different ways people deal with being a sexual minority and get all offended when they talk about what they share as a community, namely nontraditional sex and relationships? It's easy not to read LGBT community discussions, but I forgot that as a straight man you have the right to walk into any group and demand they discuss your concerns, because God forbid any part of society not be about you.

Do you read Christian newsletters and get pissed off that they have to mention Jesus all the time?

El Pollo Blanco posted:

As a person who has literally never seen any news from LBGT communities saying that heterosexual monogamous relationships are 'wrong', do you have any sources on this?

You have to put it through your privilege filter first:
-Was the article focused on the concerns of a community of which you're not a part?
-Did an article suggest that values other than yours may have some validity?
-Does it discuss issues without assuming your worldview as the default normal condition and treating everything else as a bizarre or hilarious aberration?
-Does it conclude without an apology for being different and reassuring noises that it's okay to be in the majority?

If the answer to any of these questions is yes, then it's a spiteful attack condemning your holy hetero way of life and :qq:

Why are you so hateful and oppressive towards my marriage :qq:

You just don't know what it's like not to have your relationship celebrated everywhere you go :qq:

VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 10:38 on Dec 7, 2013

# ? Dec 7, 2013 10:19

CheesyDog: Jul 4, 2007; by FactsAreUseless

I actually thought that was a pretty good piece, I am tired of the war on heterosexuality and I don't need to know what kinds of relationships people are in. If your "gay relationship" works for you great, but I don't need to hear about it every time you open your mouth.

# ? Dec 7, 2013 16:04

sexpig by night: Sep 8, 2011; by Azathoth

Hey straight people getting supes mad, you do know there are legit Tumblr style 'activists' in our community who whinge about 'heteronormative' things like getting married and having kids and poo poo right? Like, yea it doesn't happen at every corner but there are some annoying factions that think anyone who gets married and has kids and poo poo is just acting straight to fit in or whatever, and it actually is a legit discussion in our community.

# ? Dec 7, 2013 16:24

Who What Now: Sep 10, 2006; by Azathoth

Hasters posted:

It's not, but if every time it gets brought up someone launches into a child free hardcore diatribe or the media was filled with people saying having children was wrong and unnatural it would get a little annoying.

It's not so much talking as reading, I should have said. It's hard to go a day reading news in the LGBT community without someone telling me that my marriage is wrong, I'm wrong for being in a monogamous relationship and everyone is supposed to cheat all the time.

You do know that tumblr doesn't count as legitimate journalism, right?

# ? Dec 7, 2013 16:28

woke wedding drone: Jun 1, 2003; by exmarx; Fun Shoe

Tatum Girlparts posted:

Hey straight people getting supes mad, you do know there are legit Tumblr style 'activists' in our community who whinge about 'heteronormative' things like getting married and having kids and poo poo right? Like, yea it doesn't happen at every corner but there are some annoying factions that think anyone who gets married and has kids and poo poo is just acting straight to fit in or whatever, and it actually is a legit discussion in our community.

That's dumb and also totally harmless, and anybody who cares about it should shut up.

# ? Dec 7, 2013 16:44

sexpig by night: Sep 8, 2011; by Azathoth

SedanChair posted:

That's dumb and also totally harmless, and anybody who cares about it should shut up.

Yea being told you're a gay-traitor means nothing.

I mean poo poo no it's not THE WORST THING EVER but it's also not 'totally harmless' it's a legit problem that needs to be debated and poo poo.

# ? Dec 7, 2013 16:53

VitalSigns: Sep 3, 2011

Tatum Girlparts posted:

Hey straight people getting supes mad, you do know there are legit Tumblr style 'activists' in our community who whinge about 'heteronormative' things like getting married and having kids and poo poo right? Like, yea it doesn't happen at every corner but there are some annoying factions that think anyone who gets married and has kids and poo poo is just acting straight to fit in or whatever, and it actually is a legit discussion in our community.

I tend to encounter the opposite problem here in Texas of people who shame you for wanting anything other than a monogamous marriage, and posts about "oh no wonder we don't have the right to get married when we act like whores and Pride parades horrify straight people with all tthis lewdness".

I've never encountered any criticism of being a "gay traitor" in real life down here.

VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 16:57 on Dec 7, 2013

# ? Dec 7, 2013 16:54

woke wedding drone: Jun 1, 2003; by exmarx; Fun Shoe

Tatum Girlparts posted:

Yea being told you're a gay-traitor means nothing.

I mean poo poo no it's not THE WORST THING EVER but it's also not 'totally harmless' it's a legit problem that needs to be debated and poo poo.

It's a criticism straight women have been enduring at least since the days of Betty Friedan. People are going to have different perspectives, congratulations on having new legal recognition that allows for this range of views. But yes a gay person who criticizes gay marriage is pretty powerless and I feel for them.

# ? Dec 7, 2013 17:01

muike: Mar 16, 2011; ガチムチ　セブン

Tatum Girlparts posted:

Yea being told you're a gay-traitor means nothing.

I mean poo poo no it's not THE WORST THING EVER but it's also not 'totally harmless' it's a legit problem that needs to be debated and poo poo.

A gaytor?

# ? Dec 7, 2013 17:59

MaxxBot: Oct 6, 2003; you could have clapped

you should have clapped!!

Hasters posted:

It's not so much talking as reading, I should have said. It's hard to go a day reading news in the LGBT community without someone telling me that my marriage is wrong, I'm wrong for being in a monogamous relationship and everyone is supposed to cheat all the time.

These people are idiots but they were not the focus of this article, this guy is basically another version of these people because his view is "you MUST be monogamous" as opposed to "you MUST NOT be monogamous" whereas sane, rational human beings say "it's your own drat relationship and none of my business." The thing that really makes me angry about the article is the notion that gay people must conform to a certain standard of behavior as to avoid offending and alienating straight people. Not only is that not equality and not what we have spent decades fighting for but it's completely divorced from reality. We didn't achieve the progress we have made by hiding all of that icky gay stuff from the general public, we got it by slowly making the public more accepting of homosexuality and the gay community over time. When the LGBT rights movement first started the very idea of a gay person was offensive to the majority, following this idiot's line of logic they should have just stayed in the closet forever.

# ? Dec 7, 2013 18:18

VitalSigns: Sep 3, 2011

MaxxBot posted:

These people are idiots but they were not the focus of this article, this guy is basically another version of these people because his view is "you MUST be monogamous" as opposed to "you MUST NOT be monogamous" whereas sane, rational human beings say "it's your own drat relationship and none of my business." The thing that really makes me angry about the article is the notion that gay people must conform to a certain standard of behavior as to avoid offending and alienating straight people. Not only is that not equality and not what we have spent decades fighting for but it's completely divorced from reality. We didn't achieve the progress we have made by hiding all of that icky gay stuff from the general public, we got it by slowly making the public more accepting of homosexuality and the gay community over time. When the LGBT rights movement first started the very idea of a gay person was offensive to the majority, following this idiot's line of logic they should have just stayed in the closet forever.

Yeah, the whole argument is that oppressed groups need to shape up live up to standards set by straight white cis-men to prove they should be granted human rights, without questioning why those men get human rights at birth along with the luxury of judging who else is worthy to be treated like people. As if the bigots have just been falling all over themselves to accept us but every time we're about to win equal treatment, someone shows up somewhere in a golden speedo or assless chaps and the deal is off.

That and "ew don't bring up your gross icky non-monogamous lifestyle. Keep it in the bedroom where it belongs, we don't have to hear about your relationships all the time! You don't see me shoving my monogamy in your face!"
*Brings his husband along to everything without a second thought*
*Posts public lovey-lovey messages on social media*
*Uploads a million photos of romantic cruises and getaways*
*Shows affection in public without fear of judgment from fellow LGBT people*
*Isn't shamed by the community into hiding his relationship*

VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 18:53 on Dec 7, 2013

# ? Dec 7, 2013 18:42

Crameltonian: Mar 27, 2010

Tatum Girlparts posted:

Yea being told you're a gay-traitor means nothing.

I mean poo poo no it's not THE WORST THING EVER but it's also not 'totally harmless' it's a legit problem that needs to be debated and poo poo.

I've never seen anyone saying anything remotely like that anywhere besides tumblr/Facebook, I'm somewhat skeptical that it's a 'legit problem'. Those people are pretty awful in their own way but they're also a tiny minority who are ignored/ridiculed by everyone else, there's not really much of a debate or discussion to be had about it.

# ? Dec 8, 2013 15:25

Nick_326: Nov 3, 2011; History's Latest Monster

Dana Milbank over at WaPo: "Congress wouldn't be so partisan if there were more noble veterans in there! We should bring back the draft."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...c0a9_story.html

quote:

As I make my rounds each day in the capital, chronicling our leaders� plentiful foibles, failings, screw-ups, inanities, outrages and overall dysfunction, I�m often asked if there�s anything that could clean up the mess�

But one change, over time, could reverse the problems that have built up over the past few decades: We should mandate military service for all Americans, men and women alike, when they turn 18. The idea is radical, unlikely and impractical � but it just might work.

There is no better explanation for what has gone wrong in Washington in recent years than the tabulation done every two years of how many members of Congress served in the military.

A Congressional Quarterly count of the current Congress finds that just 86 of the 435 members of the House are veterans, as are only 17 of 100 senators, which puts the overall rate at 19 percent. This is the lowest percentage of veterans in Congress since World War II, down from a high of 77 percent in 1977-78, according to the American Legion. For the past 21 years, the presidency has been occupied by men who didn�t serve or, in the case of George W. Bush, served in a capacity designed to avoid combat.

It�s no coincidence that this same period has seen the gradual collapse of our ability to govern ourselves: a loss of control over the nation�s debt, legislative stalemate and a disabling partisanship. It�s no coincidence, either, that Americans� approval of Congress has dropped to just 9 percent, the lowest since Gallup began asking the question 39 years ago.

Because so few serving in politics have worn their country�s uniform, they have collectively forgotten how to put country before party and self-interest. They have forgotten a �cause greater than self,� and they have lost the knowledge of how to make compromises for the good of the country. Without a history of sacrifice and service, they�ve turned politics into war.

A rebuttal, as if it needed one: http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/the-dumbest-argument-for-restoring-the-draft-yet/

Virgina Postrel over at Bloomberg: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-12-02/who-needs-a-raise-when-you-have-tv-.html

quote:

Are you better off now than you were 10 years ago? For middle-class Americans, a common answer to this version of Ronald Reagan�s old question is no. Nor are they optimistic about the future. The recession may be over officially, but a lot of smart people are convinced that broad-based improvements in the standard of living are largely a thing of the past.

Before you embrace the idea that today is worse than yesterday and tomorrow won�t be much better, however, consider a common experience:

On a flight across the country, you watch the playoff game on live television, listen to some favorite playlists as you catch up on work, then relax with some video poker. Arriving home, you delete the game from your DVR and consider your options. Too tired for an intense cable drama -- which you prefer to experience in immersive weekend marathons of at least three episodes each -- you stream a first-season episode of �Duck Dynasty� from Amazon.com, then run last week�s �Elementary� from your DVR queue. While watching, you check IMDB.com to see where you�ve seen that familiar-looking guest star before, then you jump to your Facebook and Twitter feeds. You finish the evening with �SportsCenter,� recorded just far enough ahead that you can skip most of the commercials.

Little of this customized entertainment would have been possible a decade ago -- and almost none of it shows up in the income and productivity statistics that dominate our understanding of the economy. A form of progress that large numbers of people experience every day, the increase in entertainment variety and convenience represents a challenge to the increasingly conventional wisdom that American living standards have stagnated, at least for the middle class.

Yeah, forget the statistics highlighting income inequality, I can stream "Mad Men" while slurping on Gogurt.

quote:

New entertainment options are particularly important to poorer people with ample leisure time. (Those working two or three jobs are a different matter.) That�s because as income falls, the time devoted to leisure goes up, even among fully employed people.

http://www.thewrap.com/colbert-chides-thanks-bloomberg-article-who-needs-raise-tv

# ? Dec 11, 2013 19:34

Eggplant Squire: Aug 14, 2003

I love how the poor and middle class people have it so great since they have access to refrigerators and tv but when rich people are asked to pay more in taxes, suddenly it's asking them for a pound of their flesh that they would die without.

It's similar to how low wages and hunger are a motivator to get poor people to work to better themselves, but the ONLY way to get top CEO talent is huge bonuses after they repeatedly fail.

Eggplant Squire fucked around with this message at 20:39 on Dec 11, 2013

# ? Dec 11, 2013 20:37

VitalSigns: Sep 3, 2011

Did he read Starship Troopers and assume Heinlein was being totally serious?

There are plenty of countries with military juntas if he loves the idea of being ruled by veterans so much.

VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 21:12 on Dec 11, 2013

# ? Dec 11, 2013 21:08

Pththya-lyi: Nov 8, 2009; THUNDERDOME LOSER 2020

When Dad wants me to read an article, he'll print it out and give it to me instead of emailing a link like a civilized person. Today I got this one from a right-wing blog: http://pjmedia.com/lifestyle/2013/12/09/3-reasons-why-our-teenagers-cant-find-jobs/?singlepage=true

quote:

3 Reasons Why Our Teenagers Can't Find Jobs
Bonnie Ramthun

The employment rate among teenagers is incredibly dismal. I know this first hand, since I have teens at home and teenage nieces and nephews who cannot find work. There�s an irritating theme that runs through family conversations about our unemployed teens, and the words I hear most often are �lazy� and �entitled.�

�I had a paper route when I was their age,� one of the older members of the family will tell me, every time we get together. �They need to get out and hustle. Walk the neighborhood, mow lawns, weed gardens. There�s lots of jobs out there for teens.�

�They should get roofing jobs,� another family member exclaimed. �When I was a teenager in high school the dreamiest guys were the summertime roofers, since they had the most gorgeous tans. And they had the best bodies, too!�

The attitude towards teens today is one of disdain for the luxuries they enjoy and their lack of a good work ethic. Teens are spoiled, lazy, unwilling to work hard. Do you believe this?

Listen up, older people. The world isn�t the same now as it was then, and that�s not good. Not good for our teens and not good for our future. The days of the paper route are gone. Here are the three reasons why teens can�t get jobs today, and why this is terrible for America.

1. High Unemployment

Unemployment among adults is reportedly at 7.3% but is actually much higher. The real unemployment figures are probably as high as 14%.

Your teen is competing with adults for that first job. Teenagers have few skills, an undeveloped work ethic, and no experience. The adults looking for the same work are experienced, they have communication skills and they�re desperate. Employers aren�t in the market of giving out charity jobs to inexperienced teens who haven�t figured out how to show up to work on time. They need good workers and they need them immediately. They have them. They have more than they need. Your teen doesn�t have a chance, and the employment figures show it. The teenage unemployment rate is a staggering 24%.

2. Illegal immigrants take jobs �Americans just won�t do.�

I live in Colorado. If you want your lawn mowed, you call a service and once a week a truck will unload two or three incredibly hard-working Hispanics who will mow, weed, and cart off the grass clippings in less than an hour.

You don�t have to deal with a lazy American kid who pauses in the middle of the job to set up a different playlist on his iPod. No haphazard weeding or indifferent weed-wacking. No missing a mowing day because they�re sick or have other plans.

This Mayhem advertisement is your worst nightmare of a lawn-mowing teenager: [video]

Then there�s roofers. Instead of the high schoolers who once filled this industry, hammering their thumbs, spilling roofing tacks and working on their tans during every possible break time, you have a team of men who show up, work hard, eat their lunches quietly under the shade of your tree, and finish the job in a single day.

House painting was a favorite summer time occupation for teenagers and college kids. That�s gone. Carpet installation? Gone. My brothers once spent a summer painting telephone poles with creosote to preserve them. Gone. All of these jobs are filled with immigrants, many of them illegal, who get paid much less than teens, do an excellent job, and complain not at all.

3. Minimum wage has destroyed the lower rungs of the ladder to success.

Menial construction labor, like carting off small debris from a construction floor or sweeping it, doesn�t deserve a minimum wage. It barely requires brain cells at all, which means it�s a perfect entry level job for a teenager who has no developed work ethic, no skills, and no experience. But minimum wage laws requires a company to pay far more than these jobs are worth, so companies have removed these jobs altogether. They�ll hire a service instead, or have one of their more highly-skilled workers spend time on these tasks.

When my brother worked for a fast food chain (Mr. Clown) in high school, the manager employed a whole crew of high school students who were assigned dinky shifts at odd times. There�s no way this could support someone as a �living wage.� The purpose was to have lots of backup for teenagers who hadn�t figured out how to show up to work on time. If a teenager missed more than a few shifts, they were reluctantly fired. After the teen realized they really liked the spending money, they�d go to work at the other fast food chain right down the street (Mr. Crown), and eventually develop the skills they needed to keep a job. This low step on the ladder of success has been removed because of high minimum wage laws. If you don�t have the skills to do a good job, you�re not hired. Teens most often do not have those skills, and now they aren�t given the chance to learn them. Brad Hamilton of Fast Times at Ridgemont High doesn�t get hired as a fast food worker any more, not even one dressed as a pirate.

High unemployment, illegal immigration, and the minimum wage has destroyed the labor market for teenagers, and this is terrible. Why?
Why do our teens need jobs?

Teenagers need a job because they need practice. They�re not worth very much as workers. They�re lazy, scatterbrained, unable to remember instructions and have no callouses on their soft hands. So really, why would anyone want to hire these unformed humans and begin the arduous process of turning them into skilled and eager workers?
Because our very future depends on it.

How did the hard workers of my parents� generation and our generation become that way? They began as teenagers have throughout human history, by working with adults and learning from them, and don�t be fooled by their boastful memories. They started out just as lazy as our teenagers today. I guarantee you there were Lakota Indian teens who had to be rolled out of their warm buffalo hides on a chilly morning to go deer hunting. Skills, work ethic, the profound satisfaction of doing a job well�these are all learned. They don�t come as if by magic to teenagers. They have to be taught by adults.

Our culture has removed this important step from our teenagers� lives and that harm carries from their teen years into their professional future. My brother interviews job applicants who have graduated from college and has expressed profound worries about the abilities of these newly-minted professionals. They don�t understand how to come in to work on time, how to stay at work all day, how to focus on a task and complete it. They�re more worried about their social media, their benefits package, and their workplace. Mark Bauerlein of Bloomberg News: �In the 2011 survey, 40 percent of employers cited �inadequate basic employability skills� as a reason for why they can�t hire and keep workers.� They have no work ethic. They�re stunted.

Teens need to learn the joy to be found in hard work. They need to work on a roofing crew all summer and bandage blisters on their hands. They need to wipe down a diner counter after closing time with their feet aching. They need, desperately, to linger over a broom and watch a skilled glazer or bricklayer move through their task with such grace that it gives them goosebumps. Our teens need these experiences. They need to know the satisfaction of doing hard work and earning money for it and feeling that glow inside them that means they�ve accomplished something. We are failing our entire society by not providing it for them, and we are depriving our teenagers of the tools they need to succeed in their adult lives.

We need to make those first steps on the economic ladder available to our teenagers, those lazy, entitled, scatterbrained darlings. They don�t stay that way long, if they�re just given a chance:

[a picture of the author's son as a construction worker]

Okay, so I have to give her props for trying to check her boomer privilege. But isn't it amazing how these hard-working, desperate adults who take on the jobs teenagers used to do don't deserve a living wage just because there's little-to-no intellectual component to their work? Also, it doesn't seem to occur to Ms. Ramthun that some teenagers might need work to help support their families, not just to get extra pocket money or develop a work ethic.

# ? Dec 12, 2013 20:48

Blarghalt: May 19, 2010

What upside-down world does he live in? Most employees at fast food places and construction jobs are adults.

# ? Dec 12, 2013 22:20

Deific Presence: May 7, 2007

Pththya-lyi posted:

When Dad wants me to read an article, he'll print it out and give it to me instead of emailing a link like a civilized person. Today I got this one from a right-wing blog: http://pjmedia.com/lifestyle/2013/12/09/3-reasons-why-our-teenagers-cant-find-jobs/?singlepage=true

Okay, so I have to give her props for trying to check her boomer privilege. But isn't it amazing how these hard-working, desperate adults who take on the jobs teenagers used to do don't deserve a living wage just because there's little-to-no intellectual component to their work? Also, it doesn't seem to occur to Ms. Ramthun that some teenagers might need work to help support their families, not just to get extra pocket money or develop a work ethic.

For the first couple of paragraphs I was like "This is one of the least terrible things I've read in a while" and then it gradually got worse.

# ? Dec 12, 2013 22:58

Vorpal Cat: Mar 19, 2009; Oh god what did I just post?

Well one out of three correct talking points is above average for these things.

# ? Dec 12, 2013 23:00

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Apr 25, 2024 10:36

Strudel Man: May 19, 2003; ROME DID NOT HAVE ROBOTS, FUCKWIT

Vorpal Cat posted:

Well one out of three correct talking points is above average for these things.

I'd say two out of three. Grown adults are filling up jobs that teenagers would once have taken, and recent immigrants (both legal and illegal) are generally willing to accept much less pay for much harder work than our home-grown citizens are, keeping the labor price low.

# ? Dec 13, 2013 00:53

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Terrible Editorials, Opinion Pieces and Letters to the Editor

«‹›106 »