|
Mitchicon posted:Holy shut, they ended with a quote by Mark Twain? Didn't he have a pretty negative view of nationalism? They also said "This type of behavior goes against everything our Founding Fathers stood for, the Constitution they wrote, and specifically our First Amendment Rights that they gave to us in the Bill of Rights, granting us the Freedom of Speech and the Freedom of the Press. You cannot systematically, openly, and intentionally silence over 600,000 like-minded people and their message, even if you do not agree with it, and say that you believe in any of the aforementioned American cornerstones which are the foundation of what this country is supposed to be all about." so they're not exactly the brightest literary minds of our generation. They don't know anything about Mark Twain except he was American, wrote books, and is famous. Also mechanically that last sentence is a delight. But this group was built entirely on cherry-picked incoherent rage so you shouldn't be too terribly surprised by any of the non-sequiter appeals to imaginary American past. You sure as poo poo can silence N people when the entirety of that communication takes place on private infrastructure. These idiots are just anger addicts and they got punked on a celestial level when Facebook called them assholes. Crying about 'American cornerstones' is just the feeble muttering of the defeated.
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2013 21:47
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 03:13 |
|
|
Wabbit posted:but he hasn't figured out that the 1st amendment doesn't apply to Facebook, a private company...it's the free market innit? What does he want, the GOVERNMENT stepping in and telling Facebook what they have to host? I think he knows that much at least. But self-absorbed idiots like this don't let facts get in the way of their essential truth - that America is hosed and only posting illiterate bullshit on Facebook can save it. (He's really just trying to get people to sign up for his website so he can market poo poo to them. Peddling rage is an entrepenurial action in the new media economy. Big firey speeches about oppression don't flow well when you stop to qualify your arguments.)
|
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2013 21:57
|
|
|
Devour posted:Are you loving serious here? I don't see why not? The stereotype of "Hollywood Liberal" refers to talent, not output. Hollywood is too business savvy to turn off middle America. The only reason Hollywood Liberal is even a thing is because of bitter childish conservatives who feel alienated if they're not being specifically catered to.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2013 01:40
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:How does Herman Cain not know that the UK does not have single payer health care though? They have a combination of private and public options. Why should he care? His audience doesn't care, whether they know it or not. He doesn't get paid for factual analysis.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 11, 2013 20:00
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:Having literally JUST read Y the Last Man, what is the "point" she is missing about the Amazons? Sarkeesian doesn't really spend any time talking about Y, just tossing it out there as another example, so there isn't really enough content to say why she's wrong. The Amazons aren't straw feminists. As I understand straw feminism, the trope is to present a heavily flawed but deeply feminist character as an implicit critique of feminism. The Amazons are not feminists though. They talk big game about feminism but they're clearly just some hosed up cult/gang with radical feminist influences, because the charismatic leader is a raging misandrist. They mutilate themselves for god's sake! Hero is quite explicitly brainwashed and later deprogrammed after she leaves the cult. If Y were any other comic this would be a little suspicious as perhaps a veiled critique of feminism but since it's a comic where every single protagonist and antagonist (with one exception) is a strong female character then it's hard to look at the Amazons as a feminist stereotype. Sarkeesian basically just skips right on past the Amazons, seemingly just to pull an example from a comic book. She doesn't try to explain or contextualize their actions at all, just saying "These ladies are villans and say radical things that stereotype feminists" when it's made very clear to the reader that the Amazons are beyond the pale and not typical of any acceptable mindset even in the world of the comics. I guess it's easy to confuse a straw feminist with a post-apocalyptic cult that uses radical feminism as a unifying ideology. Valerie Solonas was a real person, you know, and very few people look to her as anything but a historical curio. EDIT: Honestly I'm curious as to why she chose Y as an example at all. Y isn't explicitly feminist by any means but it's a critically regarded, well known comic full of realistic female characters and no unnecessary sexualization. Given the deplorable state of mass-market comics I'm sure she could have found a more appropriate example of straw feminism. EDIT 2: Here's her goodreads review of Y, looks like she was just so annoyed by the concept of the Amazons that she couldn't get over how feminist-y they were. http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/178901501 boner confessor fucked around with this message at 20:50 on Jul 11, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jul 11, 2013 20:35
|
|
|
Cracker is the least harmful racial slur I know of. Honky is more offensive, in that a air rifle is more dangerous than a nerf rifle. Cracker and Honky are clown names.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 12, 2013 04:06
|
|
|
Given his probable interest in his 'heritage' and this vibe I get that he's a show-drinker and not a pro-drinker I could easily see O'Keefe fighting grimaces as he sips irish whiskey on heavy rocks at some cocktail party.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 17, 2013 20:55
|
|
|
DongsMcMurphy posted:Andrew Jackson oversaw the literal ethnic cleansing of Native Americans and Obama is the worst president? Well, Obama is waging ethnic cleansing against whites.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 19, 2013 20:31
|
|
|
Devour posted:This is incredibly vague? If you think "don't dehumanize muslims" is a vague statement then you're hopelessly out of your depth.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 24, 2013 18:36
|
|
|
Pixelboy posted:Driving in today while listening to Rush -- he was shilling for someone selling @reagan.com email addresses. Last time this service was mentioned someone brought up HinckleyShot@Reagan.com which is tough to beat.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 25, 2013 21:58
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:It's funny that they keep trying to find 12-year-olds. You would think they might notice that those kids turn into flaming liberals eventually. But then again, those kids' conversion stories tend to be published in the lie-beral media, so maybe they just stand around at CPAC saying "hum I haven't seen Jonathan in a while..." I wonder what the response would be if Rachel Maddow pulled a 12 year old out of some Detroit heroin den and had him/her speak about social mobility?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 31, 2013 21:18
|
|
|
Sir Tonk posted:Guys, do you remember the scourge of Obamaphones? Well, the National Review sure does! Cool, not one single word about how you have to pass state-based criteria (congrats being a hypocritical conservative living in a liberal nanny state like New York) in order to qualify for a private organization to commit welfare fraud on your behalf. This is the exact same process by which old people with a limp get free government hoverounds. It's obviously all Obama's fault. I remember a time when I believed that contemporary journalism was about telling the truth. How naive I was! Good Citizen posted:Yeah. I don't really get the point. Who wants one 'obamaphone', let alone 3? Just having a legitimate desire for one is enough proof for me that your economic situation is pretty loving grim. The point is that Obama is giving YOUR TAX DOLLARS to shiftless minorities.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 1, 2013 21:03
|
|
|
SilentD posted:Saying what every upper class white thinks of people in fly over land isn't a problem, it's just being honest, and makes me completely normal. One hundred years ago you would have said the same thing about blacks, I hope you realize this.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 2, 2013 19:57
|
|
|
SilentD posted:I've never met a single upper class liberal white that didn't hate crackers, hicks, and the other refuse, or get a kick out of watching them suffer. I happen to know more than a few who would disagree with you, so I'm guessing you're papering over your tendency to socialize with sociopaths with some sort of class attribution thing. SilentD posted:And I said poor whites, I don't dislike poor people of other races. Whites were born white and with every advantage so it's their fault, other groups didn't have those advantages so it's not their fault. I have sympathy for poor inner city minorities and donate to charities and do food kitchen work off and on. But rural whites, yeah gently caress them. Bullshit. Anyone who is a rampant classist is one fenderbender away from becoming a flaming racist. Your bigotry doesn't stop at the color line, and the fact that you think you can argue your way out of it indicates how little you respect people who are 'beneath you' (or it's just a really weird troll)
|
|
#
¿
Aug 2, 2013 20:02
|
|
|
SilentD posted:I do one weekend a month distributing food to the eldery who are being gentrified out of where they grew up here in DC so they can help keep their homes. My "bigotry" does stop at the color line. I'm against lower class rural hicks, that's it. I have no gripes with the lower classes who aren't hicks and weren't born with all the advantages of whiteness, don't pound the bible (I really hate Christians), or are urban poor. -I do charity once a month, so my awful opinions are valid and I am in no way a bigot! -"I'm against hicks" is the exact same sentiment as "I love blacks, I hate niggers" -"Urban poor" do you realize that this includes white people, including hicks? So your bigotry falls by zip code now? -"I agree with Bill Maher" is a terrible thing to say when refuting allegations that you are an rear end in a top hat. -"Other people share my horrible bigotry" is not a defense against bigotry, bro. The fact that you pretend that your bigotry is restrained to stereotypical geographic classism is the weirdest thing to me. I don't believe you for a second and I am actually somewhat incredulous that you insist you only hate one specifically delineated socioeconomic group, scout's honor. This has to be some kind of an awful troll because you are just too stupid to exist.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 2, 2013 20:12
|
|
|
SilentD posted:I've never denied that I'm an rear end in a top hat, I've stated that I agree with Maher before, 100% I agree with him. It's not just class, it's their religion, it's Limbaugh, it's Palin, it's their culture, it's that they exist and I share some genetic material with them. I think NASCAR is loving stupid and the people who enjoy it are stupid, I hate the WWE as well. I hate Texas as well. I still don't see how you can believe vehemently in one kind of stereotype while not sticking to others. It's bizarre. You're like some inverse Uncle Ruckus or something. J Hollingsworth Hound, maybe. Tatum Girlparts posted:Jesus christ you're a cartoon rich white person. Real rich people don't have to be this angry about their superiority complexes. This is nouveau riche at best.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 2, 2013 20:19
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Did it ever occur to you that as pathetic as that culture is, defining yourself by your opposition to it makes you more pathetic still? Also note 'that culture' doesn't really exist. It's a vague collection of stereotypes which doesn't actually resemble rural america any more than CSI and Jersey Shore resembles urban America. SilentD posted:Thanks for the compliment, still not a sister loving hick from flyover! No, you're just a massively ignorant cryptoracist. You're dumping all of your pent up anger on the one group you are socially permitted to hate, because you're too cowardly to transgress. boner confessor fucked around with this message at 20:25 on Aug 2, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Aug 2, 2013 20:22
|
|
|
SilentD posted:You know exactly whom I'm talking about, these people The difference is those people actually exist. They aren't a collection of socially permissive labels that you're allowed to hate. They have real policy positions and can occupy a point in space and time to advocate those positions. You are quite literally angry at people who don't exist. That is how a crazy person thinks. EDIT: It's also weird how you're assuming other people hate as much as you do and that appealing to that hate is a good way to marginalize their criticisms. It's like some kind of psychopathic strawman. If you're not trolling, please seek therapy.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 2, 2013 20:27
|
|
|
SilentD posted:Look at your avatar and then tell me they don't exist smart rear end, they do, and it's OK to look down on them. Paula Deen is one person, she is not the manifest godhead of Redneckia. You are angry at ghosts. That is a mental illness. Sorry for your mental illness. edit: You absolutely would be angry at black people if you had the courage to let your bigotry flow free.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 2, 2013 20:30
|
|
|
SilentD posted:So you're saying it's not OK to look down at Palin and Bachmann? Surprise! Not everyone turns barely restrained misanthropy into a hobby! edit: Yeah it's obvious SilentD would be an old school racist if he had the courage. vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv boner confessor fucked around with this message at 20:36 on Aug 2, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Aug 2, 2013 20:34
|
|
|
SilentD posted:I was mocking the purple heart bandaid, that's why it's OK to hate her, plus the Dubya sticker. You're the one who focused on her being ugly instead of those things. That speaks volumes about you. Unless you're some master troll, which I doubt, it's a good idea to remind you that you're arguing in a forum largely populated by people who love to argue on forums, and that your cheap rhetorical grabs like misunderstanding the context of 'ugly' come off as transparently desperate. If your emotions are so wounded, your only real option is to walk away from the computer. You've already provided more than enough rope, you're not going to argue your way out of the repercussions of your own stated opinions.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 2, 2013 20:40
|
|
|
SilentD posted:What repercussions? I dislike hicks from fly over land. I am not ashamed of this, and I don't care that it makes me an rear end in a top hat. It is what it is, that's all there is to it. "What repercussions?" the lame troll said as he withstood a multiple page derail about his horrible opinions. "I'm not ashamed!" he declared with his twentieth post in as many minutes. quote:I'm fairly sure is not going to happen unless one of us is a wizard. Tell us more about your fantasies of being a wizard. EDIT: This derail is technically making fun of right-wing dittoheads, right? boner confessor fucked around with this message at 20:48 on Aug 2, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Aug 2, 2013 20:45
|
|
|
SilentD posted:I'm actually not a fan of the prison industrial complex and think the drug war is a gigantic gently caress fest that should be abandoned. It's a national shame and we should all feel poorly that we allowed this to happen. But doesn't this contradict your stated desire to exploit and ruin the lives of expendable rural whites? Unzip and Attack posted:Can everyone please stop responding to the obvious trolling? We all find our fun in different ways.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 2, 2013 20:50
|
|
|
SilentD posted:False equivalence applies here. The drug war does not affect everyone equally and was deliberately built that way. Whether you know it or not, you are the exact stereotype of a liberal who is conservative in everyway except the self-identification. I hope you're completely trolling because if any of these opinions have a pinch of truth then you're a pathetic and cowardly person.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 2, 2013 20:59
|
|
|
Radish posted:This is insulting to Norman Rockwell for a variety of reasons along with showing Rush's ignorance on yet another topic. Yeah, I think he meant to say Thomas Kinkade. That's much more explicative of conservative ideology.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 6, 2013 16:53
|
|
|
Necc0 posted:I don't know where else to post this but this thread seems like the best place, despite being the opposite of right wing media: There was a thread about it. It's not a very good article, but it does have a nonpartisan kernel of truth in it. Saying that late stage capitalism breeds socially irrelevant jobs and ennui isn't a particularly left wing or right wing statement. Especially when your political lens allows you to define bullshit jobs as "nosy lazy government regulators" or "nepotistic useless venture capitalists".
|
|
#
¿
Aug 21, 2013 20:09
|
|
|
cafel posted:It just seems so ignorant and hateful. Not to mention that it's focused on the most vulnerable subset of an already vulnerable group of people. Abstract ideology (punishing the poor, 'personal responsibility') is more important than concrete humanity.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 6, 2013 20:31
|
|
|
Soviet Commubot posted:Honest question, what do those guys do anyway? Besides looking like they're doing important computer research on big important computers, that is. They read tweets. Because every once in a while twitter can pass valuable information along with nonvaluable information. The fun part is watching the Fox news tweet specialists sort through mountains of poo poo searching for a rare peanut.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 8, 2013 17:15
|
|
|
ReindeerF posted:If there's one thing I've learned reading the internet for the last couple of decades, it's that anytime you see a variation of the phrase "do your research" in any context you're in for a fascinating trip through the mind of a crazy person. Do Your Research = I've Read Blogs and Agreed With Them, Good Enough For Me I used to argue with this guy about his 9/11 theories. He got offended one time when he was going off about how governments corrupt people by giving them free poo poo and I called him a hypocrite. So he's yammering on at me about how he's not a hypocrite, how dare I, if I had done the research he had blah blah. So I asked him what research? What journal? He just typed whatever he needed validated into Google and read through until he found an article that agreed with him. I pointed out that this is pseudoscientific, he said "I know about science, I went to business school", I immediately stated that was the core problem with his ideology and we don't talk anymore. Do your research is an I'm not racist, but equivalent.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 14, 2013 21:36
|
|
|
StandardVC10 posted:Didn't we get out asses kicked in the War of 1812? I mean, eventually it paid off in that Britain actually paid attention to US sovereignty, but we weren't really prepared for it and kept losing battles. Britain didn't really try, they were busy tied up in Europe with that whole Napoleon thing. The war eventually petered to a stop after America achieved some of its war goals so it was a technical 'victory' for the US largely because the British couldn't be bothered to keep fighting. I wouldn't call it a draw though. America's main goals were basically to assert its sovereignty, to get Britain to stop being a dickhole on the ocean, and to get Britain to stop supporting Native resistance to American expansion. The first was just like yeah sure, whatever you say little guy, the second (impressment and embargo with France) ended when the Napoleonic wars did, and Britain gave up concessions on Native checks to American power. Really nobody won, because the reasons it was fought were bullshit and temporary. Canadians like to think they won because they prevented a nebulous attempt by the US to annex Canada which wasn't going to happen anyway. boner confessor fucked around with this message at 23:41 on Oct 24, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Oct 24, 2013 23:37
|
|
|
Zeroisanumber posted:Yeah, that's a girly hat, only a total sissy would... I love how there's apparently no protocol for wearing multiple Medals of Honor so he just kinda has that weird swagger going on.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 26, 2013 03:52
|
|
|
Dr Christmas posted:Wow, it shouldn't really be hard to stay on topic about the website's problems. What the hell are they accomplishing by obsessing about the stock photo? Tapping into the strategic sexism reserves to keep this hate train chuggin.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 28, 2013 21:13
|
|
|
CarterUSM posted:I wonder whether this is Malthusian extrapolation fallacy, mind you. I dunno - Malthus was all about total availability of resources, the current problem of labor supply/demand mismatch is more about distribution of resources which has always been a thing. It's not that the population can't provide for itself on currently available natural resources, rather the problem is that the bulk of the population is not allowed to provide for itself due to lack of access to natural and synthetic resources. I'm counting a decently paid job as a resource here. For it to be Malthusian, I think there would have to be a hard cap on resources available (such as food limitations bounded by arable land and production technology) instead of the soft cap on resources enforced by a highly inequitable distribution system.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 6, 2013 21:12
|
|
|
anonumos posted:We have been automating for over 100 years now. Why has unemployment still remained fairly low outside of recessions? You'd think that the industrial revolution would have caused far more long-term affects, yet people still found new work. Only recently has automation come to replace jobs entirely, rather than enhance production. But it's not like this kind of thing happens overnight. An increasing amount of jobs are also fairly bullshit service sector jobs, but as automation encroaches upon the middle-class jobs which normally sustain a strong service sector... boner confessor fucked around with this message at 22:01 on Nov 7, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2013 21:59
|
|
|
computer parts posted:I guess that depends on which job you're looking at ("horse handler doesn't count as a job!"). To be pedantic there's a difference between eliminating jobs through obsolescence and replacing a human with a machine to perform a necessary task. boner confessor fucked around with this message at 22:05 on Nov 7, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2013 22:03
|
|
|
Dr. Faustus posted:I dunno about that. I guess the difference is that replacing a human with a machine to do a necessary job makes the human obsolete, and not the job? Still, obsolescence is the driving factor in eliminating jobs in both cases. Well, there just isn't much demand for horse grooms anymore. There is still demand for washing machines, except that human labor is becoming more irrelevant with the ability to generate synthetic labor. The job hasn't been eliminated, the type of labor has. Of course, the only reason this is considered a bad thing is because we cling to the idea that people have to economically justify their existence. If we didn't expect people to compete for increasingly scarce jobs and then blame their inevitable failure on moral shortcomings then who cares how much labor is automated. boner confessor fucked around with this message at 23:44 on Nov 7, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2013 23:40
|
|
|
ReindeerF posted:Of all the issues people had with Bush, I found his nicknaming pretty hilarious. He was probably a pretty funny guy to dick around with in moments when he wasn't needed to make any kind of decision, crucial or otherwise, as President, heh. Hey Turd Blossom, check it out, I'm callin' up Pootin on the red phone man - gonna order some pizzas to his place. What's it called? The gremlin? I always got the impression that Bush 2's optimal station in life would be like a county commissioner or owner of a chain of Chevy dealerships or something like that. Not enough responsibility to seriously gently caress anyone over but at a high enough spot that his antics make for colorful reporting by the local news.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2013 23:22
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:I'm amazed O'Keefe can still afford a camera after all the lawsuits he's been hit with. He's a useful idiot, he's got tons of people willing to wind him up and set him loose.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 13, 2013 05:57
|
|
|
Zwabu posted:See, here's the thing. Even if you're the type to nod your head in agreement during all this programming.... How could you loving stand it? All the negativity? So many hours of it? It's like soap operas or professional wrestling. Except that soap operas are for gossipy ladies, pro wrestling is for dudes who think creative rear end beating is the highest art form, and right wing media is for people who desperately need political cheerleading.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 15, 2013 19:08
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 03:13 |
|
|
Eponymouse posted:What's the best way to refute the conservative talking point that black people are kept in perpetual poverty by welfare? It's sometimes combined with: "Democrats supported slavery!" or "Planned Parenthood is committing black genocide!" which I know are easily refutable. For this argument to work you have to assume that black people are lazy and would prefer not to work because the government gives them a pittance to live on. You have to handwave away all of the huge problems with modern labor and what it means to try to achieve in the face of stunning adversity and instead substitute a genetic or cultural argument that black people just aren't cut out to function in a white dominated economy and it's all the black people's fault. I guess for a refutation, point out that more white people are on welfare and nobody's saying that white people are kept in perpetual poverty by handouts. There's a lot of kneejerk refutations they could say, almost all of which get back to this inherent idea that black people are on the whole inferior and deficient. boner confessor fucked around with this message at 22:12 on Nov 23, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2013 22:10
|
|