• 53 results
  • 1
  • 2
#1 Posted by Contrarian (1143 posts) -

For some reason, one of my Facebook "friends" is a supporter of The Tea Party, why I will never know. Anyway, I click on one of his links, as sometimes, the far right wing stupidity amuses me. Here is what it says:

Liberalism as mental illness

We know liberals are nuts. In fact calling them just plain crazy is an understatement. Every now and then a liberal comes out with something so crazy and stupid that you just have to sit there and shake your head in amazement.

There is one liberal who may have made it into the liberal mental illness hall of fame. Who is it and what did they do?

There is a liberal named Daphne Tremayne and she runs a website called Greentremayne.com. Surely she is an Al Gore devote or maybe she has just learned from his carbon credits scam because guess what she is selling?

But she wants to tell us all how to live.

Her first suggestion: do not have children.

That is probably really good advice for her as we definitely have too many stupid people in the world today. But she takes it further. She says:

If You Must Have Children, Buy Baby Credits

Baby Credits are similar to regular Carbon Credits, however, instead of being backed by non-productive parcels of land, Baby Credits are backed by non-productive women of child-bearing age. We at GreenTremayne have contracted to purchase Fair Trade Baby Credits from tuberculosis sanatoriums in Africa, where quarantining has resulted in the segregation of male and female patients. With every Baby Credit you purchase, you can have the peace of mind knowing that your money goes to support non-productive women in the developing world. And because poverty is rampant in Africa, Baby Credits can be purchased at bargain prices. Baby Credits make great shower gifts. See our products page for more information about ordering Baby Credits!

What a scam! This is certainly the validation of PT Barnum’s truism that there is a sucker born every minute and a fool and his money are soon parted. Al Gore has made a fortune scamming people on this carbon credit nonsense. This is much like the Middle Ages scam of selling indulgences.

But for Daphne Tremayne, the scamming goes straight into crazy with this next advice.

Euthanize Your Old Pet

Pets have become a common feature in most homes and are an attribute of the modern, Western lifestyle. We all love our dogs and cats, but really, when you think about it, pets are a major producer of excess carbon. One of the best ways to reasonably enjoy your pet and reduce your overall Carbon Footprint is to determine in advance how long your pet should live. As a family, set a date when your pet will be euthanized. One great way to teach children the value of pet euthanasia is to turn the occasion into a family celebration. Let's say you've set March 10, five years from now, as your pet's euthanasia date. For the next five years, celebrate March 10 as your pet's special day, with a family party and perhaps a visit to your pet's future burial spot. Teach your children to think of the occasion as a birthday in reverse. A predetermined euthanasia date will encourage your family to love and care for your furry friend while it's still young and playful. What's more, pre-planing for pet termination not only works towards reducing your family's Carbon Footprint, but guarantees long term reduction in veterinary expenses.

Is she insane?

Yes, I want to traumatize my kids by letting them know two years from now we are going to murder their beloved pet. That makes so much sense. Yes, Daphne, please do not breed. You are too stupid to be a parent. In fact, you probably should not make any decision any more important than deciding whether you should flush the toilet, though I doubt she does that by worrying she’ll use too much water.

The scary thought with the liberal nut jobs is where things go if you take their insane ideas to their logical conclusion.

Old people create a larger “carbon footprint.” Liberals love to get rid of old people. Look at Obamacare. If you are a senior citizen, you can forget about life saving medical care. All you get is comfort care under socialist healthcare. Not only does socialist healthcare cause suffering and death, it allows socialists to reduce our carbon footprint.

It doesn’t take a brain surgeon to conclude that eventually, these nutjobs will use the same argument for scheduling senior citizens to be euthanized at a certain age. But don’t get too upset, because every year for the rest of your pre-determined life, they’ll throw you a party to remind you that in just a few short years, they’ll terminate your time on this planet.

I have a suggestion for all of these liberals who are so obsessed with reducing carbon footprints. Let’s start with them.

For people like Daphne Tremayne, if you are serious about reducing your carbon footprint, why don’t you move to a village in the Amazon River area? You can be childless and petless there. You can live without electricity or any of the modern conveniences that you think cause all of the world’s problems.

Of course, liberals like Daphne Tremayne are not going to do that. They will not give up their designer clothes or their nice homes or their computers, TV’s, Iphones, IPads and other modern toys.

They simply want everyone else to suffer. Liberals love to claim how fair they are. Yet everywhere liberals are, they want to do the same thing. They want others to suffer while they are the elite class.

Liberals are not only nuts they are hypocrites. If you doubt, just look at them, what they say and more importantly what they believe.

Then be very afraid.

Yes, be very afraid. Why should you be afraid? It is satire, intentionally. look at the website.

What we should be afraid of is extremes on both ends as there are those on the far left who also thought that this is serious and agreed with it.

Really, extremism is a mental illness and that is equally shared on the far right and far left. Morons that support The Tea Party just paint anyone who has a liberal view as being extremist and mentally ill are what is wrong in modern politics. Supporting gay marriage isn't liberal, it is just treating people equally, as the constitution of America would want. They support the Supreme Court when it disagrees with a government it dislikes and attack it when it disagrees with a government it likes. The fact they get so much support disappoints me. If a far left party got as much support, it would equally disappoint me. I believe that many people think Stephen Colbert is real and would support what he says - they just don't get satire. I don't always either, as some of it is disguised well, but if I smell a rat, I don't go off on some silly rant about it.

Just for the record, I support anything that causes no real harm (offence is not harm) to others by your actions. If you follow that, then it is no business of mine, or the government.

#2 Edited by PrivateIronTFU (3874 posts) -

Have you seen that website that points out how many people on Facebook take The Onion articles seriously? I can't remember what it's called, but damn, it makes me sad to know these people are breathing the same oxygen as me.

Also, just look at the photos of the 'Corporate Officers' in that Carbon Credit website you posted. They're clearly stock photos from the internet. That alone should be enough of a dead giveaway.

Online
#3 Posted by Utiow21 (69 posts) -

Anyone remember Constance Johnson's "masturbation ban"? The whole point was so show how ridiculous some of the bills proposed regarding women are by flipping it and showing how absurd an equivalent bill would sound when directed towards men. And yet so many people thought she was serious...

#4 Posted by Video_Game_King (36272 posts) -
People believe only what they want to believe; they see only that which they desire to see. All shall be enveloped within the fog of ignorance.
#5 Posted by Dexter_Morgan_ (314 posts) -

Next time your in a silent elevator ride with a stranger, turn to her and say, "I'm sorry we're fighting."

#6 Posted by scalpel (314 posts) -

Without the stupid common-folk you speak of we wouldn't have the entertainment of witnessing demagogues like Bill O'Reilly and Michael Moore practice their craft. But perhaps politics would leave us less jaded.

Nevertheless, there will always be the irrational and the bigoted and their vote will invariably count just as much as yours. The solution is to combat it, not bemoan it.

#7 Posted by EXTomar (4736 posts) -

Part of the issue is that people often fail to recognize criticism of something is not criticism of them. Some people hate jokes like that because they believe it is a joke at their expense when it clearly wasn't. Also keep in mind that this understand happens often because of them but because they also fail to read your disposition on these topics at all.

#8 Posted by Contrarian (1143 posts) -

@Dexter_Morgan_ said:

Next time your in a silent elevator ride with a stranger, turn to her and say, "I'm sorry we're fighting."

That is an awesome idea .... I like it.

@Utiow21 said:

Anyone remember Constance Johnson's "masturbation ban"? The whole point was so show how ridiculous some of the bills proposed regarding women are by flipping it and showing how absurd an equivalent bill would sound when directed towards men. And yet so many people thought she was serious...

I do remember that. I first saw it on Jon Stewart and thought it was real, then googled it to discover the full story and the satire that went with it. People just believe the first thing they see/hear and run with it. A little research isn't hard, nor is holding extreme comments until you do know more.

#9 Posted by MikeGosot (3227 posts) -
@Contrarian said:

@Utiow21 said:

Anyone remember Constance Johnson's "masturbation ban"? The whole point was so show how ridiculous some of the bills proposed regarding women are by flipping it and showing how absurd an equivalent bill would sound when directed towards men. And yet so many people thought she was serious...

I do remember that. I first saw it on Jon Stewart and thought it was real, then googled it to discover the full story and the satire that went with it. People just believe the first thing they see/hear and run with it. A little research isn't hard, nor is holding extreme comments until you do know more.

It's way harder than just believing someone who knows how to speak. Most people who watched that Kony 2012 thing, does not even know that only 30% of the money is going towards the cause. What the fuck, people.
#10 Posted by RPGee (759 posts) -
Online
#11 Posted by Video_Game_King (36272 posts) -
#12 Posted by mandude (2669 posts) -

I thought that eating children was the solution to all of the problems they arouse.

#13 Posted by RPGee (759 posts) -

@Video_Game_King:

I'm trying to think of a good response song, but it's not coming to me, damnit. I might need to play more Japanese games with really good music in them.

Online
#14 Posted by Video_Game_King (36272 posts) -
#15 Edited by believer258 (11914 posts) -

I haven't read that entire thing, but I'd bet that you could replace every occurence of the word "liberal" with "conservative" and it would end up being the same thing.

See, I don't put myself on either side of this fucking fence because each one ends up pointing fingers at the other and going "YOU CRAZY FUCKING IDIOTS!" and they all end up sounding like a bunch of squealing farm animals or something equally stupid.

Look, I know politics are important and all, and I know there's a lot of disagreement about what is and is not right for any given country or whatever, but we could get a lot more done if we would stop flinging shit at each other.

#16 Posted by SathingtonWaltz (2053 posts) -

@believer258 said:

I haven't read that entire thing, but I'd bet that you could replace every occurence of the word "liberal" with "conservative" and it would end up being the same thing.

See, I don't put myself on either side of this fucking fence because each one ends up pointing fingers at the other and going "YOU CRAZY FUCKING IDIOTS!" and they all end up sounding like a bunch of squealing farm animals or something equally stupid.

Look, I know politics are important and all, and I know there's a lot of disagreement about what is and is not right for any given country or whatever, but we could get a lot more done if we would stop flinging shit at each other.

#17 Posted by MarkWahlberg (4605 posts) -

@mandude said:

I thought that eating children was the solution to all of the problems they arouse.

Just the Irish ones, though. Let's not go overboard.

#18 Posted by Jay444111 (2441 posts) -

@Video_Game_King said:

People believe only what they want to believe; they see only that which they desire to see. All shall be enveloped within the fog of ignorance.

I am now guessing that this is a SMT game of some kind.... I am going to guess that it is Persona 4 even though my gut only says maybe.

#19 Posted by ManU_Fan10ne (662 posts) -

politics in the US is mostly a joke; same with the media. The majority of the American public do not know anything about what's happening in their own country, let alone the world. to get news about the US, you need to get news from out of the US. i mean, just look at what every article is about, its either celebrities or.....celebrities (here, a yahoo! article on the front page for example). We have no more news that carries substance and allows people to think and discuss. The media has completely brainwashed (i dont like that word, was thinking more along the lines of stupidified, but i dont think that's a word) the general american public. This is the reason why people can write this bull and have people believe it.

#20 Posted by Video_Game_King (36272 posts) -

@Jay444111:

It is. You should probably get around to playing the game (90-ish hours), watching the Endurance Run (necessarily the same), or watching the anime (12.5 hours).

#21 Posted by SathingtonWaltz (2053 posts) -

@ManU_Fan10ne: The education system is fucked too. That's why I'm homeschooling my kids, I want them to actually learn something.

#22 Posted by mlarrabee (2962 posts) -

I'm amazed by the inability of people from every grade of the political spectrum to understand satire.

What's worse is the blindness of the belief that one's chosen spectrum is above the others. Not the belief, but the blindness.

But what's worse still is their inability to foresee consequences of very real political movements.

To put it plainly, it's like I've always said: people are stupid.

#23 Posted by Teran (877 posts) -

@Contrarian said:

For some reason, one of my Facebook "friends" is a supporter of The Tea Party, why I will never know. Anyway, I click on one of his links, as sometimes, the far right wing stupidity amuses me. Here is what it says:

I should have stopped reading after the quote above. It's obvious you are easily amused and there are plenty examples of this out there from people on both sides. Trying to associate this this the tea party is just idiotic, or should we start associating every stupid comment made on a blog site with any organization it claims to support? That would be fun actually.

#24 Posted by ManU_Fan10ne (662 posts) -

@SathingtonWaltz said:

@ManU_Fan10ne: The education system is fucked too. That's why I'm homeschooling my kids, I want them to actually learn something.

i know for sure that the education system is messed up, at least in the elementary schools. My brother has ADHD (possibly some other stuff too, but i don't know) and is really behind in school (he's going to 3rd grade and still has a lot of trouble reading) and for half of the year in second grade, he had PE everyday, while everybody had it once a week, and recess with his class and with the older kids, and the special ed teachers (only one of them, the other one that works with the older kids is great) just let him do whatever he wanted, if he didn't want to wright, he didn't have to, if he wanted to go play, she would let him. My mom finally got tired of trying to work with the school and just switched schools, so far, he has really improved, but we're still working on it. The high schools are not bad (depending on the area, the school where i live is actually really good) but in some places, especially in the lower income areas, it can get really really bad.

Also, kudos to you for homeschooling your kids, it's not easy sometimes, but you can get a lot farther than what standards recommend (my friend finished his grade level and then got done with half the stuff from the next year while he was being homeschooled)

#25 Posted by SathingtonWaltz (2053 posts) -

@Teran said:

@Contrarian said:

For some reason, one of my Facebook "friends" is a supporter of The Tea Party, why I will never know. Anyway, I click on one of his links, as sometimes, the far right wing stupidity amuses me. Here is what it says:

I should have stopped reading after the quote above. It's obvious you are easily amused and there are plenty examples of this out there from people on both sides. Trying to associate this this the tea party is just idiotic, or should we start associating every stupid comment made on a blog site with any organization it claims to support? That would be fun actually.

#26 Posted by MariachiMacabre (7096 posts) -

@Utiow21 said:

Anyone remember Constance Johnson's "masturbation ban"? The whole point was so show how ridiculous some of the bills proposed regarding women are by flipping it and showing how absurd an equivalent bill would sound when directed towards men. And yet so many people thought she was serious...

Oh yeah that was great. It helped that Jon Stewart got in on the joke by treating it as though it was a serious bill.

#27 Posted by JasonR86 (9710 posts) -

@Contrarian:

I get where you are coming from and I would probably agree with you on several topics. However, you've used gay marriage as a baseline for reasonable thought in political opinions. I agree. But several people wouldn't. Does that make the others inherently wrong? We would argue it does but we are looking at this from our perspectives. Others who oppose gay marriage are looking at the issue from their perspective. Anyone who has a strong belief has gone through a similar process. It's just that there are multiple solutions to difficult issues. Does that make one solution the only valid one? What does that even mean? Not in terms of just gay marriage but in any apparently valid solution. Who is it valid to in terms of individual people and in terms of groups and cultures? What makes it more valid? What does the solution do positively and negatively for all people?

I guess the thing that I'm left with when I read your OP is that the idea of a truly correct answer is often the most flawed concept of all. I'm also left with the belief that any belief, but especially those for difficult issues, is never unbiased including my own. Even the one that I stated at the start of this paragraph. You posed what I imagine was meant to be a reasonable reaction to something you noticed about politics. But in it you've singled out extremists as being a problem. But what is lost in this is why an extremist believes the way they do. Perhaps they see themselves as being as reasonable as you or I and would refer to us as extremists. The only real solution I see that fits is that there is no real solution to anything of importance. There are only opinions.

Online
#28 Posted by Contrarian (1143 posts) -

@Teran said:

@Contrarian said:

For some reason, one of my Facebook "friends" is a supporter of The Tea Party, why I will never know. Anyway, I click on one of his links, as sometimes, the far right wing stupidity amuses me. Here is what it says:

I should have stopped reading after the quote above. It's obvious you are easily amused and there are plenty examples of this out there from people on both sides. Trying to associate this this the tea party is just idiotic, or should we start associating every stupid comment made on a blog site with any organization it claims to support? That would be fun actually.

You stopped reading and you missed my comment further down:

What we should be afraid of is extremes on both ends as there are those on the far left who also thought that this is serious and agreed with it.

Yes, I think The Tea Party are stupid. They are extremists. So too any organisation that exists on the far left. The both live in a world of black & white, and the rest of us live in a world of the many shades of grey, where everyone has a valid point that is worth discussing.

@JasonR86 said:

@Contrarian:

I get where you are coming from and I would probably agree with you on several topics. However, you've used gay marriage as a baseline for reasonable thought in political opinions. I agree. But several people wouldn't. Does that make the others inherently wrong? We would argue it does but we are looking at this from our perspectives. Others who oppose gay marriage are looking at the issue from their perspective. Anyone who has a strong belief has gone through a similar process. It's just that there are multiple solutions to difficult issues. Does that make one solution the only valid one? What does that even mean? Not in terms of just gay marriage but in any apparently valid solution. Who is it valid to in terms of individual people and in terms of groups and cultures? What makes it more valid? What does the solution do positively and negatively for all people?

I guess the thing that I'm left with when I read your OP is that the idea of a truly correct answer is often the most flawed concept of all. I'm also left with the belief that any belief, but especially those for difficult issues, is never unbiased including my own. Even the one that I stated at the start of this paragraph. You posed what I imagine was meant to be a reasonable reaction to something you noticed about politics. But in it you've singled out extremists as being a problem. But what is lost in this is why an extremist believes the way they do. Perhaps they see themselves as being as reasonable as you or I and would refer to us as extremists. The only real solution I see that fits is that there is no real solution to anything of importance. There are only opinions.

Whilst in general terms I don't disagree with you, it comes down to one thing for me - freedom. I think everyone is entitled to an opinion, no matter how bad I think it is. Where I diverge is when that opinion becomes a direct and negative effect (via political power) on how another lives their life - freedom. A group like The Tea party would espouse they are the champions of freedom and traditional values whilst failing to understand that the two things are anthema to each other.

I would express the same views on an extreme left group, say those who oppose eating meat and would wish to enforce that upon others. That is when opinion becomes forceful action upon others. Again, I agree with you, my position also comes clearly from a place of bias. A bias of freedom is always better than a bias of control. My main point is how stupid extremists actually are. Not everyone who disagrees with gay marriage is an extremist, in fact, most aren't. Most people aren't extremists.

#29 Edited by Clinkz (1118 posts) -

I am always open to liberal opinions but I had when they dismiss conservative wekljl;sfjasdjflk;jdsfjakljsl;kfjskldsfd.

#30 Posted by Darkstorn (465 posts) -

I majored in political science and work in politics, and it's easy to get jaded. Liberals, conservatives, and libertarians all raise money by soliciting and misleading the public and making empty promises. No single political ideology is exempt, it's how the political world works.

However, myself and my other friends in Sacramento genuinely want to change the status quo, and the way to do that is not by becoming cynical and turning your back to the political process, but by actively trying to change it. When I see things that we as a nation are doing poorly or wrongly (examples include incarcerating millions for petty crime thus perpetuating the prison-industrial complex, or gleefully handing public power to private profit-driven interests), I resolve to do my darndest to change them.

I think we need more of that sentiment, not ambivalence.

#31 Edited by JasonR86 (9710 posts) -

@Contrarian said:

@JasonR86 said:

@Contrarian:

I get where you are coming from and I would probably agree with you on several topics. However, you've used gay marriage as a baseline for reasonable thought in political opinions. I agree. But several people wouldn't. Does that make the others inherently wrong? We would argue it does but we are looking at this from our perspectives. Others who oppose gay marriage are looking at the issue from their perspective. Anyone who has a strong belief has gone through a similar process. It's just that there are multiple solutions to difficult issues. Does that make one solution the only valid one? What does that even mean? Not in terms of just gay marriage but in any apparently valid solution. Who is it valid to in terms of individual people and in terms of groups and cultures? What makes it more valid? What does the solution do positively and negatively for all people?

I guess the thing that I'm left with when I read your OP is that the idea of a truly correct answer is often the most flawed concept of all. I'm also left with the belief that any belief, but especially those for difficult issues, is never unbiased including my own. Even the one that I stated at the start of this paragraph. You posed what I imagine was meant to be a reasonable reaction to something you noticed about politics. But in it you've singled out extremists as being a problem. But what is lost in this is why an extremist believes the way they do. Perhaps they see themselves as being as reasonable as you or I and would refer to us as extremists. The only real solution I see that fits is that there is no real solution to anything of importance. There are only opinions.

Whilst in general terms I don't disagree with you, it comes down to one thing for me - freedom. I think everyone is entitled to an opinion, no matter how bad I think it is. Where I diverge is when that opinion becomes a direct and negative effect (via political power) on how another lives their life - freedom. A group like The Tea party would espouse they are the champions of freedom and traditional values whilst failing to understand that the two things are anthema to each other.

I would express the same views on an extreme left group, say those who oppose eating meat and would wish to enforce that upon others. That is when opinion becomes forceful action upon others. Again, I agree with you, my position also comes clearly from a place of bias. A bias of freedom is always better than a bias of control. My main point is how stupid extremists actually are. Not everyone who disagrees with gay marriage is an extremist, in fact, most aren't. Most people aren't extremists.

But the fact still remains that if there were a tea party member to be a part of these forums and discuss the matter with you, and both sides were to stay civil and cordial while debating, the end result would be one where both sides would believe they offer the reasonable, rational, 'correct' solution. In your response to me, you've clearly stated views that are purely of your own opinion and can't really be defined as anything but opinon.

"...it comes down to one thing for me - freedom."

"Where I diverge is when the opinion becomes a direct and negative effect...on how another lives their life..."

"A group like the tea part would espouse they are champions of freedom and traditional values whilst failing to understand that the two things are anthema to each other."

"A bias of freedom is always better than a bias of control."

"My main point is how stupid extremists are."

And so on. These opinions are based on a number of variables, like personal experience, your culture and nationality, your current socioeconomic situations, etc., but these variables are not universal. You have lived a different life then me, a tea party member, or anyone else. As such your belief system is different and unique. That's awesome. That allows us to have debates and work towards a better future.

Now you mention that you are fine with beliefs unless they effect others. Well, going with your example allowing gay marriage would effect the lives of others. For some it would be beneficial. Others it may not. Now you could argue for those that would be negatively effected this effect is more abstract and not direct. But a negative effect is a negative effect no matter how it is defined. So, really, any opinion has the potentially to have a direct, negative, and positive effect on others.

The main point I'm trying to make is that everything is a matter of perspective and that we would all be better off if we kept that in mind. That doesn't mean that some people won't have to change their behaviors when an opinion becomes a direct, real concept. But it does mean that we should attempt to stay empathetic and open-minded so that when such issues are discussed we don't fall into pitfalls like name-calling, devaluing, and belittling.

Online
#32 Posted by MariachiMacabre (7096 posts) -

@Darkstorn said:

I majored in political science and work in politics, and it's easy to get jaded. Liberals, conservatives, and libertarians all raise money by soliciting and misleading the public and making empty promises. No single political ideology is exempt, it's how the political world works.

However, myself and my other friends in Sacramento genuinely want to change the status quo, and the way to do that is not by becoming cynical and turning your back to the political process, but by actively trying to change it. When I see things that we as a nation are doing poorly or wrongly (examples include incarcerating millions for petty crime thus perpetuating the prison-industrial complex, or gleefully handing public power to private profit-driven interests), I resolve to do my darndest to change them.

I think we need more of that sentiment, not ambivalence.

You could have simply said Citizens United here. It truly has created a sad, sad state of affairs.

#33 Posted by Strife777 (1580 posts) -

Well you know, without people like that, we wouldn't have Stephen Colbert or Jon Stewart (I know, he's not really satire, but still). Sometimes it's just fun to listen to people like Bill O Reilly and laugh a little.

#34 Posted by OppressiveStink (357 posts) -

@JasonR86:

I will not tolerate a bigot. You state that allowing homosexual marriage, an idea that would represent equality, would impact negatively to someone, such as the majority of the people in the Tea Party(sorry to those TP members who do support gay marriage, get to work on your peers if you do). The only way I can see this is for them to have to tolerate a more diverse set of marriage pairs. You ask for tolerance for people with those ideas. I say no.

I will never tolerate anyone who supports legislation that impacts the rights of an individual. The pursuit of happiness is written right there in our constitution and it's here for everyone.

#35 Posted by JasonR86 (9710 posts) -

@OppressiveStink said:

@JasonR86:

I will not tolerate a bigot. You state that allowing homosexual marriage, an idea that would represent equality, would impact negatively to someone, such as the majority of the people in the Tea Party(sorry to those TP members who do support gay marriage, get to work on your peers if you do). The only way I can see this is for them to have to tolerate a more diverse set of marriage pairs. You ask for tolerance for people with those ideas. I say no.

I will never tolerate anyone who supports legislation that impacts the rights of an individual. The pursuit of happiness is written right there in our constitution and it's here for everyone.

You're missing my point. The content isn't what matters. You could replace gay marriage with abortion, unwed pregnancies, religion, etc. etc. Don't focus on the content focus on the process. Try to re-read what I wrote with that in mind.

Online
#36 Edited by OppressiveStink (357 posts) -

@JasonR86 said:

@OppressiveStink said:

@JasonR86:

I will not tolerate a bigot. You state that allowing homosexual marriage, an idea that would represent equality, would impact negatively to someone, such as the majority of the people in the Tea Party(sorry to those TP members who do support gay marriage, get to work on your peers if you do). The only way I can see this is for them to have to tolerate a more diverse set of marriage pairs. You ask for tolerance for people with those ideas. I say no.

I will never tolerate anyone who supports legislation that impacts the rights of an individual. The pursuit of happiness is written right there in our constitution and it's here for everyone.

You're missing my point. The content isn't what matters. You could replace gay marriage with abortion, unwed pregnancies, religion, etc. etc. Don't focus on the content focus on the process. Try to re-read what I wrote with that in mind.

No, I understood what you were saying. You were saying we should all be mindful of someone else's point of view when taking on a subject whether in discussion or debate. I'm saying that there are cases, such as being a bigot, in which I will call a bigot a bigot. I don't care what they went through in their life, in their upbringing or in their learning to make them that type of person.

There are subjects, like gay marriage, where trying to see where an opponent to it comes from is idiocy. I know where it comes from, bigotry, no mater how you color it.

I'm not going to flavor someone with "Traditional Values" or someone who's "family first", I'm going to call them by what they are, a damn bigot.

Edited for sleepy.

#37 Posted by JasonR86 (9710 posts) -

@OppressiveStink said:

@JasonR86 said:

@OppressiveStink said:

@JasonR86:

I will not tolerate a bigot. You state that allowing homosexual marriage, an idea that would represent equality, would impact negatively to someone, such as the majority of the people in the Tea Party(sorry to those TP members who do support gay marriage, get to work on your peers if you do). The only way I can see this is for them to have to tolerate a more diverse set of marriage pairs. You ask for tolerance for people with those ideas. I say no.

I will never tolerate anyone who supports legislation that impacts the rights of an individual. The pursuit of happiness is written right there in our constitution and it's here for everyone.

You're missing my point. The content isn't what matters. You could replace gay marriage with abortion, unwed pregnancies, religion, etc. etc. Don't focus on the content focus on the process. Try to re-read what I wrote with that in mind.

No, I understood what you were saying. You were saying we should all be mindful of someone else's point of view when taking on a subject whether in discussion or debate. I'm saying that there are cases, such as being a bigot, in which I will call a bigot a bigot. I don't care what they went through in their life, in their upbringing or in their learning to make them that type of person.

There are subjects, like gay marriage, where trying to see where an opponent to it comes from is idiocy. I know where it comes from, bigotry, no mater how you color it.

I'm not going to flavor someone with "Traditional Values" or someone who's "family first", I'm going to call them by what they are, a damn bigot.

Edited for sleepy.

No matter how true that may be to you or I gay marriage will always be contentious and always be on the cusp of being illegal unless those who don't believe in it start to compromise and likewise for individuals like us. Nothing will change unless we both give a little. If gay marriage is a law that can't be compromised, which I believe it is, then we need to compromise on other big issues. Regardless, people are won over with understanding and respect rather then hostility and name-calling. Again, I'm not saying you're wrong. What I'm saying is that the package that delivers your beliefs needs to be tweaked.

Online
#38 Posted by WarlockEngineerMoreDakka (432 posts) -

@SathingtonWaltz said:

@ManU_Fan10ne: The education system is fucked too. That's why I'm homeschooling my kids, I want them to actually learn something.

^Indeed.

For example- another element of communication that's important but is hardly ever taught: the difference between Objectivity and Subjectivity. It's not taught at all in the US until SENIOR LEVEL COLLEGE EDUCATION. And even then- only if you go into the Communications major.

#39 Posted by Undeadpool (4943 posts) -

"Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is impossible to create a parody of fundamentalism that someone won't mistake for the real thing."

-Poe's Law

Just ask Paul Verhoeven about people's inability to see satire.

#40 Posted by Darkstorn (465 posts) -

@OppressiveStink said:

@JasonR86 said:

@OppressiveStink:

You're missing my point. The content isn't what matters. You could replace gay marriage with abortion, unwed pregnancies, religion, etc. etc. Don't focus on the content focus on the process. Try to re-read what I wrote with that in mind.

No, I understood what you were saying. You were saying we should all be mindful of someone else's point of view when taking on a subject whether in discussion or debate. I'm saying that there are cases, such as being a bigot, in which I will call a bigot a bigot. I don't care what they went through in their life, in their upbringing or in their learning to make them that type of person.

There are subjects, like gay marriage, where trying to see where an opponent to it comes from is idiocy. I know where it comes from, bigotry, no mater how you color it.

I'm not going to flavor someone with "Traditional Values" or someone who's "family first", I'm going to call them by what they are, a damn bigot.

Edited for sleepy.

I agree. It perpetuates our society's problems to see any political issue as a simple duality.

Numerous 'mainstream' political opinions are either based in twisted, bigoted ways of thinking or are harmful to the wellbeings of millions of others (or often both). When politically-averse people continue to affirm the idea that liberal and conservative opinions are two sides of the same coin, they make our nation's problems worse, not better.

In my experience, these people also consider themselves virtuous due to their 'ability' to ignore politics. It's freaking ridiculous.

#41 Posted by Example1013 (4834 posts) -

Most serious candidates are chameleons.@SathingtonWaltz said:

@ManU_Fan10ne: The education system is fucked too. That's why I'm homeschooling my kids, I want them to actually learn something.

So this is something I've always been curious about. What resources are you using to teach them? Like are you buying secondhand textbooks, going with online encyclopedias, etc.?

#42 Posted by FilipHolm (667 posts) -

Have you guys seen this website?: http://barenakedislam.com/ The website is probably not satire since they bring up important issues like the Sudan genocide (Even though the way they do it is an a very anti-islam and generalizing way), but the whole undertitle thing made me burst out in laughter. And the premiss website is just hilariously ignorant and it angers me as much as it makes me laugh.

#43 Edited by Teran (877 posts) -

@Contrarian said:

@Teran said:

@Contrarian said:

For some reason, one of my Facebook "friends" is a supporter of The Tea Party, why I will never know. Anyway, I click on one of his links, as sometimes, the far right wing stupidity amuses me. Here is what it says:

I should have stopped reading after the quote above. It's obvious you are easily amused and there are plenty examples of this out there from people on both sides. Trying to associate this this the tea party is just idiotic, or should we start associating every stupid comment made on a blog site with any organization it claims to support? That would be fun actually.

You stopped reading and you missed my comment further down:

What we should be afraid of is extremes on both ends as there are those on the far left who also thought that this is serious and agreed with it.

You threw in an obligatory disclaimer, but your first statement framed the entire post by expressing your ignorance as to why anyone would support the Tea Party before branding the entire movement with as broad a member base as any other movement or political party as being a source of amusement because of their "far right wing stupidity".

If you were concerned with extremism on "both sides" you wouldn't have written your post in such a way that only portrays the one you think is stupid in poor light.

#44 Posted by Darkstorn (465 posts) -

@Teran said:

@Contrarian said:

@Teran said:

@Contrarian said:

For some reason, one of my Facebook "friends" is a supporter of The Tea Party, why I will never know. Anyway, I click on one of his links, as sometimes, the far right wing stupidity amuses me. Here is what it says:

I should have stopped reading after the quote above. It's obvious you are easily amused and there are plenty examples of this out there from people on both sides. Trying to associate this this the tea party is just idiotic, or should we start associating every stupid comment made on a blog site with any organization it claims to support? That would be fun actually.

You stopped reading and you missed my comment further down:

What we should be afraid of is extremes on both ends as there are those on the far left who also thought that this is serious and agreed with it.

You threw in an obligatory disclaimer, but your first statement framed the entire post by expressing your ignorance as to why anyone would support the Tea Party before branding the entire movement with as broad a member base as any other movement or political party as being a source of amusement because of their "far right wing stupidity".

If you were concerned with extremism on "both sides" you wouldn't have written your post in such a way that only portrays the one you think is stupid in poor light.

It's simply a salient example...and a good one at that.

There are examples on the left end of the spectrum as well. It's the nature of politics.

#45 Posted by Godlyawesomeguy (6398 posts) -

@MariachiMacabre said:

@Darkstorn said:

I majored in political science and work in politics, and it's easy to get jaded. Liberals, conservatives, and libertarians all raise money by soliciting and misleading the public and making empty promises. No single political ideology is exempt, it's how the political world works.

However, myself and my other friends in Sacramento genuinely want to change the status quo, and the way to do that is not by becoming cynical and turning your back to the political process, but by actively trying to change it. When I see things that we as a nation are doing poorly or wrongly (examples include incarcerating millions for petty crime thus perpetuating the prison-industrial complex, or gleefully handing public power to private profit-driven interests), I resolve to do my darndest to change them.

I think we need more of that sentiment, not ambivalence.

You could have simply said Citizens United here. It truly has created a sad, sad state of affairs.

You have to remember that while more money will be poured into politics as a result of that decision, money does not mean more votes necessarily. If anything, it should be an inspiration to educate citizens into becoming more knowledgeable about who they're voting for, and to not base their decision on thirty second television ads.

The leaders of the country are (for the most part) in the hands of its citizens, and the money spent on advertising should not determine the winner.

#46 Posted by MariachiMacabre (7096 posts) -

@Godlyawesomeguy said:

@MariachiMacabre said:

@Darkstorn said:

I majored in political science and work in politics, and it's easy to get jaded. Liberals, conservatives, and libertarians all raise money by soliciting and misleading the public and making empty promises. No single political ideology is exempt, it's how the political world works.

However, myself and my other friends in Sacramento genuinely want to change the status quo, and the way to do that is not by becoming cynical and turning your back to the political process, but by actively trying to change it. When I see things that we as a nation are doing poorly or wrongly (examples include incarcerating millions for petty crime thus perpetuating the prison-industrial complex, or gleefully handing public power to private profit-driven interests), I resolve to do my darndest to change them.

I think we need more of that sentiment, not ambivalence.

You could have simply said Citizens United here. It truly has created a sad, sad state of affairs.

You have to remember that while more money will be poured into politics as a result of that decision, money does not mean more votes necessarily. If anything, it should be an inspiration to educate citizens into becoming more knowledgeable about who they're voting for, and to not base their decision on thirty second television ads.

The leaders of the country are (for the most part) in the hands of its citizens, and the money spent on advertising should not determine the winner.

It shouldn't, but it more often than not does. Corporations are not people. They cannot be tried and imprisoned collectively so they should not be allowed to pour hundreds of millions into the system in order to sway candidates to their views. And to be able to do so anonymously is just a breeding ground for abhorrent abuses of power that threaten the absolute basis of our political system.

#47 Posted by FiestaUnicorn (1576 posts) -

Just start posting looks to the recent studies showing people who are politically liberal are smarter than those who are politically conservative.

#48 Posted by Contrarian (1143 posts) -

@Teran said:

@Contrarian said:

@Teran said:

@Contrarian said:

For some reason, one of my Facebook "friends" is a supporter of The Tea Party, why I will never know. Anyway, I click on one of his links, as sometimes, the far right wing stupidity amuses me. Here is what it says:

I should have stopped reading after the quote above. It's obvious you are easily amused and there are plenty examples of this out there from people on both sides. Trying to associate this this the tea party is just idiotic, or should we start associating every stupid comment made on a blog site with any organization it claims to support? That would be fun actually.

You stopped reading and you missed my comment further down:

What we should be afraid of is extremes on both ends as there are those on the far left who also thought that this is serious and agreed with it.

You threw in an obligatory disclaimer, but your first statement framed the entire post by expressing your ignorance as to why anyone would support the Tea Party before branding the entire movement with as broad a member base as any other movement or political party as being a source of amusement because of their "far right wing stupidity".

If you were concerned with extremism on "both sides" you wouldn't have written your post in such a way that only portrays the one you think is stupid in poor light.

I don't see your concern. The story came from The Tea Party and I was writing about them. I don't have to be balanced, but I was, by mentioning loonies on the far left. I do believe The Tea Party are what is wrong with America, they are anti-freedom and dangerous. I am entitled to that view and any discussion I have on them will be biased - against stupidity.

#49 Posted by Turambar (6784 posts) -
@WarlockEngineerMoreDakka said:

@SathingtonWaltz said:

@ManU_Fan10ne: The education system is fucked too. That's why I'm homeschooling my kids, I want them to actually learn something.

^Indeed.

For example- another element of communication that's important but is hardly ever taught: the difference between Objectivity and Subjectivity. It's not taught at all in the US until SENIOR LEVEL COLLEGE EDUCATION. And even then- only if you go into the Communications major.

It's actually taught as part of high school history courses, amongst others.  Not sure where you're getting your data.
#50 Posted by Turambar (6784 posts) -
@SathingtonWaltz said:

@ManU_Fan10ne: The education system is fucked too. That's why I'm homeschooling my kids, I want them to actually learn something.

Well, honestly, I'd be amazed if homeschooling was ever less effective than the public school system.  Think about it this way: what's more effective, one adult teaching one child, or one adult teaching 150 children, 30 at a time?  The public school system wasn't born because it was more effective than private tutors, it was born because few have the luxury in terms of time and resources to indulge in alternate teaching methods.