|
Orange Devil posted:When did Chavez become a dictator anyway? He's in this awkward position where the government does kinda dictatorial things (for instance, press freedom isn't really a thing in Venezuela), but the populace as a whole supports him without any blatant gaps in knowledge. Basically, it requires some effort to disprove the assertion that he is a dictator, so it gets traction among people who find it convenient to believe.
|
#
¿
Oct 2, 2011 19:00
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 03:43 |
|
|
Goatman Sacks posted:His decree powers aren't any stronger than the US president's executive order powers, and opposing press in leftist countries are CIA front groups like 90% of the time, he's right in curtailing them. Oh no, I wasn't trying to make a value judgement, just explaining what the thought process is. Remember when that news station literally supported the coup, and everyone got mad when four years later his government didn't renew their broadcasting license?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 2, 2011 19:16
|
|
|
Bruce Leroy posted:Any links for this because it's insane. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_Venezuelan_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat_attempt Goatman Sacks wasn't exaggerating even a little bit. It's hard to allow the media to stay privatized when they all team up to overthrow the government. Amarkov fucked around with this message at 00:30 on Oct 3, 2011 |
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2011 00:27
|
|
|
Can we just agree that the worst part was when Fidel "Communism means I get whatever I want" Castro jumped to the defense of democracy while US officials talked about how Chavez had it coming for being so leftist.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2011 10:23
|
|
|
Bradylama posted:Any sane government would have arrested all the executives, tried them for treason, and scattered the employees to the winds. Just letting their broadcasting license expire was an act of supreme mercy all things considered. Oh no, they only let one station's broadcasting license expire. The rest, including the one in which the coup was plotted, weren't punished at all (except by being forced to comply with new regulations).
|
|
#
¿
Oct 3, 2011 20:23
|
|
|
Bradylama posted:New regulations? Those monsters! I don't think you understand how Orwellian it is. They can't show heavy violence before 10 PM, they have to interrupt programming for Presidential announcements, and they're required to broadcast political campaigns!
|
|
#
¿
Oct 4, 2011 00:22
|
|
|
I mean, anti-Mormonism is a problem, as any form of discrimination is. I think that editorial would be perfectly reasonable if they didn't have the "and also look at how much better black people have it" message.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2011 01:01
|
|
|
TetsuoTW posted:I find it kind of amusing how hard they're going on the "If you hate the excesses of capitalism, you clearly hate all capitalism." Literal children. I mean, there are plenty of communists who are willing to do the same thing in the other direction. The difference is that everyone is embarassed by them and keeps them in a corner, rather than trotting them out as Strong Liberal Thinkers.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 19, 2011 01:09
|
|
|
I honestly don't understand the point there. Are we expected to believe that MarriageADA would hire someone who supported gay marriage? Or is this just blatant "we can do things you can't because we're right"?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 23, 2011 23:54
|
|
|
At least he's actually in the past, unlike Chavez...
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2011 15:17
|
|
|
The worst part is, he's not even arguing that all poor kids can or should bootstrap themselves into success. He's arguing that only the smart ones will be able to live decently, and somehow that isn't bad.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2011 02:31
|
|
|
Borneo Jimmy posted:Also what the hell does this guy mean when he says "Prevalent homosexuality has made its appearance in human history before and has never lasted." Does he think was there some kind of mass extinction in human history caused by homosexuality, or is it just "Gay sex caused the fall of the Roman Empire" No, that's it. There's a fairly common talking point that cultures who permit "sexual deviancy" (whatever the commentator thinks that means) start decaying and get their country destroyed.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 16, 2012 03:18
|
|
|
Bruce Leroy posted:Pfft, wouldn't you like to know, muggle? Or mobile internet, or just turn off automatic redirect/javascript
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2012 10:51
|
|
|
Taerkar posted:Except you would also have to be blind about what YOUR term implies about the other side. I've definitely met people who, for this reason, prefer to identify as anti-abortion.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2012 01:54
|
|
|
It actually is terrible to force poor people to only eat what we think they ought to (and limit food donations because of it  ). Stopped clock right twice a day or something.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2012 22:06
|
|
|
Radbot posted:If Tim Wise is bad because people pay attention to him because he's white, can a white person ever be an anti-racist ally in any meaningful sense? Can a man ever not be part of the patriarchy? I thought the whole idea was to use your privilege to bring down that privilege, it sounds like that's not good enough. The best intentions and the best actions don't somehow get rid of white privilege. It's wonderful that Tim Wise is a voice of anti-racist activism, but that doesn't make it less horrible that white people are the most celebrated voices of anti-racist activism.
|
|
#
¿
May 1, 2013 07:34
|
|
|
Autumncomet posted:I didn't read that as an attack on Wise but a condemnation that people are only taking into account his ideas about race because he's white. Yeah, this is exactly the point. The only obligation Wise has is to recognize that this is lovely, and he does. (I mean, ideally he'd refuse to take money from those people, but capitalism corrupts everything etc.)
|
|
#
¿
May 4, 2013 10:29
|
|
|
Autumncomet posted:It's an institutional thing. There's a very real phenomenon where people of color that talk about racism aren't viewed as "objective" in their concerns whereas the white guy will be. It's dumb and lovely but if Wise is helping out, can't really condemn him for it. I remember that one of the appeals judges for California Prop 8 was gay, and everyone was worried about how he could possibly render an objective decision about gay marriage.
|
|
#
¿
May 4, 2013 18:04
|
|
|
TheGreyGhost posted:Oh, look. National Review is already defending Richwine and calling out Heritage for firing his racist rear end. National Review posted:Conservative think tanks emerged as a parallel institution — they were intended to provide a safe haven for right-leaning academics in light of the fact that academia itself was hostile to politically incorrect thought. In this context Richwine’s dismissal seems like a scene out of Bizarro World: The dissertation earned its author a doctorate, and it bore the signatures of Harvard professors Christopher Jencks, a social-policy researcher who sits on the board of The American Prospect; George Borjas, a labor economist; and Richard J. Zeckhauser, a political economist. And yet years after its publication it caused the resignation of its author from a conservative think tank. It doesn't seem like a scene out of Bizarro world. It seems like a clear illustration of the actual dynamic here; academia is open to considering all viewpoints, even if the consensus strongly rejects them, while conservative think tanks require uniformly correct views. I don't see how you could avoid reaching this conclusion, unless you had some ulterior motive that prevents you from recognizing the obvious. Oh wait
|
|
#
¿
May 13, 2013 18:53
|
|
|
Emden posted:To be fair, there are a lot of taboo subjects which one could easily see as "political correctness". I won't go into details but try to critique a minority -- racial, religious, etc. -- on any subject and you'll see what I mean. Of course if it's white, Christian, or anything `mainstream` you can say whatever you want. Academia could do with some conservative voices imo. Which sounds good, except that you are literally responding to evidence against it. A guy got a Ph.D from Harvard with a dissertation about how immigrants are stupid.
|
|
#
¿
May 13, 2013 19:45
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 03:43 |
|
|
quote:What difference did it make that White House Press Secretary Jay Carney, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Attorney General Holder, President Barack Obama and U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice had degrees from prestigious universities when they misled the American people or Congress? The concept of government spin was invented in an emergency Benghazi meeting between Obama, Clinton, and Satan.
|
|
#
¿
May 31, 2013 20:40
|
|